Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations fail to provide consumers, farmers and landowners with sufficient information on genetically modified precision bred organisms, and fail to allow devolved authorities to implement their policy choices in areas where responsibility has been devolved to them.”

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, for clarity, I express that this is a regret amendment, not a fatal one. That is due in part to an error of mine, but I am choosing to regard this as an opportunity. I know that many Members would not vote for a fatal amendment, but here is an opportunity for noble Lords to show their concerns about this deeply flawed instrument before us. I will listen to the debate before deciding whether to divide the House.

Your Lordships do not have to take my word for the statement that this is a flawed instrument. I am sure that many Members of the House have already seen the 15-page—yes, 15-page—report from our hard-working Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which the Minister referred. It contains a great many concerns about the basic workability of what is here before us today; these are issues that I will get back to.

In bold on the front page of the committee’s report is a suggestion that

“The House may wish to question the Minister further”


on the concerns raised about

“about the lack of labelling requirements despite apparent strong consumer preferences for mandatory labelling”.

The committee also says that Members may want to ask about the impact on trade and on organic producers. I would also add—and we may hear more—about the impacts on Scotland and Wales.

I am confident these issues will be at the centre of our debate and that the Minister will be pressed on them. Trust in our food system, and trust that the label will tell you what you want to know about what is in the packet, is clearly crucial. We have seen in the US —and, yes, I will use the phrase—“Make America Healthy Again” deployed very often. This is what happens when trust breaks down.

There are already signs of growing concern here in the UK. I point noble Lords to an article in the Independent published yesterday, headlined:

“A mobile app told me my kids’ food isn’t healthy—now I am emptying out my kitchen cabinets”.


The writer comments:

“Like many other mums, I’ve become hooked on it”—


the app—

“mainly to check if the food I feed my kids is any good for them”.

Before I get back to that, and in deference to the fact that many new Members have joined your Lordships’ House since we debated the legislation behind this statutory instrument, I will explain the background. Many will remember, I am sure, the public reaction, the concern, which started in the 1990s, about the possibility of genetically modified organisms getting into the food system in the UK. Public concern here and around the world has not faded. Courts in the Philippines and Kenya, to take just two examples, have recently ruled against GM foods. In January, responding to a Trumpian push to force GMO crops on his country, the Mexican President said:

“We do not want GM … We are a sovereign free country”.


We were told that what is being proposed under the legislation was different and rather than introducing genes from other species, the gene-edited organisms that this covers would allow only genes from other organisms that would have interbred naturally or genes that had been deleted from the original organisms. But that is not really what is happening.

Handily, Rothamsted Research released news in the past month to help me illustrate the point. It had proclaimed success in gene-editing a wheat variety low in the amino acid asparagine, which on cooking can be converted to acrylamide, about which there are concerns. This wheat might be handy for the manufacturers of processed snacks since it is classed as a processing contaminant that legally needs to be monitored.

As with so much of this regulation, we are talking about benefiting biotech companies and food manufacturers, not consumers. But Rothamsted acknowledged to Euronews that it had encountered a snag. Foreign DNA it had introduced into the wheat, not wheat DNA at all, had proved impossible to breed out so this wheat cannot meet the definition of gene-edited and very clearly remains a GMO.

That lines up with an informative—rather technical, I confess—slide that I would be happy to share with any interested noble Lords that Dr Vladimir Nekrasov from Rothamsted presented at a Westminster Forum event on gene-editing that I chaired last week. It identified challenges to gene-editing, including limits to the understanding of the genetic networks controlling key traits in crops, the recalcitrance of some crops to gene-editing, the difficulty of changing multiple genes at the same time, and the difficulty in ensuring that the result is free of transgenes; that is, foreign genes.

In summary, this is not a simple or predictable process. It is not a precision process. As I said in Grand Committee last week, putting the terms engineering and biology together reflects a profound misunderstanding of how life works. Engineering is fine for machines but not for biology. In that debate I pointed to the astonishing new discovery that mitochondria can migrate between cells. In another new discovery this week, phys.org reports:

“Scientists make discovery that upends our beliefs about how cells divide”.


We are messing with systems we do not understand, like a child dismantling a clock and throwing the pieces into a microwave to see what happens.

I hope that explains the legislation—which, unfortunately, already exists—so I turn now to the practical problems of this instrument, many of which were outlined so clearly by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. In the interests of time, I will be brief; I believe other noble Lords will be picking up some of the points I am making. I have already referred to the failure to require labelling of gene-edited crops. The Minister spoke about a register that you might be able to look up online—I think the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee sets out how utterly inadequate that is for the consumer, that mum such as the Independent writer, who is there in the supermarket, wondering what to buy for her children that night.

Method-of-production labelling is common in our food system. It is what allows us to choose free-range eggs, organic milk or fairtrade coffee or tea, or which items are halal or kosher. Indeed, we still do not know how these certifications will regard this gene-editing. Labelling allows consumers to meet their own personal food needs and to shop their values, which is surely the cornerstone of a democratic food system. The other issues—some of which the committee has already covered—for organic farmers and food producers include that gene-edited organisms remain GMOs and must be excluded from their supply chain. This regulation does not allow them to do that.

The Minister spoke about implementing the legislation, but the Government still have not solved the issue that none of these organisms can be sold commercially unless it is first on the national seed list. Will they be a separate listing on the list? This is very much unclear.

I will briefly mention the devolved nations because I have confidence that this issue will be covered very strongly by other noble Lords. I will set out where we are at. An English producer can sell a bag of gene-edited grain or a tomato into Scotland and Wales and the internal market Act means that that cannot be stopped. But once those commodities undergo further processing and become flour or tomato sauce, under Welsh and Scottish law they have to be labelled as GMOs. I really do not see how that is going to be solved.

Going beyond the other nations, in terms of trade issues, a new legal opinion published in the European Union says that not labelling what we are calling PBOs directly contravenes the obligations under the Cartagena protocol—which aims to prevent potential harm to biological diversity caused by the movement of GMOs across international borders—to which the UK is a party.

We could see the EU lay down a phytosanitary marker that says that unlabelled English PBOs will be rejected at the border. It is considering the possibility of bringing in something like these rules—its labels are NGT 1 and NGT 2. I will not go into the details of all of that here, but it has an entirely different classification system from what this regulation introduces. The complications—and I am happy to talk to any noble Lord who would like to discuss this later—are very high.

Finally, I note that while everyone in this legislation and regulation is talking about food crops, we are in fact talking about regulations affecting any plant, including ornamental and wild plants, and how we could be messing with our already much-depleted natural systems. But we are going to hear, and have already heard, from the Minister about feeding the world. I am going to go to Katja Tielbörger, a professor of plant ecology at the University of Tübingen in Germany, who spoke to Euronews about the Rothamsted difficulties. She said:

“We don’t need any new varieties to feed the world. Food security is not an issue of which varieties we have. It’s an issue of how the food is distributed and what is happening with it”.


I am pro food security, pro agroecology and pro working for farmers and consumers and not for multinational food companies and giant agrochemical companies. I am pro a healthy food system, and so I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, it will be no surprise to anyone in the House that I strongly support this statutory instrument. Precision breeding as a method of plant breeding is safer and more precise than the random selection methods of existing traditional breeding. Above all, it is the speeding up of the process of developing new and urgently needed varieties that makes it so important in today’s world.

If you have 15 to 20 years to spare and are dogged enough to pursue your single-issue target with the millions of options available to you from the 200 or 300 hybrids you are breeding every year—95%-plus of which you destroy—you might eventually be able to produce a variety with the vital characteristics you want. But we do not have the time for the 20 or so harvests needed for the random-chance mutations that such traditional breeding provides. We urgently and desperately need to make multifaceted improvements to a whole range of crops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and, indeed, thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I apologise to those who said it would not take more than an hour—I am sorry about that.

First of all, I thank the Minister for saying that the issues around the organic sector need a lot of work. I am pleased that she has acknowledged that there is a real issue there and that work needs to be done.

I am also pleased that the Minister, reflecting on the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Dodds, acknowledged that there are big issues that need to be worked through with the devolved Administrations.

I make no apologies for returning to the issue of labelling, and I point out that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also returned to the issue of labelling. We heard, in a very powerful contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, that this is not just about issues of safety or the technology; it is about public confidence. That was one of the reasons why I led with that in my introduction to the regret amendment.

I note particularly the comment made by the Minister in response to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that the Government do not have any plans to take this forward with animals. I point out that the Minister herself tabled an amendment when we debated this under the previous Government to take animals out of the Act altogether. I very much hope that she and the new Government will stick to that position.

I highlight in particular the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pack. I am honoured that this was his first post-maiden speech. It will be considerably more significant than most such speeches because any government department will have to look very carefully at its future use of polling and the kind of transparency it uses in polling. In saying that, when I reflect on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I think he was using polling that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, had pointed out issues with.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and others—I give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman —spoke of their concern about the situation of Africa, with its young and fast-growing population et cetera. But I point out that only 11 of 54 African nations have approved GM crops. For example, 2023 was the UN’s International Year of Millets. Many traditional existing crops in Africa that were swept aside in the colonial era have huge potential for public health, drought resistance and all the other characteristics that already exist.

The noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Blencathra, and others, said we are not talking about genetically modified organisms. The Act specifically defines precision breeding as genetic modification and then creates specific regulatory exemptions around it. There is no question, legally or scientifically, that PBOs are genetically modified.

With regard to identifying so-called PBOs, the FSA ordered a literature review by an adviser to the Government Chemist that made it very clear that it is possible—and it should be done—to create methods to detect organisms that have been genetically modified in this way. Since it has come up quite a lot, radiation breeding is not used anymore.

However, I can count and, on that basis, with reluctance, I have no alternative but to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.