This changes everything: New GMOs coming soon
- Labour sells out farmers and consumers with law removing controls and choice over new GMOs
- Government scrutiny committee raises concerns; suggests additional questioning in the House of Lords.
New GMO Regulations laid before parliament
For those of us holding on to a glimmer of hope that the Labour government would do things differently to the Tories and allow for freedom of choice over new GMOs, the 25th of February 2025 was a dark day indeed. Labour switched its position along with its benches, abandoning the caution it had advocated whilst in opposition and enthusiastically batting for the biotech industry.
DEFRA and FSA officials join Bayer and Thanet Earth personnel for a soft launch of new GMOs at the Oxford Farming Conference. Photo credit: Bayer Crop Science (formerly Monsanto).
From left: Defra chief scientific adviser Professor Gideon Henderson; Thanet Earth technical director Robert James; Bayer Crop Science, Head of UK, Ireland & Nordics, Nils Bauer; Food Standards Agency chair Professor Susan Jebb.
How did we get here?
The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act, which was passed by the former government in 2023, paved the way for the removal of controls over certain GMOs – those classified as ‘Precision Bred’ by the UK government.[i] But much was left to play for when the general election was called, as the crucial details were still to be set out in secondary legislation.
Wink, wink…
Labelling, traceability, risk assessments and measures that would enable the co-existence of conventional and organic agriculture were all still possible. But no more. The Statutory Instruments laid before parliament in February are almost certain to be waved through in the Autumn. In subtle ways – perhaps the legislative equivalent to a suggestive wink over a crowded room – they are even more biotech-friendly than those that the previous government were going to propose.[ii]
…and a £12.5 million nudge
To add salt to the wound, as the Regulations were announced so too was £12.5 million for a “Precision Breeding thematic competition”. The DEFRA Secretary of State Steve Reed MP later expanded that the money will focus on technologies and practices that will bring Precision Breeding technology to farmers. Whether they want it or not, that is.
Subject to scrutiny
One of the few remaining possibilities for obtaining some additional Parliamentary scrutiny of the GenTech Regulations is via the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC), to which GM Freeze and a number of other organisations sent submissions. These contributed to it drawing the Regulations to the special attention of the House of Lords and suggesting further questioning of the DEFRA Minister, Daniel Zeichner, in a number of areas.
The concerns highlighted by the SLSC mirror those made in the submissions it received and which GM Freeze and other organisations have long been raising. They include:
- Failure to publish guidance on what constitutes a Precision Bred Organism (PBO) until the SLSC asked to see it, despite this being central to the entire new legal framework.
- Concerns about risk, risk assessments and processes to verify the precision bred status of an organism.
- Concerns about traceability and a lack of mandatory detection methods.
- Concerns about a lack of mandatory labelling.
- Lack of a full Impact Assessment, and the fact that a De Minimis Impact Assessment (DMA)[iii] was only available on request.
- Concerns about the impact on organic producers.
- Concerns about the impact on the UK internal market and trade with the EU.
- The likely difficulty for businesses and consumers to “navigate a highly technical and complex regulatory framework”.
The SLSC also issued what appear to be strong rebukes of DEFRA, highlighting its lack of transparency. As well as its failure to publish crucial guidance and the DMA, the government agency made claims about consumer preferences based on a survey that it did not publish. According to the SLSC:
“We are not convinced by Defra’s claim that only a minority of consumers would wish to avoid food containing PBOs… We note that this claim cannot be verified as Defra has not published the survey on the ground that it was commissioned for internal use only to test the effectiveness of departmental communications about the Act. The submissions we received refer to other research which suggests that consumers may be more sceptical… it is impossible to assess the value of the Department’s evidence on this point, and therefore we do not consider this an acceptable use of data: if survey data cannot be published because it was commissioned for internal use only, it should not be subsequently drawn on in a DMA to justify potentially contentious policy decisions.”
A door closing
Despite all of the concerns raised, it is very unlikely that the Regulations will change. As secondary legislation, they cannot be amended – the government would need to produce new Regulations. There will be a debate in both Houses, but with a government majority in the House of Commons it is incredibly unlikely that they will be rejected. The House of Lords almost never vote against a piece of secondary legislation.
Notes
[i] These are defined as plants and animals that have had their genomes altered by modern forms of biotechnology, but with resulting changes that “could have” happened from traditional processes. It’s a “staggeringly imprecise” definition which is scientifically contested. The process does not involve breeding.
[ii] For example, if the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) requests more information from developers before it makes a decision about a Precision Bred Confirmation, developers will now have 90 days to respond rather than 60.
[iii] The Explanatory Note for the Regulations states: “A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen. A de minimis assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the cost of business has been prepared”. The threshold for producing a full Impact Assessment is ± £10 million.
