Government to ease rules on genetically modified crop research

The government is looking to ease regulations to make it easier to research and develop genetically modified food crops, but some experts are urging caution.

Gene editing can change the traits of plants and animals more quickly and precisely than traditional selective breeding. The government says it could help produce plants that are more nutritious or resistant to pests and diseases.

The move could make it possible to develop crops such as sugar beet that are resistant to viruses that affect crops without the need for pesticides, or foods from which chemicals harmful to human health have been removed.

The changes will allow field trials of genetically modified crops to be carried out without having to go through a licensing process that can take several months and cost scientists between £5,000 and £10,000.

Scientists will still have to report their work to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), but the move is the first step in a process that could lead to gene-edited products being sold in UK supermarkets.

This was despite 87% of responses to the government consultation expressing concerns that the risks of gene editing were greater than those from traditional breeding and that they should continue to be regulated as genetically modified organisms.

However, opinions from academic institutions and public bodies reflected the view that there was no greater risk.

Officials and scientists have distinguished between gene editing, which involves manipulating the genes of one species, and genetic modification, in which DNA from one species is introduced into another.

2018 European Union The ruling means gene editing is regulated in the same way as genetic modification, something Environment Secretary George Eustice says could change once the UK leaves the EU.

“This tool can help us address the biggest challenges we face – food security, climate change and biodiversity loss,” he said.

“Outside the EU, we are able to support innovation to help grow plants that are stronger and more resilient to climate change.”

When the consultation was announced, the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) welcomed it but warned it could pose a hurdle for farmers export of goods to the EU.

Speaking to Sky News in January, Helen Munday, FDF’s scientific director, said: “If Europe has a different view on this, it could mean there are some barriers to trade in products manufactured in this way.”

The next step after the regulatory change will be to pass primary legislation amending the definitions of genetically modified organisms to exclude genetically modified crops and livestock that can be obtained – more slowly – by traditional methods.

This would allow the commercial marketing of genetically modified products without having to comply with genetic modification regulations, but they could still be subject to different rules governing food sales.

The government also plans to conduct a longer-term review of the regulations on genetically modified organisms.

However, it was stated that food would only be allowed to be sold if it was found that it did not pose a health risk, did not mislead consumers and did not have lower nutritional value.

It could take several years for genetically modified products to hit store shelves, and decisions will need to be made about how they will be labeled.

Professor Robin May, chief scientific adviser to the Food Standards Agency, said: “There are significant benefits to changing the way we regulate genetic technologies to ensure the system is as up-to-date as possible and properly takes into account new technologies and scientific discoveries.”

But sustainable food and farming group the Soil Association has warned that genetically modified crops could be patented in the interests of corporations and called for better regulation of genetic research and more support for farmers to use environmentally friendly farming methods.

Joanna Lewis, director of policy and strategy at the Soil Association, said: “Changing the DNA of crops and animals to make them resistant to disease is not a long-term solution; we should be investing in solutions that tackle the causes of disease and pests in the first place, including lack of crop diversity, declines in beneficial insect populations and animal overpopulation.

“We need to improve soil carbon, wildlife and animal welfare on farms to solve the climate and nature crises and protect human health.”

Liz O’Neill, director of GM Freeze, accused Mr Eustice of ignoring concerns raised during the consultation and said it was “a matter that needs to be properly regulated”.

“The UK government wants to swap the safety net of proper public protection for free American technology, but our food, our farms and our environment deserve better,” she said.

Dr Penny Hundleby, a senior scientist at the John Innes Centre, said the change in regulations was a “cautious step in the right direction” but “does not allow this technology to be used to improve crops for the benefit of the environment and consumers”.