Gene editing progress in the UK could potentially slow down now that the UK has agreed to align with European Union food standard rules, experts have warned.
The use of precision breeding technology in the UK, widely hailed as a post-Brexit regulatory freedom, may be paused as ministers hash out the details of a new deal between London and Brussels that will see Britain’s rules on plant and animal goods align with EU standards.
The bloc has generally had much stricter rules around gene editing of agrifoods, an area in which the UK government has pushed for looser regulations in a bid to attract investment in the agritech sector.
Earlier this month, Labour passed new secondary legislation that will expand the powers of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act. This will enable the widespread adoption of the technology to increase food production, reduce costs to farmers and allow drought and disease-resistant crops to be grown.
But progress in this area “will likely be paused”, said Katie Vickery, regulatory and compliance lawyer at Osborne Clarke, as negotiations continue between the UK and the EU around alignment of food standards to ease trade friction as part of their “Brexit reset” deal.
Talks at the UK-EU summit on 19 May resulted in a new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement that will require British agrifood goods to largely abide by the same food safety and standards rules as those in the EU – a process known as ‘dynamic alignment’.
And while “dynamic alignment with the EU does not mean that gene editing in the UK will never happen, it seems likely the pace will be slower than anticipated and the deregulatory approach is likely to be subject to change”, Vickery said.
“The UK may well have to row back on its plans, and while this could somewhat undermine its position as a leader in genetic technology, it could also be short-lived if the EU progresses more quickly with its own regulations as a result of this new agreement.”
Defra secretary Steve Reed defended the UK’s ability to retain full control of its gene editing regulations during an appearance before the Efra sub-committee on Tuesday morning, arguing the full details of the new deal were still being discussed.
Read more: Labour accused of ‘GMO free-for-all’ ahead of new bill amendment
“If you’ve seen the deal, you’ll see that the door remains open to an agreement around that,” Reed said. “That’s what we’re working towards and that’s what I’m optimistic we will achieve.”
He noted “there will be issues in relation to what can and cannot be exported into the EU”, but that conversations around gene editing “will continue”. He reiterated that “the door, as you’ve seen in the agreement, remains open to that”.
“I want to see our farming sector benefit from the potential higher productivity and higher yield that can come from using that technology,” Reed said.
The British Meat Processors Association also said “there’s potential for the UK to pursue advancements such as gene editing” as the EU-UK agreement includes provisions that enable limited divergence from EU rules, “provided it can continue to ensure that only compliant goods enter the EU market”.
The NFU is also urging the government to “protect the UK’s ability to make crucial regulatory decisions in this area, alongside others, and foster continued innovation and research”.
“As negotiations in this area continue, it’s vital that our government safeguards the progress we have made in policy areas such as precision breeding to enable the farming sector to continue to move forward in sustainable, resilient and innovative food production”, NFU president Tom Bradshaw said on Tuesday.
The EU is currently seeking to adopt a more flexible approach to regulating gene-edited plants, but progress has been slow, partly due to a controversial proposal by the European Parliament to ban patent rights for gene-edited plants, which has faced substantial resistance.
But for businesses operating in both the UK and EU, “an agreement between the two jurisdictions could actually be beneficial in the longer term”, Vickery noted, as “harmonising the regulatory frameworks would simplify the process of placing gene-edited products on the market, as businesses would only need to navigate the one framework”.
No comments yet