Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Motion to Approve

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved.

My Lords, these regulations implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for precision-bred plants in England. They provide the practical and technical detail to implement a new science-based and proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred plants, as set out in the Act.

The territorial application of these regulations is England only and covers the environmental release and marketing of precision-bred plants as well as their use in food and feed in England. This includes a process administered by Defra to confirm that plants are precision bred—not genetically modified—before they can be marketed. It also establishes a food and feed marketing authorisation process administered by the Food Standards Agency which allows products to be placed safely on the market. The regulations also outline details for public registers and enforcement.

The Government recognise that concerns have been raised in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report and in the regret amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, most notably around provision of information and the impacts on the devolved Governments. We agree that these issues are important, and our work to understand and mitigate implications is ongoing. The department recognises that transparency is important and will be establishing public registers to ensure that information about precision-bred organisms authorised for marketing and for use in food and feed is available to consumers, farmers and landowners. We are also looking at ways to enhance this further and have recently closed a public consultation seeking to gather views on how to improve the accessibility of information on these precision-bred plant varieties, including through the labelling of seed and plant reproductive material.

We are also continuing to engage regularly with the devolved Governments on today’s legislation. In addition to monthly meetings at official level and regular ministerial engagement at the interministerial group, Minister Zeichner, as Farming Minister, is organising discussions with his counterparts in the devolved Governments to consider any concerns in more detail. Some of these talks have already begun and we value the progress that is being made. We also note that discussions are now taking place between devolved Governments and key stakeholders across industry on this policy area, and we look forward to hearing updates as this develops.

I believe that we have struck the right balance with an enabling regulatory framework that is proportionate and evidence-based, while providing measures for transparency and regulatory oversight. Today, by passing this secondary legislation, I believe that we have the opportunity to transform and modernise our food system —to make it fit for the future.

The 21st-century agricultural system faces significant challenges. It must provide enough food to meet growing demand while at the same time becoming more sustainable. It must also survive the threat to productivity posed by climate change. Food security is national security. To help us achieve this, we need innovation in fundamental sectors such as plant breeding. Precision breeding would be transformative for this sector, enabling innovative products to be commercialised in years instead of decades—and we do not have decades. Through precision breeding, crops can be developed that are more resilient to climate change, more resilient to pests and diseases, and more beneficial to the environment. In turn, this will increase food production, reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers, lower emissions and reduce costs for farmers.

Through this secondary legislation, we are establishing an approach that is more proportionate to the level of risk. Based on the scientific advice, we are treating precision-bred organisms more like their traditionally bred counterparts. By capitalising on the UK’s existing strengths and our reputation for scientific excellence, we have the potential to be a leader in this growing sector internationally. The new regulatory framework will place us at the forefront across Europe and will allow us to attract innovators to start and grow their businesses here.

Exciting research is already taking place in anticipation of the new regulatory framework, with the potential for some products to be on the market in the next few years. Tropic, an SME based in Norwich, has developed a non-browning banana, for example, which can reduce food waste and improve farm-gate revenues by as much as 50%. Another product close to market is Simplot’s precision-bred strawberry, making one of Britain’s favourite fruits available to purchase beyond the summer months.

We have worked with industry from the outset. The sector is clear on the opportunities that precision breeding presents and is confident in the policy direction that we are taking. The Government are pro-science and pro-innovation, and we are confident that the provisions in this secondary legislation will translate the benefits of precision breeding into a reality. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

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.”

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.

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.

I am particularly talking here about my interest in African agriculture. The population of Africa is going to double in the next 30 years, and climate change is already accelerating out of control there. Unless we act quickly, we will be responsible for human tragedy on a very large scale. We have to ask ourselves: how do we breed plants that can resist the many different diseases and pests present in every country without using chemicals? How do we breed plants that can resist the all too frequent droughts, or plants that resist flooding? How do we breed maize that is salt tolerant, or a cocoa plant that is resistant to mildew or phytophthora? Perhaps more importantly, how do we breed crops that give children access to vital vitamins and minerals, deficits of which can cause blindness, stunting and cognitive degeneration? We need precision breeding now, without the dangers of too many off-target characteristics, which is inherent in the random mutations of the traditional breeding process.

We in the UK also need new varieties which can be grown by farmers without the chemicals that might damage our biodiversity. We need new varieties for improved nutrition, or varieties that have a longer shelf life in our supermarkets and thus reduce the need for plastic. We could breed wheat with minimal gluten content to help coeliacs, or tomatoes for towns—small plants that are covered with fruit that can grow on walls or in window boxes. All of the projects I mentioned are at various stages of development across the world and, in my view, they are safer than the random mutations used in traditional breeding.

Turning to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I agree that it should be made clear to anyone who wants to know that a particular variety has evolved from gene editing. There will be a register recording the fact that a variety has been achieved by precision breeding, but by the time a new variety—let us say a wheat—is sold to a farmer, let alone to a consumer of the bread it becomes, it will be several generations away from any gene editing. I should point out that ACRE and the Food Standards Agency get involved long before a seed reaches the marketplace.

To put some flesh on that, let us say that a seed breeding company finds and edits a variety of wheat for improved milling quality. It would have its in-house testing for off-target characteristics and, above all, for its stability through generations. I am advised that this in-house testing takes three or four generations, spanning the same number of years. Then you have a further two years and two generations of statutory testing. At that point, maybe your new variety gets a recommended listing, and you probably then have another one or two years of multiplying up the seed for the farmer to sow. It is a long process, and I am not sure that the final crop of wheat could be called gene edited as such; it is six or seven generations down the line.

As for the consumer, how does your local village baker, who uses a mixture of flour and puts her loaves straight onto a shelf without a label, inform her customers what sort of flour she has used in her bread? She would probably need to have a general notice above the door of her shop saying, “The products sold in this shop may contain flour that is remotely descended from a plant that was once precision bred”. Frankly, such a statement would be meaningless to any member of the public.