Precision breeding is fast moving beyond being a theoretical science, with some promising traits entering on-farm field trials (see panel), but regulatory friction threatens to stall momentum and potential farmer adoption.
While speakers at the first UK Precision Breeding – Farming Futures Conference, held at the John Innes Conference Centre in Norwich, were quick to praise government for developing a workable, enabling framework for the technology through the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, they were also at pains to point out that commercial release of traits could be severely delayed depending on the outcome of negotiations with the EU over Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures as part of the EU reset.
Developing a proportionate and science-based regulatory framework was encouraging innovation to help improve crop resilience to disease and climate change, and create crops with greater nutritional value, explained Emma Phillimore, Defra deputy director for business readiness, retail and processing on the SPS agreement.
“Since 2022, 37 new gene-edited crops have been released for research and development trials, and since November 2025, five crops have been confirmed by Defra as precision bred for marketing in England on our public register,” she said.
The latter step is confirmation that the genetic changes could have arisen through traditional breeding, meaning the plant sits outside of GMO rules. But, for the plant to be grown for feed and food use still requires authorisation from the Food Standards Agency and to go through the same statutory variety registration and seed certification requirements as any existing variety.
Submissions are imminent for The Sainsbury Laboratory’s blight and virus-resistant potato, PiperPlus, and the John Innes Centre’s vitamin-D-enriched tomato. Rothamsted Research is also seeking FSA authorisation for animal feed safety to allow large-scale livestock feeding trials for its high-lipid forage barley.
But there was genuine concern at the conference that ongoing SPS negotiations with the EU would introduce barriers to commercialisation, notwithstanding Defra farming minister Stephen Morgan’s announcement at the World AgriTech Innovation Summit in London earlier that week that England would maintain its existing rules for precision breeding R&D and field trials.
While that will ensure researchers can continue to test multiple lines without requiring disproportionate paperwork, no such assurance was given for commercialisation, even if the EU’s New Genomic Techniques (NGT) Category 1 legislation aligned in principle with England’s Precision Breeding Act.
Emma pointed out there was a delicate balance between government providing confidence to those developing precision breeding technologies and other priorities required to reset the UK’s relationship with the EU, including an SPS agreement.
“A common SPS zone will make agrifood trade with our biggest market cheaper and easier by cutting costs and red tape for businesses who export to and import from the EU,” she noted.
Emma refused to be drawn on the direction of the negotiations, but other speakers pointed out some of the challenges that technical divergences meant.
One example is the EU draft legislation which restricts the number of nucleotides (the building blocks of genetic code) in introduced or edited linker sequences between genes to 20. Prof Jonathan Jones from The Sainsbury Laboratory explained that this restriction threatened to render PiperPlus ineligible under NGT Category 1 rules.
“It’s a frankly arbitrary number,” he pointed out. “We have 24 nucleotides between each of our five resistance genes, so we are having to rebuild these constructs, setting us back three or four years.”
There was also a risk that the use of selection markers could be classified differently in the two regimes, risking UK-approved precision-bred crops being classified as GMOs in Europe, he concluded.
Key precision-bred crop projects underway in the UK
- Virus Yellows resistant sugar beet – developed by Tropic, John Innes Centre, British Sugar and BBRO
- Light leaf spot resistant oilseed rape (LLS-ERASED) – involving Cibus, John Innes Centre, BOFIN and University of Hertfordshire
- Improved photosynthetic efficiency and yield enhancement in wheat – Wild Bioscience
- Low-asparagine wheat to reduce acrylamide formation during baking – Rothamsted Research, BOFIN and others as part of PROBITY project
- High-lipid barley – Rothamsted Research, BOFIN and others as part of PROBITY project
- Bigger-grain wheat – John Innes Centre, BOFIN and others as part of PROBITY project
- Vitamin-D fortification in tomatoes – John Innes Centre
- Non-browning bananas – developed by Tropic
- Dandelions to produce high-grade natural rubber – QuberTech
- Precision-bred hemp – led by Precision Plants
- AutoTom compact tomato plants – led by Cambridge Glasshouse Company
Survey shows support for labelling
A British On-Farm Innovation Network (BOFIN) survey of 120 farmers and 200 consumers, commissioned as part of the LLS-ERASED project, found that while 93 per cent of consumers lacked detailed knowledge about precision-bred crops before the survey started, 75 per cent always wanted food made using them labelled, BOFIN founder Tom Allen-Stevens said.
“Both consumers and many farmers do want some form of labelling,” he told Tech Farmer. In the survey, 38 per cent of farmers always wanted food made with precision-bred crops labelled as such, with a further 24 per cent suggesting labelling for certain products.
“That doesn’t mean consumers will avoid foods made with precision-bred ingredients,” he said. “The key phrase is ‘they want the right to choose what they eat’. 76 per cent of consumers and 81 per cent of farmers in the surveys said that was a key reason why they wanted labelling.”
But it shouldn’t be mandatory, Tom stressed. “It will tie the industry up in knots.”
That was made very clear by the Food and Drink Federation’s Helen Gillen, who explained the consequences would mean full physical segregation throughout the commodity supply chain, adding massive logistical challenges, costs and compliance hurdles.
Defra were against mandatory labelling, partly due to the responsibility and cost of policing, according to Tom, although speaking at the conference, Defra’s Emma Phillimore emphasised it was a critical topic within SPS discussions and pointed to guidance being developed by the department about the cumulative impacts of labelling.
The labelling issue had been further complicated by a successful judicial review brought by anti-GMO campaign group Beyond GM in the UK, which had focused heavily on the lack of mandatory labelling, the conference heard.
Tom told Tech Farmer that responses to Defra’s 2025 consultation on the labelling of precision-bred material indicated strong support for seed to be labelled.
“If proposed changes go ahead, there should be no way a farmer will inadvertently or unknowingly sow a precision-bred crop, unless they procure seed illegally,” he insisted.
The researcher community, including TSL’s Prof Jonathan Jones, favoured voluntary labelling. “The labelling I’d like to see for our potato is ‘Proudly protected from disease with biology, not chemistry,” he said.
Voluntary labelling was all that was needed, Tom suggested. “The food industry is well practised at adding advisory labelling for commodity produce when supply chains blend raw ingredients – for example, stating ‘may contain nuts’,” he pointed out.
“A voluntary label will give consumers the ability to choose whether they buy precision-bred foods. For those who would rather avoid it, the Soil Association and others have already stated certified organic produce will not contain precision-bred ingredients.”