Warning Over UK’s New Genetically-Altered Food Rules as Deadline on New Law Looms

Support our mission to provide fearless stories about and outside the media system

Packed with exclusive investigations, analysis, and features

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

The UK is poised to open up its borders and supermarket shelves to new forms of genetically-engineered ‘precision bred’ organisms. But there is confusion among key decision-makers about how it will work – and whether the safeguards are strong enough. 

The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act became law in March 2023 and Labour has now laid down the regulations which will bring it into force in November.  

It is set to allow genetically-altered food to hit UK supermarket shelves as soon as 2026. The products are described as ‘precision bred’ rather than ‘genetically modified’ as they must be found to contain genetic features which could have – theoretically – been produced by traditional breeding processes, even if there are thousands of genetic variations inserted into the products in the lab. 

Leonie Nimmo, Executive Director at GM Freeze, an anti-genetic modification campaign which pushes for a “safe, fair and sustainable” food system, attended the latest meeting this month of ACRE – the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment – which decides on the “precision bred” status of organisms now that the law underpinning it has passed. 

The organisation is concerned that the legislation doesn’t provide an upper-limit on the number of genetic modifications which are permitted – provided they could theoretically emerge through traditional breeding techniques. 

One member of the committee noted at the meeting: “There isn’t an upper threshold – but the burden of proof is with the [product’s] applicant to make it plausible that it could be done in a traditional breeding programme. “

Another added: “At what point do you draw the line?” when there could be thousands of genetic modifications in a plant, plausibly permitted under the new rules. 

Nimmo argues the lack of a ‘maximum’ number of genetic modifications is compounded by a lack of strong safeguards on how to ascertain that organisms could have been produced through conventional breeding. 

Nimmo told this newspaper: “The discussion was really quite remarkable…It became absolutely clear that the new system for managing newer forms of genetically engineered organisms is not fit for purpose. 

“The Committee responsible for assessing their risks is not able to talk about risks. Nor do they have any solid legal grounds for rejecting applications that allow companies to bypass risk assessment processes. This is incredibly bad news for the environment, public health and trust in Government agencies.”

She added: “Failure to assess the risks of new GMOs [genetically modified organisms] means a failure to understand the dangers posed.”

A spokesperson for the  Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) confirmed there is no specific limit to the number or size of genomic alterations that can be made within a single precision bred plant under the regulations.

“The scientific view provided by ACRE is that it would be inappropriate to provide an arbitrary limit on the number and size of genomic alterations that could be introduced in precision bred organisms given the variability in the plasticity of genetic elements.

“Those submitting marketing notices for precision bred plants should consider whether the number of genetic changes introduced could have arisen in their plant using traditional processes and provide sufficient evidence to support this,” the Government spokesperson added.

But the French Government’s health and safety agency stated last year that new GMOs may have different toxic, allergen and nutritional profiles to their ‘source’ plants or animals. Britain’s Food Standards Agency is likely to have a tricky new role in monitoring this. 

GM Freeze argues that regulators don’t fully understand the dangers to the environment of the move, with a risk that genetically-tweaked species will spread into other organisms, such as wild plants. 

“The genes may have intended outcomes – for example, they may enable plants to withstand being sprayed with certain chemicals…They may also have unintended outcomes – for example, subsequent generations of a plant may be infertile, or have other characteristics which threaten the long-term viability of the species. 

“Furthermore, if contamination of other crops occurs, farmers that did not choose to grow new GMOs may find themselves in court for infringing the patent rights of GMO seed companies.”

UPDATE

Keir Starmer’s Government Still Hasn’t Reviewed Use of Musk’s X Despite Platform ‘Amplifying Hate Speech and Misinformation’

Downing Street continues to refuse to explore communicating through alternative platforms, like Bluesky, despite the role of X in last summer’s violent disorder

Josiah Mortimer

Nimmo believes the viability of organic and non-GMO production systems is “under threat” because no segregation protections are required between, for example, genetically-altered crops and organically-farmed fields. 

“The Government has prioritised the demands of the biotech and agro-industrial lobbies over their duty to protect human health and the environment. The meeting showed that ACRE does not know how this will play out, and nor do the rest of us. It doesn’t look good,” she told this newspaper.

The new precision breeding regulations come into force on 13th November 2025, marking a major shift away from strict European Union-style regulations on genetic engineering. The ACRE meeting focused heavily on preparing for this implementation.

The UK wants to retain its own looser rules on precision breeding, but it is expected to be a sticking point in ongoing EU talks as Europe maintains its tough cordon sanitaire against genetically-modified products. Officials in the meeting said they remain committed to “actively” taking precision-breeding forward. It is viewed as a potential source of economic growth for Britain after Brexit.

But there is extensive debate over what constitutes “precision bred” versus “genetically modified” organisms, with scientists expressing concern about pushing the boundaries beyond “the spirit of the act” and struggling with where to draw regulatory lines.

And there is also disagreement over whether genetic changes need to have been “previously observed” in nature to be permitted under the new law, or just theoretically possible through traditional breeding methods.

In the ACRE regulatory meeting, Committee members emphasised they assess the permissibility of genetic engineering projects, not risk. Once something is classified as precision bred, separate food safety assessments follow through Food Standards Agency processes.

A spokesperson for Defra told Byline Times: “The Advisory Committee for Releases to the Environment (ACRE) have provided scientific advice on the risk posed by precision bred organisms and concluded that they pose no greater risk to health or the environment than their traditionally bred counterparts; a view that aligns with that of other key scientific advisory committees.”

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) will receive applications, conduct risk assessments where necessary and make recommendations for the Department of Health and Social Care minister to approve precision bred organisms for use in food and animal feed. 

While the Act covers both plants and animals, animal applications remain deferred pending additional welfare assessment frameworks. There’s currently no timeline for when precision-bred animal products might be permitted.

With regulations coming into force in November 2025, precision bred products could reach UK consumers by late 2026, following completion of marketing notices and food safety authorisations.

UPDATE

11 More Government Reforms the Media Hasn’t Wanted to Tell You About

You probably won’t have read much about these announcements over the past few weeks

Josiah Mortimer

The regulations align England with approaches taken by Canada, Brazil, Argentina, USA, Japan and Australia. The Government views this as an area researchers and companies can have a competitive advantage over EU-based competitors still bound by stricter GMO regulations. 

 Defra argues that the ‘GenTech’ Act provides a “science-based and proportionate regulatory regime” for precision bred organisms that “encourages innovation and enables products to be brought to market more easily.”

A spokesperson for the Food Standards Agency (FSA) said it would “safeguard public health and protect the interests of consumers in relation to food.”

“The FSA is guided by the best available science. The scientific consensus, across key advisory committees and institutes, is that precision bred organisms pose no greater risk to health or the environment than traditionally bred organisms. For example, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) has stated that it has seen ‘no evidence that precision bred organisms are intrinsically more hazardous than traditionally bred organisms’,” they added. 

When a precision breeding application is submitted to the FSA, the organism will already have been confirmed as a “precision bred” organism – not genetically modified. This process will be administered by Defra. 

The FSA spokesperson added: “The FSA will target their assessments on risks that are not currently understood and accepted, rather than completing arbitrary assessments on precision bred plants that pose no greater risk than existing foods with a history of safe use.”

Responding to concerns over the new financial pressures on the regulator, they said: “The Government will work with the FSA in future funding discussions to ensure that this, and other regulatory frameworks, can be operated to required standards.” 

Got a story? Get in touch in confidence on josiah@bylinetimes.com 

Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH

Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.

So for more from him…

Subscribe to Byline Times