What is GMO food and precision breeding and can we avoid it?

The announcement of a general election in May seemed to take the Department for Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) by surprise. 

These government agencies had been planning the next stage of the removal of safeguards from a subset of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which would undo protections that were previously put in place to limit potential harmful impacts of GMOs.

They seemed confident that the secondary legislation they were drafting would sail through parliament in the wake of the 2023 Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act with the wind behind it, continuing to deregulate GMO use.

Deregulation of GMOs in the UK possible

If the new rules had gone through, unlabelled and untraceable GMOs could have been landing on a plate near you as early as 2025.

The way the plans were shaping up would have – and still could – spell disaster for issues ranging from animal testing and organics to farmers’ incomes and devolved nation sovereignty, with consumer choice getting well and truly squished in the process. 

Furthermore, there would be no independent safety testing of the GMOs – it would all be conducted by the companies that are developing the products.

Take action to avoid unlabelled GMOs in the food chain

Many of the problems could be addressed by labelling and traceability. 

The new UK government has the opportunity to redirect the ship; to chart a new course that is economically responsible and respectful of the choices of consumers and the Scottish and Welsh parliaments. As MPs take their seats after their summer break, send a message to your MP that we have a right to know if we are eating GMOs. You will find inspiration for possible issues to raise in this article.  

Time and again consultations have found that consumers do not want unlabelled GMOs in the food chain. (For example, FSA consultations in 2021 and 2023). Retailers know this, but soon they may no longer be able to give their customers the information that they want. We also need to make it clear to retailers that now is the time to act to exert political pressure in defence of the wishes of their customers. 

Rebranding GMOs as precision bred or precision breeding

The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act of 2023 reclassified some GMOs as “precision bred organisms (PBOs),” defined as those that “could have resulted from traditional processes”. 

Intellectual property lawyer Michael Edenborough described this terminology as “staggeringly imprecise”, and the precision of the process itself has also been called into question. 

The name 'precision breeding' is also misleading as it does not involve breeding, but rather the manipulation of genes in laboratories. This could be achieved through a process known as 'gene editing' but is not limited to such techniques.  

The lack of a scientific definition of precision breeding is a stroke of political genius – anything 'could' happen! Anything is possible! 

The parameters of the Act are sweeping: It could encompass ethically problematic scenarios of today such as genetically altered sporting animals and herbicide tolerant plants. 

It could also allow the deployment of new technologies without public awareness, engagement or parliamentary oversight. Think gene drives, the genetic manipulation of micro-organisms, and genetic engineering combined with artificial intelligence – where computers design life forms.

The new UK government should ensure that legislation which follows the Act will be future-proofed, and include provisions for adequate public and parliamentary oversight of technological developments as they arise. 

European developments on GMOs

In Europe the preferred terminology is New Genomic Techniques (NGTs), and the European Union is also in the process of scrapping the old-style GMO rulebook for new-style GMOs. 

The European Parliament, however, has voted for labelling and traceability. If these provisions remain, and the UK fails to implement similar requirements, the EU is likely to establish trade barriers that could impact all British agricultural exporters. According to DEFRA, this trade is worth £8.56 billion a year, though the effect on the wider economy and workers that depend on it would be far greater. 

The new UK government must act to protect agricultural trade with Europe by mandating labelling and traceability of new-style GMOs.

The European deregulation process has hit a number of issues. French, German and Austrian agencies have raised concerns about the lack of risk assessment, with the French agency pointing to unexpected changes that could cause nutritional, allergenicity or toxicity problems. These positions were eventually dismissed by the EU food safety watchdog. But they should be taken seriously by the new UK government. 

It is apparent from the FSA’s approach and the opinions voiced by at least one person with authority there that an assumption has been made that PBOs are equivalent in risk to traditionally bred organisms. This is disputed by reputable agencies and must be reviewed. 

The costs of keeping GMOs separate

The Act does include a clause on traceability, which is defined as “the ability to trace and follow the organism and the food or feed through all stages of production, processing and distribution.” This would require segregation from other supply chains, but the proposals being developed by DEFRA and the FSA fail to provide for this. 

It is openly acknowledged that under the system being proposed the costs of keeping new-style GMOs separate would fall on those who “choose” to keep them separate. That the organic sector has a legal requirement to keep such new-style GMOs out of their supply chains is roundly ignored.

These increased costs would fall on the organic and non-GMO sectors, which would ultimately need to pass them on to customers. In future this could undermine the economic viability of organic and non-GM foods.  

The new government should ensure that the costs of co-existence fall on those that produce new-style GMOs. It should recognise the significance of the organic sector to the British retail market and value the positive impact that organic production has on the environment.

Same old problems

Advocates for the removal of controls over new-style GMOs say we need them to address hunger, make agriculture more sustainable, and adapt to changing climates.

But twiddling with genes won’t solve these systemic problems. As the Soil Association Chief Executive Helen Browning has said: 

“GM is dangerous because it allows us to accelerate in the wrong direction for a short while longer.”

In Europe the first NGT plants to receive market approval are those that produce insecticides and are resistant to a herbicide. They will be part of a chemical-dependent agricultural system in the same way as older-style GMOs are.

The biggest resistance to GMOs comes from the very people that we in the global north are told need them the most: the people most at risk of hunger, pollution from agricultural chemicals and climate change.

La Via Campesina (LVC) is the international movement that represents about 200 million small-scale food producers. It advocates for Food Sovereignty – that is, people's right to chose how and what they grow and eat, with the recognition that small-scale food producers feed up to 70% of the global population. LVC categorically rejects all forms of GMOs, and instead defends people’s right to use their local varieties of seeds. 

Local and heritage seeds are threatened not only by the spread of seeds from the laboratories of the global North but also the trade deals that are pushed by those very same countries – the UK in particular. These come with heavy restrictions on farmers’ rights to save, swap and sell seeds; seeds which are often part of the environmental and cultural heritage of a region.