During his address to the recent Oxford Farming Conference Defra Secretary and Brexiteer Michael Gove was keen to highlight how leaving the EU would free the UK from the 'bureaucratic straightjacket of the CAP [Common Agricultural Policy]'.  

His optimism was curtailed when addressing the topic of gene editing though, an area of policy on which Europe has been accused of taking 'a backward step', particularly following recent European Court of Justice rulings. Instead, Mr Gove talked of 'important ethical, and economic, questions about gene editing which we need to debate'.

This suggests the Defra Secretary is well aware of the divided opinion amongst the devolved administrations with regards to new breeding techniques (NBTs) such as genetic modification and gene editing.

European stance

Previously, only organisms that had foreign genes inserted into their genetic code were restricted from distribution in the EU under the original 2001 GMO Directive. The editing of the pre-existing genome within an organism is known as mutagenesis and was not covered.

However, according to the latest judgement made in July 2018, all 'organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs', a definition that has generated heated discussion in scientific communities.

Of course, humans have been ‘genetically engineering’ organisms for hundreds of years through conventional breeding techniques, such as selective breeding and exposure to radiation or chemicals.

The European Court of Justice tried to address this by drawing a distinction between new techniques and those that 'have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record'. Modern techniques, such as CRISPR, have the potential to achieve the far more accurate modifications within a far briefer timeframe and with fewer safety concerns, but are now caught within the general prohibition in the 2001 Directive as they have not been in long term usage.

A devolved opinion

EU Member States and their regions are able to individually restrict or ban the cultivation of GMO crops on their territory. Within the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland embraced this option to ‘opt-out’ whereas England did not. Although no GM crops suitable for cultivation in England have yet been approved by the EU, post-Brexit policy decisions may see divisions in the UK widen.

While consumers would likely resist a repeal of all NBT regulation post-Brexit, overturning the more controversial restrictions around the use of a precise scientific tool may prove more palatable. It is also notable that public opinion to genetic engineering is shifting in younger generations who have grown up with technological and scientific solutions to everyday problems as standard.

The fourth agricultural revolution

In seeking to deliver the fourth agricultural revolution, Mr Gove therefore seems to have a delicate balancing game ahead. However, it’s not the only tool in the precision farming box. The intention of genetically improving crops is to enhance agricultural yields and overall productivity, but genetics is not unique in this objective.

The Defra Secretary himself acknowledged that 'vertical farming… can also guarantee improvements in yield while at the same time limiting environmental externalities'. Other technological advancements such as big data, precision equipment and robotics have the potential to entirely alter the future of food production.

Whether gene editing technology forms part of the fourth agricultural revolution, or is made redundant by it, is a moot point. Without access to it, the UK remains wedded to a version of ‘museum agriculture’, to quote Dr Julian Little of Bayer, and unable to access the productivity improvements achieved in the US, Brazil and Argentina.

Is there an opportunity to be freed from the GMO straightjacket as we leave the CAP and will we be brave enough to allow consumers to decide? For the Devolved Administrations, there may well be a continued marketing advantage in remaining ‘GMO free’. But for producers looking at global commodity markets, smart deregulation by government combined with an enterprising spirit from business will give the public all that is necessary to show their opinion on precision plant breeding with their purses and wallets.

Further information

Contact Savills Rural Research