February 6, 2025 by Pat Thomas
If you believe the UK government narrative, the advent of gene-editing technologies heralds a new era in modern agriculture, promising crops with enhanced yields, greater resilience and a reduced environmental footprint. Yet, despite these optimistic projections, the promised potential of these technologies remains poorly defined and unrealised.
The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 aims to deregulate gene-edited organisms (or, what the UK government misleadingly chooses to call “precision-bred organisms, PBOs ), fostering an environment that prioritises innovation over precaution.
Throughout its legislative journey, civil society groups, scientists, academics and government committees voiced significant concerns about the Act’s failure to adequately protect human health, environmental integrity and consumer transparency.
The Westminster government has largely ignored these warnings. As it moves to implement secondary legislation (that, we are told, will make the Act operational) by the end of March, we face the prospect of an inadequate legal framework that could adversely affect our food and farming systems for decades to come.
All signs are that Labour has simply dusted off the highly contested draft written by the previous government. This will allow PBO products to enter the marketplace without labelling or traceability – a regulatory free-for-all that was opposed by Labour (when it was in opposition) and other parties, by scientists, environmentalists, civil society and consumers.
The geographical scope of the Act is limited to England. For Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where agriculture, food safety and environmental protection are devolved competencies, there lies an opportunity to take a different path. Although Northern Ireland’s position remains uncertain due to its regulatory status between the UK and the EU, both Scotland and Wales have rejected the Genetic Technology Act, opposing the cultivation and sale of genome-edited organisms.
Below we outline some actions devolved nations might take to reduce the impact of the Precision Breeding Act in their territories and even challenge the UK Internal Market Act’s constraints.
The Act’s primary deficiency is the glaring omission of mandatory risk assessments for PBOs. Though it provides scope for environmental and health risk assessments to be introduced via secondary legislation, the Westminster government has avoided embedding these crucial safeguards within the Act itself, indicating that it does not believe them to be necessary. As a result, PBOs may be released into the environment and the food chain and marketed without the rigorous scientific evaluation necessary to identify potential threats to ecosystems, biodiversity or human health.
Furthermore, the Act lacks both a robust framework for monitoring long-term impacts and liability provisions. Entities that release PBOs are not held strictly liable for any environmental or health damages their products may cause, effectively transferring the burden of potential harm to the public and public sector bodies.
Most contentiously, the Act fails to mandate the labelling of products derived from precision-bred organisms. While the government will maintain an electronic “register” on its website, information on production methods will not be available at the point of sale, via product labelling. This lack of transparency erodes public trust and deprives consumers of the ability to make informed decisions about their purchases.
These regulatory lapses reflect a deregulatory agenda that prioritises swift adoption over precaution and accountability. By marginalising essential safeguards, the English approach jeopardises its food systems, environment and public health, while undermining public confidence in precision breeding innovations.
In light of the regulatory deficiencies in the Act, devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland face a pivotal moment.
Devolved nations were excluded from early consultations about the Act’s content, implementation and potential wider impacts. Both Scotland and Wales have rejected the Act outright. While Westminster has framed the ongoing discussion around what devolved nations cannot do in opposition to the Act, these nations have the opportunity to forge a more cautious and thorough regulatory path for precision-bred organisms, leveraging their devolved powers over agriculture, food safety and environmental protection.
Key actions they might take include:
Enforcing meticulous risk assessments for any proposed release or import of precision-bred organisms. Comprehensive scientific evaluations can uncover potential threats to biodiversity, ecosystems and public health. Complementing these assessments with long-term monitoring programs will enable early detection and mitigation of unforeseen consequences, such as genetic contamination or adverse effects on local wildlife.
The UK Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIMA) was enacted to ensure seamless movement of goods across the United Kingdom post-Brexit. The Scottish Parliament, Welsh Senedd and Northern Ireland Assembly have expressed a fundamental opposition to UKIMA and this has ignited considerable friction across various trade sectors.
Via UKIMA, goods approved in one region can be marketed and sold in other regions, even if devolved governments enforce stricter regulations. This results in Westminster’s regulatory priorities prevailing, potentially undermining devolved nations’ jurisdictions over agriculture, food safety and environmental protection.
Under the mutual recognition principle, goods lawfully marketed in England, including precision-bred crops sanctioned under the Genetic Technology Act 2023, must be accepted in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For instance, if England approves precision-bred wheat, retailers in Scotland could be compelled to sell it, despite a desire to keep these and other genetically modified organisms out of their markets.
The non-discrimination principle further prohibits devolved nations from enacting regulations that treat goods differently based on their origin within the UK, even when these measures address genuine public health or environmental concerns.
This creates a one-sided application where more lenient regulatory decisions by Westminster overshadow stricter standards set by devolved administrations, threatening their autonomy in domains where they possess clear constitutional authority. This dynamic has sparked significant apprehension among devolved administrations, particularly concerning the regulation of precision-bred organisms.
However, the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination imply reciprocity. Just as devolved nations must accept products approved in England, but England should also accommodate more stringent standards set by devolved governments. For instance, should Scotland or Wales implement labelling requirements for precision-bred products, England ought to ensure that goods entering those countries are traceable in order to comply with these local regulations.
Agriculture, food safety and environmental protection fall under devolved jurisdiction, established by the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales Act 2006 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. These administrations are rightfully empowered to develop policies reflecting their unique priorities, public sentiments, and environmental conditions. Higher standards established by devolved governments should be seen not as impediments but as rightful exercises of their regulatory autonomy aimed at safeguarding public health and protecting the environment.
UKIMA is a fairly new and still-evolving piece of legislation. As it is so controversial, it is likely there will be ongoing challenges from all sides and potential for amendments that could mitigate UKIMA’s disparities while upholding mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles Devolved nations could for example:
Although it seems like a long shot, Westminster might also consider adopting reciprocal recognition of standards established by devolved governments. This would preserve regulatory coherence while ensuring that more lenient regulations in England don’t compromise devolved policies, maintaining the spirit of devolved governance while supporting an efficient internal market.
While the UK Internal Market Act governs domestic trade, devolved nations can also strengthen their import inspection protocols for international goods. This can help curtail the spread of unregulated precision-bred products while reinforcing domestic regulatory frameworks.
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, ratified by the UK, requires comprehensive risk assessments for living modified organisms. By adhering to its broader definitions, devolved nations can ensure their regulations align with global standards. Similarly, the European Union’s approach requires exhaustive risk assessments, traceability and mandatory labelling for all genetically modified and gene-edited products.
The Aarhus Convention, which came into force in 2001 empowers the role of citizens and civil society organisations in environmental matters and is founded on the principles of participative democracy. In January 2025 the GMO amendment to this convention was ratified. This stipulates that there must be public participation in decisions about the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and that signatories to the convention (including the UK nations) must provide for early and effective information on the deliberate release into the environment and placing on the market of GMOs.
Another crucial framework is the European Union’s regulatory approach to genetically modified organisms, which also encompasses gene edited (what the EU chooses to call New Genomic Techniques. or NGTs). The EU requires exhaustive risk assessments, traceability and mandatory labelling for all genetically modified and gene-edited products, embodying a commitment to transparency and consumer choice.
Although the EU is currently considering changes to its regulations which may also partially deregulate NGT organisms, these have been met with strong resistance. It is not yet clear what approach the EU will take, but it is likely to still retain labelling and transparency requirements. By aligning with stringent EU regulations, devolved nations can maintain compatibility with their biggest trading partner.
There are no easy answers to what the devolved nations might do to uphold their objections to the Genetic Technology Act. More work will need to be done on the proposed pathways we suggest – and their potential impacts. Nevertheless, this is clearly what citizens in these nations want and devolved administrations have, equally clearly, demonstrated that they wish to uphold their autonomy and take steps to keep PBOs out of their food chains.
By rectifying the shortcomings of the Genetic Technology Act and instituting stringent safeguards, the devolved governments have the potential to fortify their food systems and uphold their environmental and public health pledges. Aligning with international norms means devolved nations can facilitate smoother trade relationships, protect their export markets and sustain trust with trading partners.
Adopting such a forward-thinking approach not only mitigates the dangers associated with deregulation but also distinguishes devolved nations as pioneers in the realm of ethical and sustainable agricultural innovation.
From A Bigger Conversation
As the UK pushes ahead with plans to deregulate both environmental and commercial releases…
From A Bigger Conversation
Will the 50th anniversary 'Spirit of Asilomar' conference on the future of biotechnology r…
From A Bigger Conversation
Artificial intelligence (AI) has permeated nearly every sector of modern life, and the foo…
From A Bigger Conversation
In 2024 we briefly considered – but rejected – a cheeky suggestion to bring back the p…
Share this page
share using:
Or copy and paste this page address:
https://beyond-gm.org/divided-kingdom-devolved-nations-and-the-genetic-technology-act/