The New Dark Age

Controversies and challenges facing new GMOs in the UK

GM Freeze reports on a Westminster Food & Nutrition Forum conference 

In 29^th April 2025, as the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations were making their way through parliament, a group of experts gathered virtually at a Westminster Food & Nutrition Forum conference to discuss the next steps for gene editing – new GMOs – in the UK.

The panellists included stakeholders from government, industry, research institutes, law firms, NGOs and a plant breeding lobbying organisation. The range of interests represented and willingness to take questions from the floor made for a far-reaching discussion, which highlighted a number of challenges and controversies in relation to gene editing and the regulatory framework that will govern it.

In this article on our website we discuss some of the issues raised. It is summarised below.

Labelling and public opinion

• Polls have consistently shown that regardless of whether or not the public support the development of new GMOs, they want them to be labelled so that they have a choice.
• The government, industry and – for the most part – research institutions are not listening and mandatory labels will not be introduced.
• According to one poll, nearly half of the population is unsure about the technology or considers its use in food production unacceptable.
• Industry and the government appears to prefer to inform the public of the claimed benefits of new GMOs rather than educate them about the science or highlight any concerns.

Trade impacts

• A couple of the panellists noted that there would be trade disruption as a result of the new regulations due to other countries continuing to treat new and old GMOs the same, including Scotland and Wales.
• The Chief Scientific Advisor for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Gideon Henderson, ignores the Impact Assessment published by DEFRA which predicts trade barriers and increased cost of trade with Europe as a result of failure to identify new GMOs at the border.
• There are likely to be particular problems with commodity crops; wheat breeders are reportedly “very anxious” about the prospect of keeping new GMOs separate.

Risk

• Not all the panellists were in agreement as to whether new GMOs carry the same level or risk as conventionally bred varieties.
• Concern was expressed that the regulatory framework does not adequately prepare for unintended consequences or unforeseen risks, such as negative health or ecosystem impacts.

Nutritional considerations of bruising, browning and rotting

• It would seem that two of the new GM products closest to being commercialised are potatoes and bananas that have been developed to disguise the visual indicators of bruising and decomposition. The nutritional implications of this perhaps deserve further analysis.

Pharmafruits

• The relative benefits of adding supplements to foods via genetic engineering compared to taking supplements more conventionally is contested.
• It is still unclear whether pharmafruits – those with claimed enhanced nutritional qualities achieved through genetic engineering – will be regulated as supplements.

Patents

• The governments’ legal experts on patents do not appear to be informed about the implications of the regulations for conventional breeding, as extensively researched by groups such as No Patents on Seeds.
• The Baker’s Creek purple tomato is a live example of GMO patents affecting a conventional breeder.
• Professor Cathie Martin developed the GMO purple tomato about which the Baker Creek case relates. Also a participant in the meeting, she stated that she was involved in a project that tries to find natural variants of traits that they have achieved through genetic engineering. This has patent implications.

Contamination

• It has been found that farmers involved in field trials of new GMOs have not considered the potential contamination of nearby fields to be their responsibility.
• However, farmers’ surveys indicate that some now consider it appropriate to voluntarily disclosure to their neighbours about new GMO field trials.

Technological challenges

• “Our understanding of genetic networks controlling traits in crops is still very limited,” said Dr. Vladimir Nekrasov of Rothamsted Research, highlighting a number of technical issues.
• Questions remain regarding how transgenes are removed and what evidence will be required to prove a new GMO is transgene-free, and therefore could have occurred by conventional breeding processes, in line with the definition of a Precision Bred Organism.

Who holds the information?

• The British Society of Plant Breeders is a lobbying organisation whose members include the four biggest global pesticides corporations that also control 70% of the global seed market: Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva and BASF. During the meeting it became apparent that this organsiation has more information about the forthcoming regulations than the other researchers at the meeting.

Systemic change?

• Whilst proponents of new GMOs claim that they will transform the food system, those with a more critical view say that they will do the opposite, and further entrench existing problems.
• GM Freeze Board member Kierra Box of Friends of the Earth participated in the meeting. She argued that we need an ecosystems-based approach that works in tandem with nature, building resilience through diversity.

The full version of this article is available on our website.