The Genetic Technologies (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025, which apply in England to plants bred using new techniques like GE (gene editing), mean that such crops will be regulated differently to GM varieties.
Under the new rules, from November 2025 biotechnology and seed companies will be able to apply for authorisation to grow, sell and import PB seeds, plants, food and feed. This is a very significant and positive development since the UK left the EU, with the potential to bring new crop varieties to market here that would benefit farmers, consumers and the environment.
It also makes England the first country in Europe with an operational precision breeding regime. England’s system also includes a built in power for ministers to extend the framework to animals in the future, once welfare safeguards are in place – a key difference from the EU – which excludes animals entirely from its NGT (new genomic techniques) reform.
EU position
However, in the EU, precision breeding (“new genomic techniques” NGTs to use the EU terminology) continues to be covered by GMO (genetically modified organism) rules, which are not fit for purpose or proportionate to the risks of precision-bred organisms (which do not contain DNA from an external source).
New proposed rules to take NGTs out of the GMO regulations are quite far along the EU legislative process, which is very positive, but will likely not be in place for some time. The EU’s proposal creates two categories: NGT1 plants, which are treated like conventional plants, and NGT2 plants, which remain regulated as GMOs. NGT1 plants are subject to defined criteria, including a limit of up to 20 genetic edits, and mandatory seed labelling – requirements that do not exist under England’s Precision Breeding Act.
We do expect the government to seek an exception for the Precision Breeding Act but it is not yet clear what the nature of such a carve-out would be or the timelines, or how the conditions imposed by the EU to achieve it could be met.
The NFU is concerned about the risk that this situation will cause a loss of momentum and increase in uncertainty that would be a barrier to investment in innovation and R&D pipelines for precision breeding.
The impact on British farming will depend on how technology companies react and how they will view England as a place to develop, trial and commercialise new precision bred varieties for the domestic market in the context of a UK-EU SPS deal.
Meanwhile, governments around the world continue to develop regulatory systems for GE separate from GM and it is farmers in those countries who will see the benefits of investment in these new genetic tools for crops and animals.
Divergence
England’s precision breeding regime and the EU’s emerging NGT framework now differ in several important areas:
| Feature | Precision Breeding Act 2023 | EU NGT regulation |
| Legal instrument | National Act applying only in England. | EU Regulation (directly applicable across 27 Member States). |
| Current status | In force; plant regulations operational. | Political agreement reached; formal adoption pending. |
| Key concept | PBOs (Precision-bred organisms). | NGTs (new genomic techniques. |
| Legal status | Fully enacted. Primary legislation (2023 Act) plus secondary regulations for plants in force from 13 November 2025. | Political agreement reached. Still under legislative negotiation. |
| Commercialisation | England is the first in Europe to legalise development and sale of gene edited plants and food. | EU commercialisation rules not yet finalised; NGT products still largely treated as GMOs until reform passes. |
| Scope | Applies to PBOs, plants and animals whose genetic changes could have occurred naturally or via traditional breeding. Current regulations apply only to plants. | EU proposals aim to regulate NGT plants only, distinguishing them from traditional GMOs, but details still being shaped. |
| Policy positioning | Streamlined, enabling, post-Brexit deregulation. Moves away from restrictive EU style GMO rules. | Updating GMO rules to reflect that NGTs are distinctly different. |
| Regulatory philosophy | Innovation-first, science-based proportionality. | Innovation-first, science-based proportionality. |
| Core test | Same core principle. Changes that could arise naturally or by traditional breeding. | Whether genetic change could occur naturally or via conventional breeding. |
| Categorisation | No formal tiers; binary decision (precision-bred or GMO). | Two tiers: NGT-1 (lighter regime) and NGT-2 (full GMO regime). |
| Edit limits | No cap on number or size of edits, provided changes could occur through traditional breeding. | NGT1 plants limited to ≤20 genetic modifications; plants exceeding this fall into NGT2. |
| GMO treatment | Precision-bred organisms are not GMOs. | NGT-1 treated like conventional plants; NGT-2 remain GMOs. |
| Risk assessment | Simplified, proportionate assessment for PBOs | NGT-1: Verification only. NGT-2: Full GMO risk assessment. |
| Food labelling | No mandatory food labelling of precision-bred food. | NGT-2: mandatory GMO-style labelling NGT-1: not labelled at food level |
| Seed labelling | No dedicated seed labelling regime. | Required for NGT-1 seeds. |
| Traceability | Public register of approved PBOs. | Public databases; formal traceability for NGT-2. |
| Member State flexibility | No internal opt-out (England only framework). | States may opt out of cultivating NGT-2 plants. |
| Patent transparency | No special patent disclosure requirement. | Disclosure of patent status required. |
| Market approval pathway | Defra decides if it is a PBO; the FSA decides if the food/feed can be sold. | NGT approvals go through the GMO authorisation system (EFSA plus Commission). |
