In an environmental audit meeting on Thursday (18 June), UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, George Eustice offered his support for gene editing after Brexit, saying that the UK government disagrees with the EU stance on the matter.

Addressing MPs via video call, Eustice said that “gene editing is an area that we ought to be considering if we want to reduce our reliance to pesticides,” highlighting that improved genetic resistance will be important for pest and disease challenges.

He stated that the UK government thinks “gene editing techniques like CRISPR are really a more targeted form of conventional plant breeding, allowing to move or modify a particular gene within a certain species,” adding that he considered some of these techniques as “an extension of conventional plant breeding.”

n an unprecedented move, a group of German Green MPs, including one EU lawmaker, have backed the use of gene editing technologies in a new paper, diverging from the party’s general position and saying genetic engineering could play a key role in improving sustainability.

The paper, published last Wednesday (10 June), calls for a “modern’ approach to regulation of genetic engineering. In general, the Greens, as well as most environmental groups, have been vocally opposed to the use of genetic engineering technologies.

This paper is the first time that there has been such a dissenting position from within the party, although support for genome editing has been growing in recent years, notably among the younger Greens. It states that gene-editing technology could have an important role to play in improving sustainability, highlighting that it offers opportunities “for a healthy planet and thus for the good of people and the environment”.

Peers are preparing plans to legalise the gene-editing of crops in England, a move that scientists say would offer the nation a chance to develop and grow hardier, more nutritious varieties. The legislation would also open the door to gene-editing of animals.

The change will be proposed when the current Agriculture Bill reaches its committee stages in the House of Lords next month, and is supported by a wide number of peers who believe such a move is long overdue. At present, the practice is highly restricted by EU regulations.

The plan would involve introducing an amendment to the bill to give the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs the power to make changes to the Environmental Protection Act, alterations that would no longer restrict gene-editing in England. The rest of the UK would need separate legislation.

The agriculture bill, now going through parliament, could influence whether we use gene editing on our farms. At present, this country is out of line with the USA, Argentina, Brazil, Australia and Japan in that our regulatory framework prevents gene editing in crops and farm animals. A proposed amendment to the bill will not lead to unregulated use of gene editing but, if passed, it would give the secretary of state at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) the power to consult widely and make appropriate changes to the regulatory process.

Is it important that we edit the genes of our crops? This answer is a definite “yes”. Agriculture faces huge challenges due to Covid-19, climate change and, for the UK, post-Brexit. Farmers have delivered admirably until now – there are more well-fed people on the planet than at any time in history – but, to help them meet the future challenges, they will need all of the help that science can offer. Gene editing is one powerful part of that help.

[....] Is gene editing more or less safe than conventional plant breeding? The answer, unusually for a scientific question, is clear and unequivocal: gene editing is at least as safe as plant breeding.

Farmers are set to trial several new robot-based systems this season on farms producing strawberries, apples, blueberries, lettuce and broccoli.

A UK agri-food consortium has been formed to address labour shortages by accelerating the use of robotics and automation (R&A) for picking soft fruit and vegetables. The aim is for approved technologies to be manufactured at scale and fully implemented for the 2021 season.

The effort is being co-ordinated by the NFU, University of Lincoln, Agri-EPI Centre, the Manufacturing Technology Centre, and the Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN), with the backing of more than 100 food producers.

Norwich food-tech firm Tropic Biosciences is set to push the development of its gene-edited bananas and coffee into field trials after raising $28.5m from investors.

The start-up, led by a former Israeli naval commander, uses gene editing technology known as CRISPR to cut away sequences of DNA in crops that might make them susceptible to diseases and pathogens.

To date, the company has had a particular focus on Cavendish bananas, a variety of the fruit which has come to dominate the global export market of bananas worth more than $13.6bn but is at risk of wipeout from the Panama disease caused by a deadly fungus.

The debate on climate change is something farmers have to take control of, otherwise they will just be pushed around. That is the central thought that has encouraged former NFU Scotland president Nigel Miller to take on the joint chairmanship of the independent Farming for 1.5 Degrees group.

With 10 members, including four farmers as well as scientists and environmentalists, the Edinburgh- based group is to explore how a low carbon landscape can support a bright future for farming and food.

In an interview with Farmers Guardian, Mr Miller said: “Unless we can change mindsets, we will not have the freedom to farm in the future. I want to see ideas that farmers can get behind to help keep average temperatures rising by more than 1.5degC while at the same time meeting the Scottish Government’s net zero carbon emissions by 2045 (the Westminster’s Government’s target is 2050).”

The makers of Ribena have invested over half a million pounds in a five-year project to develop new varieties of climate-resilient blackcurrants.

Lucozade Ribena Suntory (LRS), which uses 90% of the blackcurrants grown in Britain to make Ribena, has teamed up with the James Hutton Institute. Around 10,000 tonnes of blackcurrants are harvested from British fields each year to keep up with consumer demand for the soft drink.

Previous research from the institute, based in Dundee, has highlighted the threat that climate change poses to blackcurrant farming.

British scientists have shown that direct emissions of a powerful greenhouse gas from certain pasture types are lower than previously thought. The climate impact of grass-fed cattle herds may be 'overestimated', according to research team at Rothamsted Research.

They found urine from animals reared on pasture where white clover grows – a plant commonly sown onto grazing land to reduce the need for additional nitrogen fertiliser – results in just over half the amount of nitrous oxide previously assumed by scientists to be released.

Nitrous oxide is a potent greenhouse gas that is 265 times more harmful than CO2 and can account for 40% of beef supply chain emissions, and the group say these findings may help farming achieve its ‘net zero’ ambition by 2040.

The NFU has told EU judges that the European Commission’s 2013 neonicotinoids restrictions was 'not lawful' and has had a 'real impact' on British farmers.

The union attended an appeal by chemical manufacturing giant Bayer on the judgement of the EU General Court from May 2018. The Court dismissed the challenges and upheld the lawfulness of the European Commission’s action on restricting neonicotinoids in 2013.

A moratorium on three kinds of neonicotinoids was placed seven years ago, forbidding their use in flowering crops that appeal to honey bees.