Viewpoint: The case for the UK Parliament to approve CRISPR-based precision breeding
Viewpoint: The case for the UK Parliament to approve CRISPR-based precision breeding — and why regulators should not throw GMOs under the bus


If you had the power to cut food prices and carbon emissions and improve animal welfare in a single stroke, would you do it? That’s the question Parliament is poised to answer as it debates the merits of the Precision Breeding Bill.
If passed, the legislation would authorise the commercial use of gene-editing tools such as CRISPR-Cas9 that allow scientists to make precise edits to the DNA of plants and animals widely consumed as food. Unlike earlier transgenic technology, used to produce “GMOs”, precision breeding does not move DNA between different species.
As I argue in the IEA’s latest Discussion Paper, Harvest time: Why the UK should unleash the power of gene editing, the bill is a monumental first step toward unleashing the power of biotechnology on England’s agricultural sector. However, policymakers should accelerate this progress by approving the commercial production of transgenic (GMO) products as well.
Since 1996, the cultivation of GMOs has cut pesticide use by 748.6 million kilograms and agricultural CO2 emissions by 23,631 million kilograms. Along the way, farmers who grew these enhanced plants earned an additional $261.3 billion. Each year the UK denies farmers access to GMOs, they lose somewhere between £65 million and £82 million. Since 1996, that amounts to nearly £2 billion in losses.
This is an excerpt. Read the original post here

![]() | Videos | More... |

Video: Nuclear energy will destroy us? Global warming is an existential threat? Chemicals are massacring bees? Donate to the Green Industrial Complex!
![]() | Bees & Pollinators | More... |

GLP podcast: Science journalism is a mess. Here’s how to fix it

Mosquito massacre: Can we safely tackle malaria with a CRISPR gene drive?

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’
![]() | Infographics | More... |

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer
![]() | GMO FAQs | More... |

Why is there controversy over GMO foods but not GMO drugs?

How are GMOs labeled around the world?

How does genetic engineering differ from conventional breeding?
![]() | GLP Profiles | More... |

Alex Jones: Right-wing conspiracy theorist stokes fear of GMOs, pesticides to sell ‘health supplements’








Viewpoint — Fact checking MAHA mythmakers: How wellness influencers and RFK, Jr. undermine American science and health
Viewpoint: Video — Big Solar is gobbling up productive agricultural land and hurting farmers yet providing little energy or sustainabilty gains
Fighting deforestation with CO2: Biotechnology breakthrough creates sustainable palm oil alternative for cosmetics
Trust issues: What happens when therapists use ChatGPT?
California, Washington, Oregon forge immunization alliance to safeguard vaccine access against federal undermining
30-year-old tomato line shows genetic resistance to devastating virus
The free-range chicken dilemma: Better for birds, but with substantial costs
‘You have to treat the brain first’: Rethinking chronic pain with Sanjay Gupta