TWN Info Service on Biosafety
10 December 2025
Third World Network
www.twn.my
Dear Friends and Colleagues
Claims of Gene Editing Speeding Up Plant Breeding Fall Flat
A new report takes a detailed look at the claim that gene editing will speed up or “turbo charge” plant breeding and deliver solutions to major environmental and food challenges more quickly than conventional methods.
Drawing on five detailed case studies from the UK, the report finds that this “speed” narrative is political, not scientific, used as a persuasive story to advance deregulation. Progress has in fact been slow, uncertain and largely unproven across all flagship projects despite decades of work and substantial public investment.
Technical limits and biological complexity persist, undermining claims that gene editing is either precise or rapid. Conversely, conventional breeding has often been faster and more effective with fewer technical or regulatory complications.
The fixation on rapid technological solutions has diverted resources and policy attention from systemic, agroecological and social approaches that deliver real, measurable improvements in resilience, soil health and food security.
A more responsible innovation agenda would prioritise transparency, evaluation of public investment, and a balanced approach that recognises the value of ecological and conventional plant-breeding methods already providing results on the ground.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
__________________________________________________________________________
Item 1
THE SLOW REALITY ABOUT “FAST” SCIENCE
A Bigger Conversation
https://abiggerconversation.org/the-slow-reality-about-fast-science/
9 October 2025
Our new analysis examines the gap between promise and delivery in gene-edited crops.
A new report from A Bigger Conversation, Turbo charging nature: The fast promises and slow delivery of gene edited crops, takes a detailed look at one of the central claims driving the UK’s agricultural biotechnology policy – that gene editing will speed up plant breeding and deliver solutions to major environmental and food challenges more quickly than conventional methods.
Drawing on five detailed case studies –low-asparagine wheat, blight-resistant potatoes, virus-resistant sugar beet, omega-3 camelina and the purple tomato – the report finds that, despite decades of work and substantial public investment, the promise of rapid progress has not materialised. Many of these projects have been running for 20 years or more and are still years away from commercial use. In several cases, conventionally bred alternatives have reached farmers and consumers sooner, challenging the idea that genetic technologies inherently accelerate innovation.
The report argues that “speed” has functioned less as a scientific measure and more as a political narrative. During the passage of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, government ministers and scientific advisers repeatedly described gene editing as a faster, more “natural” extension of traditional breeding. This framing helped build support for deregulation and for the rebranding of genetically modified (GM) organisms as “precision-bred organisms.”
In practice, the report finds, gene editing remains a laboratory-based genetic engineering process that faces many of the same technical and biological obstacles as earlier GM techniques. Traits such as disease resistance or nutritional enhancement depend on complex interactions between multiple genes and environmental conditions, making development slow, uncertain and expensive.
The analysis also highlights a persistent lack of transparency around public spending. Tens of millions of pounds in taxpayer funding have been channelled into these high-profile projects through the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and other public agencies, yet there is little publicly available information on outcomes or value for money.
Beyond the technical assessment, Turbo Charging Nature situates the debate in a broader context of policy and governance. It suggests that the political emphasis on speed – presented as a route to innovation and competitiveness – has come at the cost of scrutiny, deliberation and investment in lower-tech but often more effective ecological solutions. It argues that while gene-editing projects continue to attract high-level support, approaches such as crop diversification, soil management and agroecology are consistently under-resourced, despite delivering measurable results.
“The story of speed has done its political work,” says Pat Thomas, director of A Bigger Conversation and co-author of the report. “But after thirty years of promises, the technology is still crawling, not racing. It’s time to stop confusing deregulation with progress and start asking what kind of innovation genuinely serves farmers, consumers and the planet.”
The report concludes that gene editing’s “speed advantage” is largely rhetorical. Far from accelerating progress, the focus on rapid innovation has obscured the real timescales, complexities and uncertainties involved in manipulating plant genomes.
As the report notes, “The story that gene editing would make plant breeding faster and more efficient was never only about technology. It was, and remains, about power – who decides what progress looks like, and whose risks are ignored in the rush to achieve it.”
————————————————————————————————-
Item 2
TURBO CHARGING NATURE? THE FAST PROMISES AND SLOW DELIVERY OF GENE-EDITED CROPS
A Bigger Conversation
Full report: https://abiggerconversation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Turbocharging-Nature_ABC_Final_081025.pdf
October 2025
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Turbo Charging Nature examines the political and scientific narrative that gene editing can “speed up” plant breeding and deliver rapid solutions to food security, climate change and sustainability challenges. Drawing on five detailed case studies, the report finds that the promise of speed — a central justification for deregulating gene-edited, or so-called “precision-bred”, organisms — has not been realised in practice.
Key Findings
The “speed” narrative is political, not scientific During the passage of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, ministers and scientific advisers repeatedly claimed that gene editing could “turbo-charge” natural breeding. This framing positioned regulation as the main barrier to progress, rather than technical complexity or scientific uncertainty.
- Progress has been slow across all flagship projects
Five major UK examples — low-asparagine wheat, blight-resistant potatoes, virus resistant sugar beet, omega-3 camelina and the purple tomato — have taken between 15 and 25 years to reach field trials or niche release. None are commercially available in the UK, despite continuous and extensive public funding.
- Conventional breeding has often been faster and more effective
In several cases, non-GM or conventionally bred varieties addressing the same problems have already reached the market, achieving similar or better outcomes with fewer technical or regulatory complications.
- Technical limits and biological complexity persist
Traits such as disease resistance and nutrient enhancement involve multiple genes and environmental interactions. Removing foreign DNA from edited plants remains time-consuming and unreliable, undermining claims that gene editing is either precise or rapid.
- A lack of transparency over public investment
Tens of millions of pounds of UK research funding have supported gene-editing projects, yet there is no clear public accounting of spending, outcomes or value for money. The National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee have both criticised this lack of oversight.
- Speed as a distraction from need
The fixation on rapid technological solutions diverts resources and policy attention from systemic, agroecological and social approaches that deliver real, measurable improvements in resilience, soil health and food security.
Conclusions
The report concludes that “speed” has been used as a persuasive story to advance deregulation rather than as a proven characteristic of the technology itself. Gene editing remains slow, uncertain and largely unproven in delivering public benefits. A more responsible innovation agenda would prioritise transparency, evaluation of public investment, and a balanced approach that recognises the value of ecological and conventional plant-breeding methods already providing results on the ground.