Nuffield Council on Bioethics briefing – Westminster Hall debate on Gene Editing 22.07.25

• The Genetic Technologies (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 established the legal framework for permitting genome editing in plants and farmed animals in England. These technologies enable precise, targeted changes to an organism’s genome. This can achieve desirable traits significantly faster than traditional ‘selective’ breeding or cultivation methods. Genome editing holds the potential to create crop varieties that are more resistant to pests and climate change, and to breed livestock with traits that improve disease resistance and reduce environmental impacts.
• The Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ (NCOB) 2021 report, together with a public deliberative dialogue we co-commissioned with the BBSRC, played a key role in informing the development of the Act by exploring key ethical questions and public attitudes regarding genome editing in farmed animals.
• Our report concluded that the introduction of genome editing technologies in animals should be guided by public views and values, support animal welfare, and contribute to a sustainable, high-welfare farming system. The public dialogue reinforced these points, showing that people’s concerns focus less on the technology itself and more on its application, purpose, and whose interests it serves.
• The dialogue indicated that the public would be more likely to accept the use of genome editing in animals to tackle some specific challenges within the farming system, provided it clearly benefits the animal and is subject to strong regulatory safeguards to prevent misuse.
• While many important components of the governance system for genome editing in animals remain to be determined through future secondary regulations, we were encouraged to see that many of our recommendations—particularly those emphasising animal welfare as a central principle—were reflected in the 2023 Act.
• The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations (2025) enabled the use of genome editing technologies in plants in England. However, regulations permitting precision breeding in animals have yet to be introduced. The Government has indicated that it has no immediate plans for further legislation, pending ongoing research. We would welcome clarity on the future of these regulations.
• Building and maintaining public trust is essential for the successful adoption of genome editing technologies. Should the Government proceed with the regulations to permit genome editing in farmed animals, the NCOB remains committed to working collaboratively with policymakers to ensure they reflect public concerns and societal values and contribute towards a just, equitable and sustainable food system.

Genetic technologies have traditionally played a role in selective breeding, where breeders analyse animals’ genetic information to choose the most desirable ones for reproduction. Genome editing, however, goes a step further. Instead of selecting from existing genetic variation found within animals, it enables direct modification of an animal’s DNA—potentially introducing entirely new traits not found in current breeds.

Genome editing offers potential benefits, for example, by increasing animals’ resistance to prevalent diseases that have devastated many farming sectors in recent years. It may also help to address environmental sustainability. For example, researchers have been creating:

• genetically hornless cows, to avoid painful dehorning procedures that are carried out to avoid cows hurting humans, or one another
• pigs resistant to the common and devastating Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) virus
• chickens resistant to avian flu
• cows that are more tolerant to heat as climates warm

Despite the possible benefits, there is also the potential for genome editing technologies to be applied without due consideration of animals’ basic interests, in a way that may compound some of the problems with historical selective breeding and unsustainable farming practices.

An example of this would be introducing changes that enable animals to tolerate poorer living conditions such as overcrowding, while experiencing fewer adverse health impacts. Care must therefore be taken to ensure that genome editing does not contribute to an acceleration of unethical or unsustainable practices.

To support a sustainable and equitable food and farming system, our 2021 report proposed that any introduction of genome editing is guided by five core principles:

1. Food Security Food and farming systems should ensure safe, nutritious food for all people and animals, now and in the future.

2. Justice Food and farming systems must respect the basic interests of all affected people and animals, enabling them to live safe and fulfilling lives.

3. Caution and Proportionality Policy must consider risks and benefits, wider impacts on society, the environment, and animal welfare – including the risks of inaction and assessment of alternatives.

4. Public Engagement Governance should reflect public values and concerns, especially where genome editing could affect food security, basic human interests and animal welfare.

5. Global Solidarity Governments should collaborate internationally to address shared challenges like food security, climate change, and biodiversity loss.

In our 2021 report, the NCOB made several key recommendations for how genome editing in animals should be governed. This focused on three core areas, which should be considered as part of a wider review of the food and farming system as a whole:

1. Establishing transparent, enforceable breeding standards that prioritise animal welfare

2. Improving data collection and reporting to monitor the impacts of breeding interventions

3. Empowering a regulatory body to ensure compliance with these standards

While much of the detail has been left to secondary legislation, the Genetic Technologies (Precision Breeding) Act reflected several of these priorities:

• Upholding animal welfare: We recommended that the welfare implications of breeding technologies be a central consideration. The Act enables the creation of a welfare advisory body to assess applications for market approval. Applicants must submit a mandatory welfare declaration, and the body will evaluate any health or welfare risks associated with the proposed traits.
• Monitoring and reporting: In line with our call for better data collection, Clause 14 of the Act grants powers to establish requirements for monitoring the effects of precision breeding.
• Framework for enforceable standards: We recommended the development of detailed, enforceable ‘responsible’ breeding standards that all breeders would be subject to. These should ensure that animals may not be bred to enhance traits merely so that they may better endure conditions of poor welfare, or in ways that diminish their inherent capacities to enjoy experiences that constitute a good life. Clause 25 of the Act gives powers to create standards through regulations.

What was not included in the Act?

Several of our recommendations were not included in the Act.  We urge the Government to consider these recommendations to ensure future genome editing advances a high-welfare, sustainable farming system, alongside safeguarding public trust in its applications and products. These include: 

Food labelling: Labelling of foods containing animal products should include scientific advice on food safety, nutrition and health and provide access to traceable attributes of interest to consumers, which may include factors such as:  

• breeding practices and technologies used  
• the animal’s living conditions and diet  
• region of origin  
• the ways in which products are processed. 

Anticipatory governance of breeding: We proposed a ‘traffic light’ system to assess the impact of breeding programmes on the lives of animals. Animals assessed to be in the ‘red’ category – where targeted breeding programmes have led to the production of animals with physiological traits that make it difficult for them to enjoy a good life – should not be used in commercial farming. This category might include, for example, fast-growing lines of broiler chicken. This approach would work in an anticipatory way, to sound a warning when breeding is overreaching and steer it towards more desirable outcomes. This system would apply to commercial breed developers and would need to be overseen by an independent authority. 

Retail concordat: The government should bring the major food retailers together to agree a pathway to ensuring that only products that come from animals that have been responsibly bred are offered for sale. The agreement should include a plan of how this will be achieved and overseen, including how it may be backed up by retailer (rather than product) accreditation. 

In 2023, the NCOB, in partnership with the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), conducted a rapid public deliberative dialogue to explore public views on genome editing in farmed animals. 

The dialogue involved 80 participants from diverse socio-demographic backgrounds, regions across the UK, and varying attitudes toward genetic science in food and agriculture. Overall, the public were less concerned about the technology in itself than about how it would be used, for what purpose, and in whose interest. 

Key Insights from the Dialogue: 

• Animal welfare first: Participants supported genome editing when it offered clear benefits to animals, such as improving health or disease resistance. However, there was concern about using the technology to create traits that allow animals to endure poor conditions linked to intensive farming. For example, breeding hornless cows or disease-resistant pigs would not be considered acceptable if the purpose were to make them better suited to overcrowded or poor welfare conditions. 
• Acceptable uses with public benefit: Genome editing was seen as more acceptable when aligned with broader public goals—such as improving food access, reducing environmental impact, or enhancing animal product quality—provided it also promoted high animal welfare and was subject to robust regulation. 
• Scepticism about productivity-driven applications: Participants were wary of using genome editing solely to boost farming productivity (e.g. faster growth or increased reproduction), unless there was also clear benefit to the animal. The primary intent behind the application was key: it should support a ‘good life’ for animals first, and ideally deliver wider societal benefits for people too. 
• Technological solutions should not be privileged: People wanted to see policymakers consider genome editing carefully against alternatives. Participants saw genome editing as offering a preferable solution to some challenges. While they saw it as a promising solution for managing certain diseases—preferable to ongoing use of antibiotics or vaccines—it was less supported for sustainability goals, where changes in farming practices or diets might offer alternatives. 
• Strong governance and safeguards: People wanted to see clear guardrails to direct potential applications of genome editing and limit the potential for it to be misused. Participants cared about ensuring that the research and applications are safe (for humans, animals and the environment) and that the technology delivers public good.