A more accommodating approach to gene editing and easing the restrictions around glyphosate usage are two possible actions that the British government could take in its drive to deregulate agriculture.

At the recent Conservative Party conference, British cabinet ministers insisted that deregulation of farming was a priority for the government.

This tallies with a pledge by British prime minister Liz Truss to remove “onerous EU regulations and red tape” from UK agriculture.

However, what areas are likely to be prioritised in the drive for deregulation?

Leading UK-based agricultural consultant, Michael Haverty, maintained that gene editing, as well as pesticide and herbidcide regulations, were areas where the UK could diverge from EU standards in the short- to medium-term.

“There is a lot of talk about deregulation and it is one of the hobby horses of the Tory Party,” said Haverty, who is a partner and senior research consultant with The Andersons Centre.

“Now that the UK is free of the Brussels orbit it can look at deregulation. But it’s easy to talk about deregulation; it’s not such a simple task to decide what you are precisely going to do when you get down into the detail of the agri-food industry. Most of these regulations are there for very good reasons,” he maintained.

Gene editing

However, Haverty predicted that gene editing was likely to be one area targeted by the UK.

In fact, legislation was introduced in May this year to accelerate the genetic engineering of crops in England.

“Gene editing is probably an area in which the UK will focus more on, and be a bit more accommodating I suppose,” Haverty commented.

“Some would argue that the EU’s definitions of what can and can’t be done have been quite strict, whereas I think the UK will adopt a more accommodating approach to some of those gene editing possibilities, particularly given the emissions challenge,” he said.

“I think a lot of people in the UK agriculture industry, and in EU farming circles would see this as a more pragmatic approach,” Haverty added.

He predicted that genetic modification (GM) would be more difficult to push, as there is a “devolved aspect” to its adoption and there is less enthusiasm for the technology in Scotland and Wales than there is in England.

Haverty maintained that there was reluctance to introduce hormone-treated beef, because of consumer and retailer opposition, as well as the implications for future trade agreements and the Northern Ireland Protocol.

In contrast, he predicted that the British government could adopt a more flexible approach to pesticide and herbicide usage, such as glyphosate.

“A lot will depend on lobby groups and how organised they are on this. They can probably influence government.”