Consultation outcome

Executive summary of responses: plant varieties and seeds framework for precision bred plant varieties

Updated 9 October 2025

1. Executive summary

1.1. Between 17 February 2025 and 14 April 2025, Defra consulted on the proposed Plant Varieties and Seeds Framework for precision bred plant varieties in England. This continues the collaborative approach Defra has taken on precision breeding and follows the previous consultation on the regulation of genetic technologies undertaken in 2021.

1.2. The purpose of the consultation was to gather feedback on the proposed Precision Bred Variety List for England (PB VL) to understand how the variety listing of precision bred agricultural and vegetable plant varieties in England would impact businesses. The consultation also sought to understand how information on precision bred plant varieties should be made available to those that require it, and what impact the mandatory inclusion of precision bred status in labels for precision bred seed and other plant reproductive material (PRM) would have on businesses.

1.3. The consultation was aimed at businesses and individuals working in the plant breeding industry, seed merchants and processors, growers and farmers, research institutes, and membership bodies and other organisations representing plant breeders and growers.

1.4. A total of 425 responses were received, of which 411 were submitted through the online consultation response form hosted on the Defra Citizen Space hub, and 14 were received by email. Most respondents identified as ‘individuals’ based in England, responding with their personal views. Organisations, businesses, public bodies and academic institutions who responded operated across the UK, and most frequently worked in the cultivation of crop plants.

1.5. Quantitative analysis was applied to the closed questions within the consultation. A structured thematic analysis was conducted on the open responses, through which key themes were systematically identified and recorded. Email responses which did not follow the online consultation format were incorporated into the most relevant sections.

1.6. Of the responses received via Citizen Space, 110 were identified as having been based on pre-prepared templates provided by campaign groups. A thematic analysis was undertaken on these responses to identify key themes, which were fully considered in the analysis. All responses were analysed in full and contributions that raised issues beyond the scope of the consultation were recorded.

1.7. Overall, there was a good understanding of the proposed PB VL with broad support for its publication in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette on the condition that the information was clear and accessible. Businesses and other organisations, particularly those in the organic sector, anticipated some operational impacts, and highlighted the list’s potential to support organic certification, traceability, and regulatory compliance.

1.8. There was a strong consensus on the importance of clear, accessible information on precision bred seed and other PRM. In addition to a central, searchable list, the inclusion of precision bred status within labels was widely supported, particularly by organic businesses, citing decision-making and confidence in the supply chain. A multi-channel approach to information sharing was broadly endorsed to ensure clarity and transparency across sectors and supply chains.

1.9. The government remains committed to the implementation of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, and the outcome of this consultation will inform and shape the implementation of this Act within the plant varieties and seeds policy area.

2. Summary of responses for Section 1

2.1. This section contained questions on the respondents’ demographic information.

2.2. A total of 425 responses were received, of which 411 were submitted through the online consultation response form hosted on the Defra Citizen Space hub, and 14 were received by email.

2.3. Of those responses received via email, it was possible to breakdown respondents by type. Overall, 6 email responses were from individuals, 5 from non-governmental organisations and 3 from businesses.

2.4. Not all of the email responses followed the structure of the consultation questions therefore it is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown of where respondents were based.

2.5. Most respondents who responded via Citizen Space identified as ‘individuals’ (69%) based in England (75%), responding with their personal views. Of the businesses (20% of all respondents), non-governmental organisations (3%), academic institutes (<1%), public sector body (<1%) and ‘other’ (7%) that responded, the majority operated across the UK in the cultivation of crop plants.

2.6. Due to the technical nature of the consultation, it was signposted as of most interest to the plant breeding industry, seed merchants and processors, growers and farmers, research institutes, membership bodies, and other organisations representing plant breeders and growers. For this reason, branching logic was not applied to the questions in this consultation. Defra appreciates the feedback received on this issue and would like to reassure respondents that all responses have been analysed and considered as part of this summary of responses.

3. Summary of responses for Section 3

3.1. This section contained questions on the proposed Precision Bred Plant Variety List for England. Respondents were asked to ensure that they had read the supporting information in Section 2 before answering the questions.

3.2. A total of 75% of all respondents reported understanding the proposed process for the Precision Bred Plant Variety List for England (PB VL), though individuals were more likely to express uncertainty (24%). While many found the explanation clear, free-text responses, particularly from individuals, described the process as overly complex or lacking detail in areas such as traceability and labelling. Several respondents noted that the process resembled existing systems but called for greater clarity.

3.3. A total of 71% of businesses and 73% of “All Others” believed that the PB VL would impact their operations. Organic businesses were particularly concerned about the implications for certification, citing the need for robust systems to identify and exclude precision bred organisms (PBOs). Free-text responses highlighted anticipated changes such as increased administrative work, updates to internal systems, and the need for supplier verification. Individuals and campaign respondents frequently raised the importance of consumer choice and transparency, calling for mandatory labelling and a publicly accessible, searchable list to reduce the burden of compliance.

3.4. Views on the benefits of the proposed variety list were mixed. While 63% of businesses and 64% of “All Others” saw potential advantages, only 38% of individuals agreed. Organic businesses valued the list as a tool to maintain certification and avoid contamination, while non-organic businesses saw opportunities for innovation and market access. Individuals and email respondents consistently emphasised the importance of autonomy, transparency, and access to detailed information, including breeding techniques and traits, to support informed decision-making. Many saw the list as a way to reduce uncertainty and build trust, particularly if it were mandatory and well-integrated with labelling systems.

3.5. Concerns about negative impacts of the proposed variety list were most common among organic businesses (33%) and individuals (27%). The most frequently cited issues included the risk of cross-contamination, loss of organic status, and increased administrative burden. Several respondents noted that without clear labelling and traceability, the list alone would not be sufficient to protect organic and non-genetically modified organism (GMO) supply chains. These concerns were echoed in email responses, which stated that the absence of additional safeguards could undermine certification schemes and consumer confidence.

3.6. Cost implications were also a recurring theme. While 23% of all citizen space respondents expected to incur additional costs, free-text responses revealed a more nuanced picture. Organic businesses cited time and resource costs for checking seed status and maintaining compliance, while individuals anticipated indirect costs related to sourcing non-PBO products and verifying supply chains. Some respondents argued that the financial burden should not fall on those seeking to avoid PBOs, and that mandatory labelling would help reduce these pressures. Email responses reinforced this view, highlighting the potential for increased costs without adequate enforcement and transparency.

3.7. There was strong support (76%) for publishing the proposed Precision Bred Plant Variety List for England in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette, but many respondents, particularly individuals and organic businesses, stressed that this should not be the only communication channel. Free-text and email responses frequently described the Gazette as difficult to navigate and unsuitable for public use. Respondents called for additional formats, including searchable online tools and clear product labelling, to ensure the information is accessible and actionable across the supply chain.

3.8. Overall, respondents expressed cautious support for the proposed Precision Bred Plant Variety List for England, recognising its potential to improve transparency, traceability, and consumer choice. However, this support was often conditional on the introduction of mandatory listing, clear labelling, and accessible information systems. Free-text and email responses consistently emphasised the need for a multi-channel approach, robust safeguards for organic and non-GMO supply chains, and a commitment to transparency that supports both the promotion and avoidance of PBOs, depending on user needs.

4. Summary of responses for Section 5

4.1. This section contained questions on the provision of information on precision bred plant varieties, and the mandatory inclusion of precision bred status in labels for seed and other plant reproductive material (PRM). Respondents were asked to ensure that they had read the supporting information in Section 4 before answering the questions.

4.2. Respondents identified a wide range of information as important for understanding precision bred plant varieties. Businesses, particularly organic ones, prioritised technical detail such as genetic modifications, breeding techniques, and unique identifiers to support traceability and regulatory compliance. Individuals and “All Others” focused on transparency, informed choice, and maintaining organic integrity. These themes were echoed in email responses, which also called for information to be available across multiple formats, including registers, labels, and marketing materials.

4.3. On the preferred format for sharing this information, there was strong support across all groups for a central, searchable register. Businesses also favoured clear labelling and inclusion in marketing materials, while individuals emphasised visibility at the point of sale. Although some raised concerns about regulatory burden, most respondents supported a multi-channel approach to ensure clarity and accessibility.

4.4. A total of 74% of all respondents believed that mandatory labelling of precision bred status would have a positive impact on their business, particularly organic businesses (94%). Respondents cited benefits such as informed choice, customer confidence, and regulatory compliance. Individuals and “All Others” also highlighted the role of labelling in supporting transparency, market access, and trust in the supply chain. Fewer respondents (9%) believed that mandatory labelling would have a negative impact, with businesses showing the least concern. Where concerns were raised, they focused on administrative burden, market flexibility, and the risk of singling out precision bred plant varieties. Some respondents preferred voluntary or market-led labelling approaches.

4.5. A total of 71% of respondents did not expect to incur extra costs from mandatory labelling. Organic businesses were particularly confident, while non-organic businesses showed slightly more concern. Among those who did anticipate costs, comments focused on administrative complexity and market-specific labelling requirements. Some individuals noted that clear labelling could reduce personal costs by simplifying purchasing decisions.

4.6. In contrast, 64% of respondents believed that the absence of mandatory labelling would lead to additional costs, particularly among organic businesses. Respondents cited increased administrative burden, challenges in verifying seed status, and risks to certification and market access. Individuals and “All Others” echoed these concerns, with campaign responses warning of broader economic and reputational impacts.

4.7. Overall, responses across Section 5 reflected a strong consensus that mandatory labelling of precision bred status is essential to support transparency, reduce costs, enable informed choice and maintain confidence across the seed and PRM sector.

5. Next steps

5.1. We welcome the responses received to this consultation and have considered all feedback by those directly and indirectly affected by the topics covered. The government remains committed to the implementation of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, and the feedback received will directly inform and shape the implementation of this Act within the plant varieties and seeds policy area.

5.2. We will continue to work on the implementation of the Act, and in doing so, we will ensure that information on precision bred plant varieties is transparent, accessible to all, and user friendly. This is in recognition of the feedback stating the importance of providing information to support transparency through the supply chains and to support decision making.

5.3. We understand the importance of providing information in multiple, accessible formats throughout the supply chain but that any measures to support this, such as labelling, should be balanced to minimise the cost to businesses. We will use the feedback received to inform future decisions on the inclusion of precision bred status in mandatory labelling of precision bred seed and other PRM. Furthermore, we will work with other teams in Defra, other government departments, and industry to ensure that information on precision bred plant varieties is provided in a meaningful and effective way.