Eight out of 10 farmers surveyed are positive about the use of gene editing in crops and would consider growing them on their farm within five years. 

A survey commissioned by the Defra-funded PROBITY project revealed that 82% of farmer respondents were positive about gene editing in crops, and after reading an explanation this increased to 90% positive.
 
Some 78% said they would consider growing them on their farm in the next five years; 19% were 'unsure' while only 3% said they would not consider growing them.
 
More than two thirds favour some sort of labelling of gene-edited foods, while pest and disease tolerance was seen as the highest priority for new traits.

The survey, led by the University of Nottingham and run by Grounded Research, was part of the PROBITY project's activities to explore farmer views of growing gene-edited crops. Just over 100 farmers of different ages and from varied businesses across the country answered questions on their awareness and views of gene editing including potential benefits, challenges and the labelling of foods made from gene-edited crops.

PROBITY – A Platform to Rate Organisms Bred for Improved Trait and Yield – is a three-year farmer-led project led by the British On-Farm Innovation Network (BOFIN) with 11 research and industry partners. The project is taking three precision-bred cereal lines through the required legislative processes and into on-farm trials in England. A 'high lipid' barley was the first to reach on-farm trials earlier this year, and plans are underway for a low asparagine wheat to become the second. Both lines were created by scientists at Rothamsted Research and have received Food Standards Agency approval. 

The farmers surveyed were particularly positive about society's use of gene editing where it could address agronomic challenges with 95% responding positively about its use to improve tolerance to pests and diseases and to reduce use of fertilisers, pesticides and plant protection products. Furthermore 96% were positive about its use to improve climate resilience and 91% to increase yields.

When asked to choose up to three priorities for gene editing 85% selected pest and disease tolerance or resistance, followed by nitrogen use efficiency (66%), drought tolerance (55%) and increased yield (50%). 

Improved profitability was the most common motivation for growing gene-edited crops themselves, chosen by 69% of respondents. This was followed by improved nutrient efficiency/fertiliser reduction (56%), reduced pesticide use (50%), improved drought/climate resilience (37%), reduced crop losses from pests/disease (34%) and evidence from trusted trials/peers (25%). 

Buyer and market acceptance was the most frequently identified biggest barrier, chosen by 60% of respondents. 

Most respondents favoured some form of labelling with 43% saying gene-edited foods should always be labelled and 26% saying only some products or ingredients should be. Among the respondents supporting labelling the most selected information to include was the purpose or benefit of the gene editing (74%).

Views on co-existence, meaning how gene-edited crops can be grown alongside conventional and organic crops, were more varied, with 41% saying that measures should depend on crop type and local context. Just under a quarter (21%) favoured mandatory rules, 19% said no specific measures were needed in most cases, while 17% favoured voluntary local guidance. Seed crops/varietal purity and liability were the most frequently selected situations that mattered for co-existence, both at 60%.

Tom Allen-Stevens, managing director of BOFIN and PROBITY project lead, said: "It is encouraging to see that growers recognise the potential benefits of gene-edited crops which highlights the need to trial them on farms to see if they deliver, and to assess the anticipated challenges over market acceptance too.

"As the first to bring these crops onto commercial farms we are in uncharted territory so a continued open dialogue is essential."