Sheila Jasanoff (1997) identified three cultures of biotechnology regulation: product (in the USA), process (in the UK) and programme (in Germany). Culturally embedded, historically rooted differences in the policy and regulatory regimes of these countries helped to create friction in intra-European and transatlantic relations. Two decades later, the CRISPR method of genome editing is heralded by some as a technique that supersedes previous methods of genetic engineering, not only technically and economically but also socially and politically, because the ability to precisely edit an organism’s genome, without necessarily introducing foreign DNA, is perceived to remove a key source of public anxiety about genetically engineered organisms, and with it any justification for stringent regulation. Others argue that genome editing raises similar concerns to older biotechnologies, including corporate concentration and ecological risks (e.g. Wickson et al. 2016).

As with earlier generations of biotechnology (OECD 1986), OECD nations gathered recently to discuss genome editing’s policy implications (Friedrichs et al. 2019). In this context, we revisit Jasanoff’s analysis and ask how novel issues raised by genome editing may modify and amend it. We focus on key moments when socio-technical trajectories are steered along particular pathways. A recent instance was the decision of the European Court of Justice that genome-edited organisms should be regulated as GMOs in the EU (ECJ 2018). Brexit (if it happens) will likely represent another instance. We consider the implications for the governance of a new generation of genetically engineered ‘natures,’ focusing on agriculture, food and trade within and beyond Europe.