BCLP calls for agritech funding and regulatory reform

BCLP’s Jonathan Morris has called for clearer regulation and stronger investment support for Britain’s agritech sector, alongside a £13m government competition intended to help develop new farming products and services.

Writing in a commentary published by UKTN, Morris argues that research funding alone cannot resolve the sector’s commercial challenges. Businesses also face difficulties securing later-stage capital and persuading farmers and food companies to pay for unfamiliar technology.

What happened

The government’s latest Farming Innovation Programme competition, announced in partnership with Innovate UK, offers grants of £1m to £3m. The £13m allocation is intended for a limited number of projects judged to have strong potential, rather than a broad distribution of smaller awards.

Researchers, farmers and agritech businesses are the intended beneficiaries. The programme supports the development of products and services that can raise farm productivity, strengthen resilience and make agricultural operations more sustainable.

Morris places that funding against growing concern about food security and supply-chain exposure. His assessment is that Britain retains a significant role in agricultural and food technology, despite having fewer major agribusiness and food companies, and a smaller capital pool, than the US.

The immediate backdrop to his comments is the World Agri-Tech Innovation and Future Food-Tech summits in London. Both brought startups, investors and advisers together for presentations, panel discussions and individual meetings, although Morris says the level of business completed was difficult to establish afterwards.

That distinction matters to his assessment of the sector: activity at industry events does not, by itself, demonstrate that companies have secured investment or customers. His argument centres on the support needed to turn research and early commercial promise into viable businesses.

The background

Morris acknowledges that enthusiasm for agritech and foodtech has weakened over roughly five years. High-profile failures in vertical and indoor farming, as well as novel foods, have contributed to doubts about the commercial prospects of these technologies.

Many businesses attempting to bring products to market remain startups or early-stage ventures. Investors consequently face a substantial risk of losing their money, while the development of new technology is unlikely to follow a steady path from research to commercial success.

Britain nevertheless has an established research base. Norwich has developed into a significant European centre for agritech, agricultural biotechnology and sustainable food production, with Norwich Research Park bringing together research, university and healthcare expertise.

The park combines four independent research institutes with a university and an NHS foundation trust. Its work includes agricultural and crop biotechnology, addressing food shortages, climate change and improvements in human and animal health.

London also has a Food & Food Tech Innovation Hub in King’s Cross. The shared workspace is supported by Forward Fooding and hosted within The Mills Fabrica, adding a commercial collaboration setting alongside the research-led activity in Norwich.

Other foodtech hubs operate in Cambridge, Wales and West London. Morris points to this network as evidence that the UK’s contribution extends beyond individual startups, encompassing places where businesses can develop technology and connect with potential partners.

What people are saying

Morris identifies regulation as one of the largest remaining obstacles. The Food Standards Agency has developed sandbox frameworks and more streamlined guidance for novel foods, including cell-based proteins, but he says questions remain about the approval route companies will face.

In particular, his commentary raises uncertainty over whether the UK-EU Sanitary and Phytosanitary agreement will require UK foodtech businesses to obtain pre-approval from the European Food Safety Authority. He presents this as an unresolved issue, rather than an established requirement.

On finance, Morris draws a distinction between Britain’s ability to back young businesses and its willingness to fund their subsequent growth. He describes the UK as relatively successful in early-stage investment, supported by tax arrangements including the Enterprise Investment Scheme.

Later funding rounds are more difficult, in his assessment. Capital from overseas, especially the US, can therefore be critical for companies that need further investment to commercialise their products and expand.

The purchasing decision creates a separate barrier. Farmers and other prospective customers must consider both how to finance new equipment or services and whether the benefits will justify the expenditure. Morris argues that this can make adoption difficult even where a technology has potential.

What happens next

Morris wants government action on three fronts: regulatory clarity, enhanced tax incentives for investment in later-stage businesses, and greater financial assistance for farmers and other customers buying agritech and foodtech products.

Those proposals address different stages of commercial development. Clearer approval requirements would tackle uncertainty for novel-food businesses; investment incentives would target the scale-up funding gap; and customer assistance would address the cost of adopting new technology.

The £13m competition provides a separate route for selected projects to develop products and services. Morris’s commentary does not give an application deadline, name successful applicants or specify when awards will be made, and the wider reforms he advocates remain recommendations rather than announced policy.