Extract from yesterday's debate on the Agriculture Bill, which was
considered at Report Stage and received its Third Reading. The Bill
now passes to the House of Commons for consideration of Lords
amendments.
(Column 229):...On animal
cruelty, also mentioned by the Minister, I strongly refute that
gene editing could be considered more cruel than traditional
breeding methods. Think of the results of traditional breeding from
the wolf over the years, which include dogs with noses that are so squashed they
can hardly breathe and Pekingeses whose eyes drop out. Meanwhile,
the process of taking an egg from a chicken or fish and editing its
genetic make-up is not in any way cruel...
Lord Cameron was speaking on Amendment 275 (which was
withdrawn)
275: After Clause 42, insert the following new Clause—
“Agricultural research
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations modify the
definitions contained in Part VI of the Environmental Protection
Act 1990 in relation to products of breeding techniques for
agricultural purposes where nucleic acid changes could have
occurred naturally or through traditional breeding methods.(2)
Regulations under subsection (1) may only be made after the
Secretary of State has held a public consultation on any proposed
modifications to the definitions.(3) Regulations under subsection
(1) may only be made in relation to England.(4) Regulations under
subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution
procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
To enable the Secretary of State to make changes to the
Environmental Protection Act 1990, as it applies in England, in
relation to breeding techniques after the UK leaves the EU. This
would allow for regulation of new precision breeding techniques
compatible with international definitions.
Read the
full debate on the Agriculture Bill
