Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Second Reading 5.28pm
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(George Eustice) I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second
time. The UK is home to some of the world’s best agricultural
research facilities. For some 70 years, plant breeders have used
chemical and radiation treatments to generate random mutations in
genes, in the hope that these might provide traits that are useful
for...Request free trial
Genetic Technology
(Precision Breeding) Bill
Second Reading
5.28pm
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
()
I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.
The UK is home to some of the world’s best agricultural research
facilities. For some 70 years, plant breeders have used chemical
and radiation treatments to generate random mutations in genes,
in the hope that these might provide traits that are useful for
plant breeding. For decades we have had F1—filial 1—hybrid
breeding techniques, which were designed to create far greater
genetic consistency in plant varieties that are grown
commercially.
Precision breeding techniques such as gene editing are really a
natural evolution of conventional approaches to plant breeding.
They are simply a modern way of creating more targeted and
predictable changes to DNA within a species than would have been
possible using induced mutagenesis or natural breeding. They
result in nothing that could not occur through natural breeding
processes. In that sense, precision breeding techniques are
distinct from genetic modification, which can involve moving
genes across species boundaries. It is the recognition of this
difference that is the reason for this Bill today.
In 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that all gene-edited
organisms should be legally regulated as genetically modified
organisms. That has hampered our ability to take advantage of
precision breeding techniques and of the clear opportunity to
help the environment and food producers.
The UK Government disagreed with that 2018 judgment from the
perspective of science. Now that we are outside the European
Union we are free to consider what a consistent, coherent and
science-based policy looks like. What we really need to achieve
as we address today’s challenges is a fusion of the traditional
principles of good farm husbandry with some of the best
technology available to us in the 21st century.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
The Secretary of State keeps using this language about precision
breeding, but he will know that that is neither a specific
technology nor a scientific principle. It relies on the creation
of a hypothetical class of GMOs that could have occurred
naturally. He will know that there is opposition to that
definition from everyone from the environmental non-governmental
organisations right through to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics
and to the Roslin Institute. Given that level of disagreement
about the very principles of how he is framing this Bill, will he
take it away and look at it again?
We have considered these matters in great depth. We ran a
consultation. The overwhelming view of scientists are that these
precision-breeding techniques, which do not achieve or do
anything that could not be achieved through natural breeding
processes, are not in fact GMOs. That is our view. That is why we
are bringing this Bill forward today. As the hon. Lady knows,
there will no doubt be a debate about these matters in both
Houses as the Bill progresses.
Precision breeding techniques give us the ability to produce
plant varieties with particular traits far more efficiently than
was ever possible with conventional breeding. This opens up huge
opportunities for our farmers and growers to produce nutritious
food with a lower environmental impact.
Precision breeding techniques can improve crop resistance to
diseases, reduce the need for pesticides, increase crop yields,
improve resistance to climate change, promote drought resistance
and reduce the need for fertilisers.
(Penrith and The Border)
(Con)
I do not believe that people need to fear this technology. This
is not about creating Frankenstein’s monster or introducing DNA
from another species. From developing disease resistant crops to
bird flu resistance in poultry to PRRS—porcine reproductive and
respiratory syndrome —resistance in pigs, there are significant
benefits, including: for food security; for the environment; and
importantly, for animal health and welfare. Ultimately, there are
also significant benefits for public health, as we are reducing
medicines and therefore tackling things such as antimicrobial
resistance. Does the Secretary of State agree that, ultimately,
this can be a win, win, win for food security, animals and
people?
My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about animal welfare
issues in particular, raises some very important points. He will
know that livestock breeders have long selected traits for polled
cattle, for instance, so that they can avoid the need for
mutations such as dehorning. It is also the case, as he says,
that these new techniques offer the potential for us to breed
poultry that is naturally resistant to avian flu, which is a
major challenge, and some other issues that I will come on
to.
(Chatham and Aylesford)
(Con)
As the Secretary of State knows, I have long campaigned against
the badger culls, so the idea that gene editing may improve
disease resistance in livestock is something that I find really
interesting and could be, as my hon. Friend put it, a win, win.
However, the Secretary of State will also be very well aware
that, with the Department’s view that this could drive animals to
faster growth and higher yields, there is significant concern
from animal welfare charities that this would exacerbate the
severe welfare problems that have arisen through selective
breeding for increased productivity. Can he give some
reassurances to those animal welfare charities that we are not
seeking to produce more eggs, bigger eggs, or in any way harming
breeding animals?
My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is already some
work going on to breed natural resistance and to select, for
instance, dairy cattle that have a higher level of resistance to
bovine tuberculosis, and these techniques will allow that to be
progressed far faster.
On my hon. Friend’s wider point, we address that in the Bill, and
I was going to come on to it. I have listened carefully to
organisations such as Compassion in World Farming; that point was
highlighted to me some years ago by its head of policy, Peter
Stevenson. That is why we have put in some very specific
safeguards to protect animal welfare, so that there can be an
assessment before any authorisation is allowed. We do not want to
have a situation where there could be more lameness in poultry,
for instance, or other animal welfare concerns. There will be a
dedicated committee to assess that.
(Rutherglen and Hamilton
West) (Ind)
Has the Secretary of State considered the impact that this Bill
might have on public trust? People might be suspicious of GE food
products. For those who are worried, what reassurance can be
provided that genome editing will only be used where there are no
other less invasive alternatives available?
I think consumers want to see fewer pesticides in their food, and
technologies such as this open the door for us to achieve that.
As part of the notification process that I will come on to
describe, we will ensure that there is transparency and that any
seed that is marketed is listed in a transparent way. The Food
Standards Agency will also conduct a very thorough and
comprehensive assessment of any food safety issues. I think that
will give people the reassurance they need.
Returning to some other examples of crops, UK Research and
Innovation funded a study that has identified promising sources
of genetic resistance to virus yellows in sugar beet, a group of
viruses that can cause severe yield losses of up to 50% and are
at the heart of the controversy around the use of neonicotinoids
in sugar beet. Introducing resistance to virus yellows will
reduce the need for pesticides, boost our food security and
reduce costs to our sugar beet producers.
With food security high on the agenda, we also have the ability
to develop wheat that is more resilient to climate change,
helping successfully to grow a crop that 2.5 billion people are
dependent on globally. Researchers at the John Innes Centre in
Norwich have used gene editing techniques to identify a key gene
in wheat that can be used to introduce traits such as heat
resilience, while maintaining high yields.
These technologies also have potential to improve the health and
welfare of animals, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned.
Research in farmed animals is already leading to the development
of animals that have increased resistance to some devastating
diseases. For instance, the Roslin Institute and Genus have
developed gene-edited pigs with natural resistance to porcine
reproductive and respiratory syndrome, a disease that causes
mortality and major welfare issues in pig populations
globally.
I turn now to the contents of the Bill. It will focus on four key
areas. First, we will remove precision-bred plants and animals
from the regulatory requirements applicable to the environmental
release and marketing of genetically modified organisms. That
will remove the necessity of adhering to the onerous regulations
imposed by the European Union for plants and animals that could
also have been produced through traditional breeding. The Bill
does that in part 1.
The Secretary of State will know that section 20 of the
Environment Act 2021 requires him to be able to affirm that this
Bill does not weaken any existing environmental protections.
Given that he has more or less just said that it precisely does,
because it will weaken the EU legislation that we were following
and will erode the existing regulatory system, how can he then
sign section 20 in good faith?
As I have set out, as a point of science, the scientific
community and the UK Government rejected the legal conclusion of
the European Court of Justice. It is important to point out that
that was based on an interpretation of the clauses in EU
regulations, rather than on any coherent assessment of the
scientific evidence. We will assess the scientific evidence, and
it is on that basis that we are bringing the Bill forward.
The hon. Lady asks whether I can be confident that this will not
undermine the environment, and I can. Indeed, I am confident that
it will lead to a reduction in the use of pesticides, which is a
key objective that she will share with Conservative Members. It
could also lead to a reduction in the use of synthetic
fertilisers—currently the primary contributor to greenhouse gas
emissions from the agricultural sector.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Con)
What restrictions are there around the world on the agricultural
products of this technology? Does the Secretary of State think
that in the very near future, when the European Union appreciates
the benefits that this can bring to agriculture, it may well
change its mind on it?
My hon. Friend raises an important point. In fact, I was at the
agrifood council when the European Court of Justice judgment came
in 2018. Even countries that had some scepticism about
genetically modified foods, such as Germany and France, were very
concerned about that judgment. It is also the case, as he may
well know, that the European Union itself is now consulting on a
change to its own laws. The EU will be some years behind us, but
it recognises that the ECJ judgment in 2018 was scientifically
flawed. He asked what other countries around the world do. The
vast majority of serious agricultural producers with the
scientific expertise to assess these things treat gene editing
and these precision breeding techniques as being distinct from
genetically modified organisms.
Clause 1 of part 1 describes what a precision-bred organism is.
Clause 2 establishes the scope of what is considered a plant and
an animal for the purposes of the Bill. Part 2 introduces two
simpler notification systems.
(Ceredigion) (PC)
On definitions, the Secretary of State may be aware that the
British Veterinary Association has expressed some concern that
perhaps the definitions have been broadened somewhat in the
Bill—in particular, that organisms or techniques that would
insert exogenous genetic material could be allowed under those
definitions. Can he confirm whether that is indeed the case?
The Bill defines this quite tightly and lists what classes of
animals are to be included. On some of these very specific
technical issues, I am sure that hon. Members who have read
clauses 1 and 2 will see that there are quite a lot of different
processes, which we will all have to make sure that we learn a
lot more about as the Bill progresses. I am sure that this will
be discussed in great detail.
(North Thanet) (Con)
There is no doubt that a lot of the Bill is potentially of huge
advantage, particularly in terms of animal welfare. However, my
right hon. Friend will be aware that concerns have been expressed
that people should at least have the right to know what they are
buying. Does he have any comments to make about food labelling in
this respect?
There will be transparency in the sense that any authorised
product will be listed. No marketing authorisation will be
granted for the sale of any food unless it has been properly
assessed. However, it is not currently our intention to have some
kind of labelling requirement specifically for food, because a
loaf of bread might have some of these crops going into it and
others produced through other techniques. We do not currently,
for instance, require people to label that a crop has been
produced using an F1 hybrid technique such as an open
pollination. That is the comparison that I would draw my right
hon. Friend’s mind to.
Part 2 introduces two simpler notification systems—one for
research and one for marketing purposes. Developers will have to
submit information to DEFRA that will be published on a public
register, and this will support consumer transparency. Clause 3
sets out the conditions under which a person may release a
precision-bred organism in England. Clauses 4 and 5 set out the
notification requirements for the release and marketing of a
precision-bred organism. Clause 6 describes the application
process for obtaining a precision-bred confirmation. This will
ensure that each precision-bred organism is assessed on a
case-by-case basis. Clause 7 sets out the requirement for there
to be a report of the advisory committee, with further provisions
in clauses 8 and 9 regarding the precision-bred confirmation and
its revocation if necessary.
The Bill will not compromise animal welfare standards. As I said,
it establishes a regulatory system to safeguard the welfare of
precision-bred animals. This system is described in clauses 10 to
15. Clause 10 establishes that precision-bred animals will need
to be authorised before they can be marketed. Clause 11 describes
the application process. Clause 12 describes the involvement of
an animal welfare advisory body. Clause 14 makes provision for
regulations requiring information on the health and welfare of
these animals once they have been placed on the market.
Finally, the Bill also makes provision to ensure that there will
be no compromise whatever on food safety and that there will be a
comprehensive assessment of the safety of any products placed on
the market that result from precision-bred organisms.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
I will give way one more time, and then I will conclude.
I am keen to understand something. Although the territorial
extent of the Bill’s provisions is rather limited, what
consultation did the UK Government have with their Scottish
counterparts? Scotland remains opposed to GE food products being
sold there, but legally cannot prohibit it.
This is a devolved matter, as the hon. Lady says. The Scottish
Government have taken a particular position, which is broadly
that if the European Union changed its law, Scotland would change
its law at that time, but not before, and it would appear that
the Scottish Government do not want to move early on that. Of
course, many of the leading international research institutes,
such as the Roslin Institute and James Hutton, are world leaders
in these technologies. They will probably be acutely disappointed
if the Scottish Government do not take this opportunity to lead
the world, rather than waiting and following the European
Union.
Finally, part 3 of the Bill, in relation to an assessment of food
safety, sets out the powers for the regulation of food and feed
derived from precision-bred organisms and includes a new
regulatory framework governing the placing on the market of these
products, a public register and a monitoring and inspection
regime.
In conclusion, it is more than 30 years since the current GMO
legislation was passed. In that time, unnecessary and
unscientific barriers imposed by the European Union have stalled
the development of the agritech industry in the United Kingdom.
Our legislation has not kept pace with our increased
understanding of the safety and benefits of technologies such as
gene editing. By removing these barriers, we will enable
investment in these technologies, which have the potential to
tackle some of the great challenges faced by the United Kingdom
and the world today when it comes to producing food in an
environmentally sustainable way. I therefore commend this Bill to
the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Before I call the spokesperson for the Opposition, I note that we
do not have very much time. It is likely I will have to put on a
time limit of about four minutes. I simply issue that warning now
so that people can take out six or seven pages of their prepared
speeches.
5.48pm
(Cambridge) (Lab)
This Bill comes in a week when food, how we produce it and what
it does to us and how food production impacts our planet have
been at the forefront of public debate. The Bill was an
opportunity to tackle one of the great issues of our time, but
instead of rising to that challenge, I am afraid that the
Government have flunked it. There was a minimalist response on
Monday, when failing to set out a proper food strategy for the
future, and a minimalist response today on setting up the right
structures to enable innovation to flourish. That is
disappointing, but perhaps not surprising. These issues require a
long-term view, and an understanding and appreciation of the
wider public good. This Government are now reduced to slogans
designed to get the Prime Minister to the end of next week. The
country deserves better, and many on the Government Benches know
that.
Let me set out the position on this side of the House on an issue
of significance for the future. Let me start by thanking the many
serious people from learned societies and institutions who have
done the thinking and spent time briefing me and my team as we
grapple with some very big issues. As an example, I wave the
weighty report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, “Genome
editing and farmed animal breeding”, which runs to many hundreds
of pages. I can recommend it to Members—it is actually a very
good read. Unlike this Bill, which takes the narrowest possible
approach, it stood back and asked the bigger questions about our
food system, our treatment of animals, where traditional
selective breeding has brought us, how we might approach novel
foods, and the great changes that we may see in just a few years.
The Royal Society criticises focusing narrowly on just one
technology and argues for an outcomes-based approach.
There was a big opportunity, but a weak and disintegrating
Government could not take it. I understand that, so I turn to the
proposals that we have before us, which are a start. For reasons
that I will explain, however, they risk having the opposite
effect from those intended. Unless public and investor confidence
is maintained, research will stall and opportunities will be
squandered. Although we will support the Bill’s progress today,
we want to see it significantly strengthened and we will propose
an array of amendments in Committee, which I genuinely hope the
Government will consider carefully.
The Opposition start from a clear principle: we are pro-science
and pro-innovation. We want to find ways to maintain and improve
the efficiency, safety and security of our food system while
addressing the environmental and health damage that the modern
food system has caused. That is the challenge that Henry Dimbleby
set out in his national food plan, which the Government were
unable to meet in their proposals this week.
With that challenge, there is an opportunity for the UK to create
a world-leading regulatory framework that others will follow, but
sadly this Bill is a rushed job—too thin on detail. With that
lack of detail comes a risk, because the public need assurance
that those new technologies are being used for the public good,
not just for narrow commercial advantage. We have no doubt about
the possible benefits. We understand the pressures that are put
on farmers when we rightly say, as has been cited, that they
cannot use neonicotinoids because of the harm they cause to
pollinators. If gene editing can be used to safely ward off virus
yellows in sugar beet, that is a definite good that we want to
see proceed as quickly as possible.
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the public good and commercial
advantage are mutually exclusive?
Surely not, but they are not always the same thing, and that is
the point.
We do not want a gene edit to modify an animal to allow it to
tolerate more cramped conditions; we want a regulatory system
that ensures that those technologies are used for the right
purposes. We recognise that there will be people who are not
convinced that it is right to intervene in these new ways, and
who are not convinced that it is right for them or wider society,
but we believe that if the system is regulated in the right way,
most people can be reassured.
Let us not forget that Labour is the party of food safety. We
established the Food Standards Agency, which will play a vital
role in giving confidence to the public. Whatever it says and
does, however, different approaches to food production must be
respected with proper safeguards for organic production, for
example, and for those who do not wish to go down these new
routes. Their rights matter too.
We fully understand that laws designed almost 30 years ago for
genetically modified products do not reflect advances in
understanding and technology. We also see that many countries are
recognising that gene editing should be treated differently.
While we understand that, we must also recognise the importance
of that distinction being drafted clearly and transparently, as
has already been touched on.
The public will want to be assured that allowing the editing of
genes in one organism does not also allow the introduction of
genes from another organism. I hope that the Secretary of State
can clearly confirm that today, because it is very important. Our
reading of those complicated definitions, and the advice that we
are being given, suggests that that subject is not entirely
clear. I hope it can be explored in Committee.
We want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good
here in the UK. We know that over the years, traditional crop
development and innovation has brought us all significant gains,
but as we enter this new territory we need that strong regulatory
framework to make sure that we get it right. As it stands, we are
not convinced that the Bill provides that. It needs
strengthening.
As it stands, far too much is being left to secondary
legislation. We understand why that is always attractive to
Government; it largely means, “Trust us.” As we all know, what is
brought forward is unamendable and, almost without exception, it
is always carried. It is a blank cheque, and on an issue that so
relies on trust and public acceptance, that is not a good
starting point.
We need more detail in the Bill, not least because this Bill
covers both plants and animals, which makes this legislation much
more complicated and difficult. In the notices accompanying the
Bill, the Government have said they will only introduce new
measures for animals after those for plants and after extensive
consultation on the right regulatory framework for animals had
been established. So far as we can see, there is nothing in this
Bill to make that happen. Frankly, it is the wrong way around:
sort out the preferred regulatory framework first, then put it
into law.
As we have already heard, animal welfare organisations are
rightly concerned. The Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals says in its brief that it is “incredibly
concerned”. Compassion in World Farming has joined 20 other
animal welfare organisations, including the Conservative Animal
Welfare Foundation, in raising similarly strong concerns. Their
points are powerful, and Labour will require much stronger tests
on animal welfare impacts.
As I suggested earlier, to get this legislation right the
Government must provide a proper mechanism to balance the risks
and manage trade-offs. Just saying that there is no risk is not
that mechanism. In this country, we have always been pretty good
at regulation. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
is a highly regarded model for dealing with some of these very
complicated issues, and a model the Government would do well to
consider.
The case for having a strong regulatory framework is not just a
matter of giving confidence to the public; that public confidence
in turn gives scientists and businesses the confidence to invest
here in the UK and sets the example for others to follow. That
will be important as many of our trading partners go down the
same route. How much better to have something worth copying,
giving us first-mover advantage, but also settling some of those
tricky trade issues if we end up with different rules.
As part of that framework, we need to recognise that the modern
consumer wants and expects good information. Research carried out
by the Food Standards Agency and others has clearly found that,
while consumers support genetically edited foods having a
different regulatory system from that for genetically modified
foods, they want clear labelling and effective regulation of
gene-edited products. Just telling them that they need not worry
because there is no difference just does not cut it in the modern
world.
Clear labelling is the way to help deal with another potentially
difficult issue, which is the legitimately held views of
different Administrations within the United Kingdom. I think it
is fair to say—I suspect we will be hearing this in a minute—that
the devolved Administrations are not happy with the way this has
been handled so far, and I suggest that the Government should
tread carefully. Clear labelling is a sensible way forward.
In conclusion, we are in no doubt that gene editing could bring
real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing
food insecurity. The world faces huge global challenges, and
although much can be done by reforming global food systems,
science and technology used for public good can be a huge boon.
We need a regulatory framework that prioritises that. At the
moment, as ever with this Government, the approach is to leave it
to the market, and that risks repeating the mistakes of the
past.
These are big and important issues. They will be explored in much
greater depth in Committee and the evidence sessions, and the
Opposition look forward to working with the Government to improve
the legislation and create the strong regulatory framework that
is needed, but currently lacking.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. We have to start with an immediate time limit of four
minutes.
5.58pm
(South Ribble)
(Con)
I am speaking today in full support of the Bill, precision
breeding and our outstanding scientists, who are looking to this
House to unlock barriers to solving many of the most important
problems facing us on earth. I want to see this Bill unleash
their capability and energy on those problems, and I hope to be
supporting the Bill throughout the whole of its passage.
Let me explain why I stand up with this bouncy enthusiasm. To
take the House back to the 1990s, when I was young and thin, I
was honoured to be at the Nottingham University life sciences
department doing a biology degree. If the House will bear with
me, I have a little practical knowledge of DNA editing
techniques, as my undergraduate paper was using transgenic
Caenorhabditis elegans as a biological monitor for freshwater
sediment toxicity.
Dr Hudson
Hear, hear!
Quite. That is a mouthful, but the key here is “transgenic”. We
were putting a gene from Escherichia coli—E. coli—into an
itty-bitty nematode worm, an animal, and making a cross-species
C. elegans. Those little guys were effectively harnessing natural
stress repair mechanisms to produce something that we could
measure easily.
I was a scientist; I was fascinated by that, but it did not
always sit brilliantly with me, and the mechanisms that were used
to produce that transgenic environment were at best embryonic and
new. It was effectively taking DNA material in vectors such as
plasmid, and pebbledashing a target DNA area. We did not know
where it was going to land, and we had a lot of wastage where
bits of DNA were going in the wrong place. That is not what the
Bill is about, and I look forward to going into that in more
detail.
Dr Hudson
We have heard concerns that people feel that an exogenous species
of DNA would be coming in. Does my hon. Friend agree that this
technology is not about that? This is not about an external
species coming in, and perhaps the Bill could be tightened up by
clarifying that, which would appease some of people’s potential
fears.
Yes. If the Bill contained a way of opening up the transgenic
debate, be that in plants or animals, it would not enjoy my
support.
While I have put on a lot of weight since the mid-1990s, science
has also massively moved on. In response to the intervention by
the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (), this is a bit like
comparing a 1997 diesel car with modern zero-emissions vehicles.
Yes, they both have wheels, go along in a straight line and are
called cars, but the two things are completely different. The
British public were right to be cautious at the time, but let us
explain why this is different. We now know the genome sequences
of other target species and plants, and we have exact tools that
are effectively like clever genetic snippers that will go along a
genome and only cut in the exact place. There is confidence and
science behind that point. We then insert something that, as my
hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson)
highlighted, comes from the same species. If we have wheat that
does not taste nice but is good at growing in dry conditions, why
can we not give it that dry condition gene, so that it tastes
nice and is nutritious and can help feed the third world? There
are scientists chomping at the bit to have a go at that—I really
cannot wait.
As part of my undergraduate degree I went to Rothamsted and saw
the scale that has to be put in place for traditional breeding
techniques—think fields and fields and fields. Variant 1 has been
crossed with variant 2 in a modern way, but it then needs to be
tested, because in traditional breeding techniques we basically
take the whole genome, throw it up in the air and ask nature to
pick one variant out of two. That means we are looking at
multiple generations to try to keep the tasty wheat, as well as
the dry, coarse wheat. This is a fantastic opportunity to use
fewer resources while doing that research, and to use fewer
resources from the environment.
Let me highlight some of the extremely exciting opportunities
that I have pulled out of the literature: disease-resistant wheat
that needs less pesticide, as mentioned by the Secretary of
State; tomatoes with a little extra vitamin D; wheat with reduced
asparagine to ensure that people are not exposed to carcinogens,
especially if, like me, they cannot cook properly and always burn
everything; or chickpeas with high protein levels that help those
who are making an environmental choice by being vegan or
vegetarian. The possibilities for health, climate, environment,
farming and our planet are as endless as the natural variation
within species that had Darwin so fascinated. We must do this,
and I totally support the Bill.
6.03pm
(Edinburgh North and Leith)
(SNP)
The regulation of genetically modified foods is a devolved issue.
It is important to emphasise that at the start because, as in a
growing number of policy areas, the UK Government pay only lip
service at best to the powers exercised in the Scottish
Parliament, while at the same time running roughshod over
devolution with their post-Brexit deregulatory agenda.
Although the intended scope of the Bill may be England only, it
is explicit that it will have significant impacts on devolved
areas. The devolved Administrations were, however, only informed
of this just one day before the Bill was introduced, in a letter
from the Environment Secretary encouraging them to adopt the
Bill’s principles. A UK-wide approach can, of course, sometimes
be desirable, but this invite creates an illusion of
collaboration and choice when in fact DEFRA is acting
unilaterally once again. Frankly, it smacks of contempt for our
democratically elected Government.
If the Scottish Parliament refused to allow gene-edited crops to
be planted in Scotland, we would still be prevented from stopping
GMO products from being sold in our shops under the
devolution-violating United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.
This is exactly the kind of scenario the SNP warned against when
the Tories forced that legislation through this place. I
understand that DEFRA officials have now suggested that the
Department discuss the UK Government’s plans to diverge from the
common UK-wide GM regulatory regimes. Well, thanks very much, I
am sure, but any discussions of that nature should have taken
place prior to the introduction of the Bill so that potential
policy divergence could be properly considered. The fact that
they have not is deeply regrettable and unacceptable.
The SNP is committed to ensuring that Scotland operates to the
highest environmental standards, and that we protect and enhance
the strength of Scottish agriculture and food production. If we
end up with unwanted gene-edited products in Scotland, diverging
standards with the EU could cause further damage to our sales,
risking damage to Scotland’s reputation for high-quality food and
drink.
The way the hon. Lady is talking about gene editing implies that
one can tell the difference. It brings in variant genes from the
same species. It is literally scientifically impossible to
identify a gene-edited product if it is done properly.
I accept the hon. Lady’s experience in this area, but there are
many scientists who would differ from that opinion.
Sir (Scarborough and Whitby)
(Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
I am going to make progress.
As previously, where the EU offers new scientific advice and
moves to change legislative frameworks, the Scottish Government
consider the implications for Scotland and seek to stay closely
aligned with that approach where practicable. Holyrood passed the
UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act
2021 before Brexit, committing the Scottish Government to
alignment with EU standards and regulations. In keeping with
that, we are closely monitoring the EU, including its public
consultation which I believe is continuing at the moment, as it
reviews its policy on certain new genomic techniques.
Does the hon. Lady not appreciate that farmers are also
businesspeople and that a farmer will not grow something that the
consumer does not want to buy? Does she insult the intelligence
of Scottish farmers by suggesting that they will grow crops
nobody wants to buy?
This is about the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish
Government and our intention to stay aligned with EU regulations,
as we have committed to in the 2021 continuity Act. We are in
constant discussions with farmers and will continue to be.
Surely it would be practical for the UK Government to follow the
approach of monitoring the EU and its ongoing public consultation
as it reviews this policy, ensuring alignment and avoiding
divergence that could further threaten trade with our largest
trading partner. As the European Commission’s formal policy
announcement is expected in the first half of 2023, the wait
would not greatly undermine the UK’s competitive edge but would
ensure minimal trade disruption. The UK economy suffered a 4%
reduction in GDP, according the Office for Budget Responsibility,
thanks to a hard Tory Brexit. The last thing Scotland needs is
further disruption to EU trade.
It is worth noting, too, that the EU’s 2021 study into gene
editing and new genetic technologies highlighted that research
into animals and micro-organisms is “still limited or lacking”,
especially when it comes to safety. The SNP would advise the UK
Government to return to the precautionary principle in the
deployment of such new technologies, especially those developing
produce for human consumption.
There is no doubt that these issues are complex and emotive, with
a variety of views across science, industry and other
stakeholders. The SNP does not oppose further research in this
area and it acknowledges the work of the James Hutton Institute,
the Roslin Institute and other Scottish scientists and
researchers. The more empirical data available in this area, the
better we can understand exactly the effects in crops and
animals, and in genetically modified organisms. However, the SNP
will always listen to the concerns of the public and producers
and take them into consideration in agricultural matters or in
scientific development. Indeed, DEFRA’s own consultation last
year found that 88% of individuals and 64% of businesses
supported continuing to regulate such organisms as GMOs. The
strength and range of opposition to the use of gene editing
should give us pause to reflect.
(Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a lot of points about how this is, of
course, a devolved area, but does she therefore disagree with the
president of NFU Scotland, Martin Kennedy, when he says that
precision breeding techniques such as gene editing, led by
scientific expertise available in Scotland, have considerable
potential to deliver benefits for food, nutrition, agriculture,
biodiversity and climate change?
I thought I had made myself fairly clear. We are waiting for the
EU review of this technology to take place, then we will weigh it
up carefully and decide whether to continue down that route
ourselves. The trouble with farmers and the NFUS at the moment is
that they are so desperate to find something in place of the
trade they have lost as a result of Brexit that they have seized
on this. I think that the precautionary principle should always
apply with new technologies of this sort.
Sir
rose—
I will keep going for a bit.
Let me give the view of some of the organisations that have
listed their concerns. The view of the umbrella group of
individuals and organisations, GM Freeze, is that the proposed
new approach would take away scrutiny and transparency, and as
these are patented technologies, it is concerned that big
business will be handed greater leverage and control over what we
eat. The Soil Association warns that in the absence of a proper
governance framework, gene editing is likely to be driven by
industry interests. The question has to be asked: without
rigorous democratic forms of governance in this area, how can we
stop monopolies forming and companies acting in the service of
profit rather the public interest? I hope very much that we will
hear that question answered as the Bill progresses and, as the
Minister is nodding, perhaps even this afternoon.
Deregulating GE products also loosens the strict controls that
allow modified plants and animals to be traced with ease, making
the impact on the general animal and plant population harder to
track and assess. There are also fears that deregulated gene
editing risks displacing high-welfare agro-ecological farming
systems such as organic farming. If there is no tracing or
labelling, the future of organic and other non-GM farming is
threatened. Citizens deserve to know how their food has been
produced; that goes to the very heart of food sovereignty.
Sir
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Is she aware that the last
generation of new varieties were often produced using induced
mutation, gamma radiation or chemicals such as colchicine, which
was equivalent to smashing up DNA with a sledgehammer rather than
this keyhole surgery? Varieties such as Golden Promise, which can
be grown organically in Scotland and go into the majority of
Scotch whisky, have been produced in that way and she has not
raised any concerns about them.
As I say, we are prepared to consider the technology as things
progress but we are waiting on the EU, because the EU has the
strictest standards in the world—[Interruption.] The EU has some
of the strictest standards in the world, and if it is content
after it has examined this process and had its consultation, that
is certainly something we are prepared to consider.
Ministers insist that no changes should be made to the regulation
of animals under the GMO regime until a regulatory system is
developed to safeguard animal welfare. However, as has been
mentioned, a coalition of 21 of the UK’s leading animal
protection organisations has called those safeguards
“poorly defined and largely inadequate”.
Among multiple other concerns, the group cites increased risk of
regarding animals as things that can just be modified for human
convenience. That, of course, contradicts the central premise of
the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022.
DEFRA cites the potential for gene editing to address concerns
over food security. I held a debate recently on the subject and
talked about the need to prioritise sustainable domestic food
production and build long-term resilience into our farming
system. There is a danger, as the Soil Association points out,
that gene editing is used as a sticking plaster for industrial
farming systems, targeting symptoms and not root causes. The
Secretary of State mentioned porcine reproductive and respiratory
syndrome, which, as I understand it, is caused largely by poor
living conditions. Why not try to address that rather than using
the new technology as, as the Soil Association points out, a
sticking plaster? The UK Government appear to be rushing to adopt
untested technologies to distract from the real issues in our
food system, such as poor soils, lack of crop diversity,
intensive industrial farming and falling domestic production.
I will come to a close shortly, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I
think you are looking at me sternly. It might be easier to take
the Government at their word if they were not abandoning other
plans that would have a positive impact on food security and
inequality. The food strategy for England, which was published on
Monday, has been remarkably watered down by rejecting many of the
recommendations in the food system review and dropping the
commitment to introduce a food Bill.
In Scotland, the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, which is
making progress, will produce plans that will be scrutinised
according to various metrics, including social and economic
wellbeing, health and the environment. A draft plan has been
published on ending the need for food banks. The Scottish
Government’s new vision for agriculture outlines how we aim to
support farming and food production in Scotland to become a
global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.
If the UK Government are serious in their intention that the Bill
will affect the market in England only, they must amend it to
ensure that products covered by it are not included in the mutual
recognition and non-discrimination provisions of the United
Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and that the devolved
Parliaments can reject those products outright if they are not
content. The Scottish Government think that the principle of
devolution should be respected by the UK Government. The Scottish
Parliament should be asked for its consent before actions are
taken hastily that could undermine our trade with Europe and
compromise the safety of our food.
This is our food system. We must surely ensure that every
possible safeguard is in place before we adopt this Bill.
6.16pm
(York Outer) (Con)
As someone who has a farming business, I draw hon. Members’
attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial
Interests.
I warmly welcome the Bill. I commend the Government for pressing
ahead on a matter that is vital for national and global food
security, protecting the environment, supporting the developing
world and advancing UK science and prosperity at a time of
economic uncertainty.
In the limited time that I have, I want to firmly refute the
misconceptions that have been spread, in and outside the Chamber,
about how gene editing is allegedly bad for animals and animal
welfare. It is right that we proceed with careful additional
safeguards for animal precision breeding, as the Bill proposes,
but precision breeding can provide animal welfare benefits so
huge that to my mind it is actually unethical not to allow it.
Stopping diseases such as PRRS in pigs, bird flu, swine flu and
mastitis is obviously a huge advance for animal welfare, not a
threat to it. Put simply, regulation should follow the science.
It should be based on the evidence, not on superstition or
political agendas.
I reiterate that gene editing is wholly distinct from genetic
modification, so it is totally wrong for it to be aggressively
restricted in the same way. Genetic modification is the
introduction of new material from one species into another; gene
editing is the adjustment of DNA within one species. It simply
speeds up, and makes more precise, genetic changes that occur
naturally through conventional breeding methods. Food from
gene-edited plants is therefore indistinguishable from food
produced through conventional methods. Gene editing speeds up
natural changes that can otherwise take up to 15 years. Do hon.
Members seriously want to wait 15 years to protect animals from
horrific diseases, to aid farmers in sub-Saharan Africa or to
start producing more affordable healthy food in the UK? I think
not. That is why we have to support the Bill.
The Whips will not be surprised to hear that I have some concerns
about part 3, which risks undermining the legislation aimed at
ensuring that innovation and investment, through regulation,
reflects the scientific evidence; that is what we must base it
on. There is already disquiet that the Food Standards Agency has
been gold-plating the innovation-killing precautionary approach
inherited from the EU. On top of that, on current drafting, the
ministerial powers on food and feed safety risk assessments and
traceability in part 3 risk adding additional safety assessments
and other hurdles, thereby piling investment-destroying costs on
to the breeding process, which could ultimately deter scientists
and businesses from innovating. We must be careful about
that.
In essence, however, this is a great piece of legislation and
must be supported. I look forward to following its passage
through this place.
6.20pm
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
I believe that this is a flawed Bill—it is not strategic, it is
not clear and it does not do what it says on the tin. Ministers
breezily assert that it will deliver access to wonderful new
markets, while failing to acknowledge that it actually risks
hindering access to our closest significant market, the EU, as we
create a divergent regime for regulating genome-edited products.
As we have heard, consequences for trade with Northern Ireland
are being ignored. With the Scottish and Welsh Governments
currently taking a different approach from that of England, the
Bill is a recipe for consumer confusion and significant
operational difficulties for retailers across the UK.
These big questions are critical, but in the short time that I
have, I shall spell out how the Bill falls down on some core
principles that render it flawed and not fit for purpose. Those
principles are scientific coherence and clarity, properly defined
criteria—or the lack of them—and transparency.
On coherence and clarity, in its title and text the Bill uses the
phrase “precision breeding”, yet that is neither a specific
technology nor a scientific discipline. It is a marketing term: a
vague colloquialism for a number of recently developed genetic
engineering technologies, which do not form a coherent group of
methods, and do not justify being called “precise”—not when the
scientific literature contains reports of genetic technologies
such as genome editing creating unexpected and unwanted
mutations, genetic errors, altered proteins, and extensive
deletions and complex rearrangements of DNA in plants.
[Interruption.] I will not give way yet.
The Government give a nod to that uncertainty with their caveat
that genetic editing of animals will not take place until animal
protection can be safeguarded. Engineering the DNA of animals
raises major animal welfare and ethical concerns. A wealth of
problems are set out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report
on gene-edited farm animals. As I understand it, there is nothing
to prevent biotech-created disease resistance being used as a
sticking-plaster for the intensive factory farming practices that
are the underlying cause of disease emergence in the first place.
That is why, given the current drafting, animals should be
removed from the Bill’s scope, full stop.
Nature makes mistakes; that is how evolution comes about. So the
mistakes that are reported in the literature are actually further
evidence that such technologies effectively replicate a natural
process. Does the hon. Lady agree?
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As has been said, she
clearly has expertise, but I am looking at the scientific
evidence that has been put before me, and it is being suggested
that the mistakes that can be made in this area, especially when
it comes to nature, appear very different from those that are
seen in nature.
I move on to the principle of properly defined criteria. Using a
term that lacks any proper definition looks like an attempt to
obscure the full scope of the proposed deregulation. The terms
“precision breeding” and gene editing help promote a particular
narrative—that the process is just a simple “cut” or “tweak”. The
Government are also at pains to stress that any changes might
have occurred “naturally” and do not involve the insertion of
transgenes—so-called “foreign” DNA.
I have read that this is to some extent smoke and mirrors. The
Bill seeks to deregulate all manner of genetic manipulations, and
genome editing can sometimes involve the insertion of foreign
DNA. As I understand it, the argument is that in such cases the
inserted DNA gets removed before the product goes to market. That
may well be the intention; but by using poorly defined criteria
in the title and wording of the Bill, the Government are asking
us to pass bad legislation.
Sir
Is it the case that, if the EU were to allow this technology to
go ahead, the hon. Lady would, like the SNP, embrace it?
I am not making a blanket statement in that way. I am saying that
if a whole load more safeguards were built into the Bill and if
it were not based on a set of definitions that are being
criticised by the scientific community, I would have rather more
confidence in it than I do right now.
As we have heard, several learned organisations have challenged
the Government’s creation of this hypothetical class of GMOs that
could have “occurred naturally” or could have been created using
traditional breeding. The Institute of Food Science &
Technology has called the approach “overly simplistic”, and the
Nuffield Council on Bioethics was
“not convinced that this is either the most proper or most
popular framing”.
The Roslin Institute found it “exceptionally challenging”, while
the Royal Society of Biology said:
“No clarity can be achieved using this principle—we would not
recommend using it as the basis for regulation.”
In response to last year’s public consultation, there was a clear
view that this is a fundamentally flawed and unscientific basis
for regulation.
Turning to transparency, there are no provisions in the Bill for
the labelling of genetically engineered or so-called
precision-bred food, despite this being what a majority of the
public want, as the Government consultation made clear. In that
consultation, 85% wanted genetic technologies used in farming to
continue to be regulated in the same way as other GMOs. There are
significant concerns over the commercial drivers of genome
editing in farmed animals, for example. This makes labelling
really important, not least if Ministers want citizen and market
trust, and buy-in to any new regulatory regime. The public
register idea is welcome, but it needs to be accessible as well
as comprehensive, and it should include all genetic engineering
events and organisms used in UK agriculture. Reduced data
collection is worrying. Data that is not collected cannot be
analysed. Ministers are simply assuming that risks are
non-existent or vanishingly slight, but there is nothing
scientific about such wishful thinking.
In conclusion, we need a national conversation. Regulation and
innovation need not be at odds, but products of agricultural
genetic engineering, including newer techniques, should be
subject to a robust and transparent regulatory and governance
framework. This must include a strong traceability and labelling
scheme that protects the interests of organic farms and allows
consumers to make a choice in the supermarket. This legislation
lets down consumers, farmers, the environment and animals.
Rushing ahead with a badly conceived and designed Bill because
the Government are simply desperate to claim some kind of success
on post-Brexit deregulation is unacceptable, and I urge them to
bring back something better.
6.27pm
(South Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
I want to speak in support of the Bill. Anyone who comes to the
rural idyll of South Cambridgeshire and sees the fields of golden
wheat, yellow rapeseed and barley swaying in the wind, or indeed
goes and sees the cattle herds in the south-west of England or
the sheep in the north, might think that that was agricultural
produce as nature gave it to man—and woman, no doubt— but that is
not the case. Since agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago,
people have consistently bred the plants and animals they have
been given, and those plants and animals have changed incredibly
over the last 10,000 years. For example, there is very little in
common visually between a chicken and the south Asian jungle fowl
that it came from. All of that breeding was done by the natural
mutation that happens randomly in nature, and most of those
mutations are mistakes and do not get used.
We now have the technology to speed that up. We have radiation
breeding, which various colleagues have talked about, where we
speed up the mutation and do not just rely on the random
happenstance of nature. We now have precision breeding, and gene
editing in particular. We have the technology to do that, and my
hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble () went into detail about
how it works. This technology has huge advantages, but we cannot
use it because it is banned by the EU and we inherited that
legislation. This Bill is clearly designed to allow us to do
it.
This is a huge issue in my constituency. It is not just that I
have a lot of farmers; I also have a lot of plant breeders who
are chomping at the bit to use this technology, and a lot of
genetic companies. South Cambridgeshire is the genetics capital
of Europe, and there is huge interest in this there. There are
lots of advantages to it that many of my colleagues have
mentioned. There is a win for food security as it will enable us
to have greater crop yields. There is also a win for the
environment because we can use fewer pesticides and fertilisers
and there will be less demand on water resources, which is a big
thing in South Cambridgeshire.
The technology also benefits humans, as colleagues have
mentioned. For example, the Japanese tomatoes that are on sale at
the moment will reduce blood pressure, there are US soya beans
with less saturated fat, and there are less carcinogenic amino
acids in wheat. All of those are benefits. It can bring benefits
to animals, too, by ensuring chickens are immune to avian flu and
pigs are immune to swine flu, but we need to make sure that this
is not used in any way to reduce animal welfare standards—I
strongly support the Secretary of State’s assurance that we will
not compromise on animal welfare standards as a result of this
Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer () mentioned the industry’s
concern that part 3 of the Bill means the Food Standards Agency
will require a full risk assessment for food and feed, as if it
is a genetically modified organism with genetics from two
different species, rather than the traditional breeding approval
process. This adds time, cost and uncertainty. The developers and
breeders will not know if their crop will be improved at the end,
so the measure will damage investment in the sector.
Such decisions should be based on science and evidence. The
Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Health Canada,
and the European Food Safety Authority agree that there is no
difference between the risk profiles of traditionally bred
strains and precision-bred strains, and therefore there should be
no difference in the approval process. They are, in essence,
exactly the same. It is impossible to tell the difference between
them.
The irony is that, by gold-plating in this way, we risk ending up
with a more restrictive regime than the EU’s regime. This is
meant to be a Brexit opportunity, but it could end up with the EU
taking the lead. A few amendments may be needed but, with that
caveat, I strongly commend the Bill to the House.
6.31pm
(Bristol East) (Lab)
We have heard today of the potential benefits and of how gene
editing could have a role to play in reducing our reliance on
fertilisers and pesticides and in creating food that is resistant
to drought or food that is more nutritious. We have heard about
vitamin D in tomatoes, and there has been a long-running
conversation about vitamin A being added to golden rice, although
it has yet to live up to its billing.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge () that the Bill is very thin
on the regulatory framework. Perhaps the Government ought to have
put those measures in place before steaming ahead with developing
these products. His points on labelling were well made, too. The
concerns about cross-contamination and support for organic food
producers and consumers are valid.
The Soil Association has raised concerns about the
commercialisation of crops and tells us that just four companies
control more than 60% of the global seed supply. I do not have
time to go into detail on those concerns, but they need to be
flagged up in Committee. I went to talk to farmers in El Salvador
after the Central America free trade agreement, and they want to
support organic farms and natural seeds but were told they cannot
because, under the free trade agreement, alternatives from
Monsanto and others have to be allowed into the market. I would
be very concerned if such a situation were allowed to develop
here at the expense of people who want to go down the organic
route.
The most problematic part of the Bill concerns the gene editing
of animals. I accept there are some positives, such as helping to
reduce our reliance on antibiotics, but there are other ways to
do that. Other countries have been much better than us in
restricting the routine overuse of antibiotics.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith () said the Bill is trying to
tackle the symptoms, not the causes. If not for the ever-growing
intensification and industrialisation of farming, where animals
are crammed together in unsanitary conditions, we would not need
to rely on the routine use of antibiotics, as too many farmers
do.
We have had an interesting debate on whether we could use
technology to suppress the birth of male chicks. At the moment,
29 million male chicks are killed by the poultry industry each
year, and 7 billion are killed globally. They are fed into
maceration machines—mincing machines—because they do not lay eggs
but, again, other countries such as Germany, France and Sweden
are already doing things to stop chick shredding without
resorting to gene editing.
I am concerned by what the Secretary of State said in response to
the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford () about yields. He did not
refute her concern about the Government saying the Bill will
enable the development of
“precision-bred plants and animals which will bolster food
production”
and “drive economic growth.”
Existing livestock farming methods have already led to the
creation of animals that are radically different from their
original natural forms. We see turkeys and chickens that are bred
to be so heavy that they cannot support their own weight on their
legs; the milk yields of cows have more than doubled in the past
40 years, to about 22 litres per day in the UK—that is not
natural; and we know that cows, as well as suffering from
mastitis, now become infertile extremely quickly from intensive
milking. Their life cycle has been reduced from 20 years in the
wild to about three or four when raised in intensive farming
conditions. Again, the causes, rather than the symptoms, ought to
be tackled by the Government as well.
6.35pm
(North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to support this legislation, which is part of
the Brexit dividend that gives us the freedom to regulate to
support innovation. Unlike the stifling, overly complex EU
regime, we have the exciting opportunity to take a proportionate,
science-based approach to precision breeding. This is a welcome
part of the Government’s focus on science and technology to drive
economic growth. My county of Norfolk, and specifically the
Norwich Research Park, is well placed to help realise these
benefits, as it is home to not only world leading research
institutes, but gene editing companies. Of course, it also plays
a crucial role in our food production.
It is important to be clear what this Bill is about and what it
is not about. Precision breeding is about enabling DNA to be
edited much more efficiently and precisely than current breeding
techniques to produce beneficial traits. Crucially, these traits
can occur through traditional breeding and natural processes.
Indeed under clause 1 that is a requirement in order to be
classified as a “precision bred organism.” As my hon. Friend the
Member for York Outer () said, this does not involve
adding DNA from a different organism, so this is not about
genetically modified organisms. Of course, people will want
reassurance about the safety of these techniques. The expert
independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has
stated that precision bred organisms
“posed no greater risk than their traditionally bred or naturally
arising counterparts.”
By adopting a more agile regulatory approach, the time taken to
comply with existing GMO regulation for getting precision bred
crops to market will be cut from an estimated 10 years to just
one. That is a huge win to accelerate innovation, and secure
productivity and efficiency gains in crop production.
The real world benefits are significant, as we see if we just
think about the disease-resistant crops that reduce the need for
pesticides and fertilisers. In my constituency, the yields of
sugar beet have been wiped out considerably in recent years, as
the Secretary of State said. The UK Research and
Innovation-funded study has identified sources of genetic
resistance that would reduce the need for neonicotinoids—for
pesticides—thus helping to protect the environment, increase food
production and reduce costs to farmers. There is also the
potential for crops to withstand changing climates, and there are
also health and nutritional benefits. Colleagues have referred to
the pioneering work that the John Innes Centre is doing to
produce precision bred, high vitamin D tomatoes. In addition,
tomato leaves are usually only waste material, but by editing the
genes, those leaves could be used to make vitamin D supplements,
thus reducing waste.
The disproportionate approach by the EU led to advanced breeding
being moved outside the EU, and now we can take a lead in
catalysing food science and innovation, and attracting inward
investment. We can do so on the basis that precision bred
organisms that have occurred naturally, or through conventional
methods, should not face unnecessary layers of regulation. That
was the original rationale of the Bill. As others have said,
there are real concerns among crop and plant breeders that the
power to introduce sweeping new regulations under part 3 of the
Bill could see the introduction of additional new hurdles that
are not scientifically justified—new requirements that do not
apply to conventionally bred crop varieties. That would be a
major disincentive to bringing these new techniques in. It is
essential that we do not remove the EU bureaucratic rules only to
allow the FSA to reimpose requirements that are not proportionate
or necessary. Otherwise, what is the point in diverging from the
EU approach?
In conclusion, I look for an assurance from the Minister that
this opportunity to boost our agritech sector will be based
firmly on a proportionate approach, and that during the passage
of the Bill commitments will be made and included in the
legislation to ensure a light-touch, low-cost and pro-innovation
approach.
6.39pm
(North Shropshire) (LD)
In broad terms, I support the idea of encouraging a science-based
approach to technologies such as genetic editing for precision
breeding. In general terms, I accept that such methods will be
helpful in the fight against climate change and excessive
antibiotic use, among other things, and that they have the
potential to reduce the need for pesticides in farming. I welcome
that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and
the European Food Safety Authority have advised that no more risk
is attached to precision-bred foods than to those from
traditional breeding methods.
I would like clarification on some other implications of the
Bill. First and foremost, I am concerned that it is a slight
distraction from the current crisis facing British farmers.
Contrary to the Prime Minister’s assertions this morning, Liberal
Democrats are broadly supportive of the concept of the
environmental land management scheme and the sustainable farming
incentive, and we welcome a replacement for the basic farm
payment. However, the farmers we meet, such as those I met on
Friday, tell us that the reduction in the farm payment this year,
when the replacement scheme is not yet in place, is causing
genuine hardship. They would like to get on board with the new
schemes, but the up-front costs make it unlikely that they will
bother. A deregulated environment for precision breeding will not
help them, because they might not be in business to benefit from
it. We need to back farmers with a smooth transition between
subsidy schemes to make sure we still have farmers who can
benefit from the changes the Government propose.
The Bill is a bit light on detail on the new regulatory
requirements for these crops and animals. Will the Minister
clarify how the Government will identify any unforeseen
environmental consequences once these products are released into
the environment? It would be useful to understand how unintended
downsides will be dealt with if they happen.
As many Members have suggested, there are concerns about animal
welfare. While editing the genes of a pig, for example, to make
it resistant to the worst types of disease is welcome, that must
not be a shortcut to allowing pigs to be reared in less hygienic
and more crowded conditions. Not only must their welfare continue
to be protected; it must be continuously improved.
Given the amount of rhetoric over the past couple of years from
Government Front Benchers about a bonfire of regulations, how can
consumers be reassured that the Bill is not a back-door route to
reducing animal welfare and environmental standards, in which our
farmers have led the world? It certainly makes no provision for
food labelling, that would allow consumers to decide whether or
not they prefer a precision-bred product. Those concerns are a
direct consequence of the fact that it is not at all clear how
the precautionary principle outlined in the Environment Act 2021
and the Government’s environmental principles policy statement of
12 May will be applied in this area. At points, the two seem to
be directly at odds with each other. I ask for clarity from DEFRA
on that point.
We are proud of the progress our farmers have made and the high
standards they have achieved. We do not want all that effort to
be wasted now through a back-door watering down of standards. I
am worried about the impact that any reduction in confidence in
British food and agricultural products would have on the export
of our excellent food products to the EU, which we know takes a
more cautious approach to gene-editing technologies.
I would like a complete overhaul of food labelling so that
consumers know exactly what they are buying. Then, if there is a
Union Jack on the package, they can be confident that the animal
has been reared on a British farm by a British farmer, or that
the carrot has been pulled from a British field, and that they
have not just been butchered or peeled here. If the animal or
carrot has been bred through a gene-editing process, that should
be clearly marked on the package, so that the consumer can make
the choice. It is vital to empower consumers with as much
information as possible, so that they can make informed choices
and have trust in the quality of the food they buy.
In conclusion, I support the Bill, but with qualifications. We
need to build trust and confidence in our food chain.
Transparency in labelling, appropriate regulation to provide
readiness for unforeseen circumstances, and maintaining and
improving animal welfare standards would help deliver that. I
urge the Government to consider those points in Committee. As I
said, the priority at the moment must be the viability of our
family farms in the short term. They need short-term support—
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. I call .
6.43pm
(Banff and Buchan) (Con)
It has been said, but it bears repetition, that gene editing is
different from genetic modification, because it does not result
in the introduction of DNA from other species. Gene editing
creates new varieties similar to those that could be produced
more slowly by traditional natural breeding processes. Without
this legislation, that process would continue to be regulated in
the same way as genetically modified organisms.
The Bill will introduce simpler regulatory measures to enable
these products to be authorised and brought to market more
easily, but not without the appropriate controls. The devil, as
they say, is in the detail, and however the legislation is
progressed and scrutinised in Parliament, and whatever final form
it takes, we can be assured that it will be more fit for purpose
for our country than the EU regulations it replaces.
I am, of course, aware that the legislation will apply only in
England, but I welcome the UK Government’s invitation to the
devolved Administrations, particularly the Scottish Government,
to take part in this process on a UK-wide basis. Although
disappointed that the Scottish Government have so far declined to
accept that invitation, favouring rather to remain aligned with
the EU, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that that
door remains open for them to take part. I am hopeful that,
ultimately, they may welcome the opportunity to participate in
that programme.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that the Scottish
National party would like to move at the more pedestrian pace of
the European Union, some two years behind us on the introduction
of this technology?
I may be tempted to agree with that, but, in my experience as a
Scotland Office Minister, I think that it is much more productive
to work with Scottish Government Ministers behind the scenes;
outside the sometimes febrile mode of this Chamber, we can work
together on these things. Again, I encourage the Scottish
Government and my SNP colleagues in this House to come to the
table and work on that basis.
From talking to farmers and food producers in my own
constituency, as well as to the National Farmers Union of
Scotland, I know that gene editing technology in food production
is not only desirable, but one of many crucial tools that can be
made available to all British farmers. I quoted the president of
NFU Scotland, Martin Kennedy, earlier. He did go on to say that
the NFU of Scotland
“is disappointed that the Scottish Government has chosen not to
partake in the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill in
favour of a European ruling on gene editing.”
In my regular ongoing discussions with NFU Scotland over the
years, one of its major concerns—not its only concern, to be
fair—is maintaining the integrity of the UK internal market,
which is something that I very much hope will not be impacted by
any divergence in legislation across Great Britain.
Gene editing, as has been said, can improve crop yields by
allowing scientists to modify crops to be more resilient to the
changing climate and produce more nutrient-rich produce. I
therefore believe that such a Bill will advance the UK’s crop
resilience and agricultural economy for years to come.
I am glad to see that the UK, including the Roslin Institute and
the James Hutton Institute in Scotland, are leading gene editing
technology across Europe, promoting agricultural development in
an environmentally sustainable way, and prompting, we hope, an
increase in investment in United Kingdom businesses. I therefore
believe that this Bill will help to energise the UK’s agriculture
and food production industry.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to establish a
proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred animals, which
will allow the UK to retain its high animal welfare standards
while increasing livestock resistance to health issues, such as
respiratory syndrome in pigs, improving their welfare and quality
of life. I do not think that it is an either/or proposition. We
can be improving living conditions for animals and using this
technology.
In conclusion, this Bill is a valuable piece of legislation that
should benefit our food production industry right across the UK,
and I look forward to seeing its progress through Parliament. I
again express my hope that, at this early stage of the Bill, the
Scottish Government and SNP colleagues in this place—with their
customary challenge and scrutiny, of course—decide to take part
in this process for the good of farmers and food producers in
Scotland as well as across the rest of the United Kingdom.
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the hon. Gentleman.
6.47pm
(Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition this interesting
debate on gene editing. I must say that the level of input has
been high quality, with important points made across the
House.
I trust that the Minister was listening carefully to the words of
advice and guidance given to her by hon. Members across the
House, but in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for
Cambridge (), who has led on this topic
for the Opposition for several years.
Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation. We want to find ways to
maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our
food system while addressing the environmental and health damage
that the modern food system has caused. We also recognise, as has
been said, that laws designed 30 years ago for genetically
modified products need to be updated and that most countries are
recognising that gene editing needs to be treated
differently.
We are more than willing to work with the Government to achieve
real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing
food insecurity. We want the Government to prioritise innovations
that would provide public benefit and prosperity. We want our
scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the
UK, and we know that crop development and innovation has brought
us all huge gains. But that requires a strong regulatory
framework to get it right, and this Bill does not provide that.
It needs substantial amendment. We need a strong regulatory
framework that will give scientists and businesses the confidence
to invest here in the UK, while giving confidence and knowledge
to consumers so they can make informed decisions—a point that my
hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East () made eloquently.
We welcome the research and innovation currently under way, but
to get this legislation right, the Government must have a strong
plan to balance the risks and manage trade-offs. Of course we
cannot afford to let risks paralyse our course of action, but we
do need a system that manages those risks and provides security
and transparency for businesses and consumers alike.
The Bill provides for the deregulation of genetic editing of
vertebrate animals and includes a provision to establish a
welfare advisory body. That advisory body must report to the
Secretary of State to inform them whether the originator of a
genetically edited organism under consideration has identified
any adverse impacts on animal welfare and made an appropriate
risk assessment for their proposals.
However, the Bill as it stands does not specify which adverse
impacts on animals would be grounds for a GEO application’s being
denied, nor does it lay out what evidence the advisory body will
consider with regards to animal welfare. Several non-governmental
organisations and civil society groups have criticised that
element of the Bill.
The Government’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 made
provisions for an Animal Sentience Committee to scrutinise and
consider the impact of legislation on animal welfare, but the
committee has not yet been fully established. Can the Minister
explain in her wind up why she is pressing ahead with this
legislation before the Animal Sentience Committee has had time to
consider it?
Research has overwhelmingly found that consumers support
genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system
from that for genetically modified foods, but they want clear
labelling and effective regulation of gene-edited products so
they can choose the products that suit their lifestyle. Surely
that is not an unreasonable ask.
Here we have a much-needed Bill, given the need for
agri-innovation and scientific development, and of course the
Opposition welcome the concept. But why oh why is this
legislation being rushed in? We need strong and robust regulation
of this important and developing field. We need clear scientific
evidence and strong protections to safeguard animal welfare. We
need clear and transparent labelling to protect and inform
consumers. Yet again we see truth in the saying “Legislate in
haste, repent at leisure”, and I urge the Government to consider
our concerns and those of stakeholders and consumers and be open
to constructive criticism in Committee. If they are prepared to
do that, we will not push for a vote on Second Reading.
6.52pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs ()
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, particularly my
hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (), for York Outer
(), for South Cambridgeshire
(), for North West Norfolk
() and for Banff and Buchan
(). I also thank the hon.
Member for North Shropshire () and the Opposition for the
constructive way they have leaned into this debate today. I would
immediately say, “Yes, we need to work together on this.” I think
the majority of those in this House see the huge opportunity we
have here.
“The emergence of genome editing is a significant moment, as it
represents a possible step change in introducing a new generation
of potentially transformative biotechnologies into the food and
farming system.”
Those are not my words; they are from the Nuffield report.
(Rushcliffe) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, which will hugely enhance our future food
security. May I draw the Minister’s attention to pioneering new
genetic editing techniques being developed at the University of
Nottingham’s Sutton Bonington campus, and invite her to join me
on a visit there to see that groundbreaking research in
action?
I thank my hon. Friend very much. I believe my hon. Friend the
Member for South Ribble is an alumna of that august institution,
as indeed am I, so I would be delighted to visit it. That
intervention raises a key point that, because of the limited
time, I will address in a general sense.
We do have some of the finest institutions, and many of them are
lodged in Scotland. The James Hutton Institute and the Roslin
Institute are beyond good in this space. They need to be
supported. They do not need to wait for others to follow. Our
door is open. We want to get this right. We want to work with the
hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (). Professor Colin Campbell of
the James Hutton Institute has said that it is right. Professor
Helen Sang from the Roslin Institute has given evidence to say
that this is what we need. She is working on ensuring that we can
beat avian flu, which attacks both animals kept inside barns and
those kept outside.
We have the opportunity to improve animal welfare here, and I
would like to address that point full on. Animal welfare is
currently of a high standard in this country, and it is not true
to say that this Bill will affect it. Our animals are protected
by comprehensive and robust animal health welfare legislation,
including the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed
Animals (England) Regulations 2007, passed by Labour. These
provisions help to reinforce the fact that the welfare of animals
is a key priority, and it is simply not true to say that the Bill
will lead to a diminution in those standards.
The Bill allows us to take the opportunities that have been
presented to us through leaving the European Union. It is
important to celebrate our country’s strengths at Rothamsted,
James Hutton, John Innes and Roslin, all of which I have visited,
and I hope to go to Aberystwyth soon. It is important that we
move on this as a country. By encouraging greater research and
development in the use of precision-breeding technologies, we are
supporting that drive. Innovation is key to enhancing the
sustainability and resilience of our agricultural systems by
harnessing the benefits of precision breeding to eradicate
disease, as we have discussed.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk () and my hon. Friend the Member
for York Outer addressed the issue of section 3. The Bill
provides the Food Standards Agency with an opportunity to build
from scratch a tailor-made framework that is proportionate for
the UK. This will allow swifter progress for businesses wishing
to market precision-bred organisms while still ensuring the
safety of our food.
I could not agree more that safety, transparency,
proportionality, traceability and customer confidence is what we
are building here. The EU is currently reviewing its systems and
has acknowledged that its current system is not fit for purpose.
I would indeed be happy to share that documentation, which is
publicly available, with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and
Leith. It is important that we move ahead in this area, and our
scientists, farmers and researchers all want us to do it. It is
simply not true to say that this will allow multinationals and
conglomerates to drive forward in this space. Actually, in the
countries that have already driven PBOs into their system, we see
democratisation, with a greater proportion of precision breeding
patents being held by smaller and local businesses.
In response to the hon. Member for Cambridge () and the hon. Member for
Brighton, Pavilion (), who is no longer in her
place, I agree that food security is a top priority. We have
taken account of the Nuffield report and public concerns, and we
are constantly in dialogue with our stakeholders. On Monday, we
met animal welfare stakeholders to talk about the declaration and
how they can feed into that. I agree that consumers need clear
labelling, but the FSA will authorise products for sale only if
they present no risk to health and do not mislead customers.
As this technology brings no safety risk, labelling will not be
required to indicate the methods used in breeding. It is
unnecessary because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it is
the same as traditional breeding. The countries that are already
in this space—Canada, Japan, the United States, Brazil and
Argentina—do not do that. A public register will be available on
gov.uk to ensure further traceability.
There is a great deal more that I could go into on the particular
things that were brought up, but I want to finish by saying that
this is a huge area of advantage. We need to go forward as a
country making sure that we take our scientists with us, enhance
our research and breeding practices, and enable consumer
confidence. Ultimately the key aim of the Bill is to ensure that
precision-bred plants, animals, food and feed products are
regulated proportionately to their risk so that we can fully
embrace the benefits and advantages of scientific progress that
has been made over the past 30 years. The Bill is good news, and
I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
|
