Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022.
Examination of Witness
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
The Committee is now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. We will now hear oral evidence from Penny Hawkins, head of the animals in science department at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who is now before us on Zoom—welcome. Would you like to introduce yourself? We will then move straight to questions.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you. We will be finishing at 2.20 pm, so Members should keep their questions brief, and answers should be as precise and brief as possible.
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q174 Welcome, Penny, to this afternoon’s session. Can you briefly outline what protections are in place for the welfare of animals, more specifically farmed animals, which were the source of concern this morning? Can you elaborate on whether you are reassured that all precision-bred lines for animals will be developed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 controls assessing the ethics of the approach? In addition, what else would you like to see? Where do you think the Bill does well and where do you perhaps think there are more challenges?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Thank you; that is really helpful.
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Good afternoon and thank you, particularly for your written evidence and for the points that you have just made about ASPA. I want to follow on from that slightly, in relation to laboratory animals. I do not think we have really talked about that at all so far in the evidence sessions and I wonder whether you could say a little about it. Could you also comment on the overall framework of protection and, in particular, where the Animal Sentience Committee might fit in with regard to some of this? We are slightly concerned that it seems that the Bill could be on the statute books before the Animal Sentience Committee is even establishedQ .
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q What would be needed in the Bill to safeguard against the issues that you have just raised?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Thank you for coming along to speak to us this afternoon. The RSPCA has raised concerns about the safety of gene editing, stating:Q
“There is no history of safe and reliable use”.
What else could that cover? What are your concerns? Can you expand on that, please?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q You mentioned ASPA. What are your thoughts on the potential conflicts between this legislation and the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q I have seen criticism that the Bill is too focused on enabling the commercial opportunities inherent within gene editing, rather than focusing sufficiently on animal welfare, for example. Would you agree with that, looking at the Bill as it is drafted at the moment?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Could I just press a little more about the Animal Sentience Committee side of things? We are now in the position where there is the welfare advisory body under this legislation, the Animal Sentience Committee and all the licensing regimes under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Do you think it would be better if this was all merged into one organisation? We also heard about the codes that apply in terms of farm animal welfare, some of which is legislative and some of which is guidance. Is it not all a bit messyQ ?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q Do you not worry that things would get lost in the mix, and that something might be seen as the responsibility of one body and then be overlooked by another?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Can I thank Dr Hawkins for her time and for the evidence she has given to the Committee, which I am sure we will find very valuable? Thank you very much.
Examination of Witnesses
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
We have until 2.50 pm for this session, so please could you introduce yourselves very briefly and then we will move straight into questions?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q Good afternoon. We have heard from witnesses earlier today, and on Tuesday, that this technology is equivalent to traditional breeding—that is the term I will use, just for ease—and carries the same level of risk. I understand that you have a different point of view. I would like to understand what the evidence base for that view is, with specific reference to precision breeding and gene editing, in both plants and animals.
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q Thank you. With sufficient risk assessment, and defined as conventional breeding, you are not opposed to this technology? Is that what I should take from that?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
I should just say that it was probably out of scope to call people who are much more based in the world of the human genome, but of course we know what advances have been made there using this technology.
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q Good afternoon and welcome. Can I take you back to your opening point about definitions? It is right at the start of the Bill, and we have already had some discussions. A lot of us are struggling, quite frankly, to make the link between what the Bill was promised to be about and what we think the definitions end up being about. The basic question on which I sought an answer from the Government’s chief scientist this morning is: does the Bill as written exclude transgenic material?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q Thank you. Could I turn to Pat and perhaps explore the wider environmental impacts and the extent to which the Bill provides reassurance and protections?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q Following on from that, do you see anything in the Bill that limits the scope for herbicide-resistant edits in plants, or, for instance, pesticide-resistant bees, which I have been reading about? Those are both possibilities that raise some wider issues.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q May I return you, Ms Thomas, to the points that you were making about Norway? I think the Norwegians introduced a gene technologies Act fairly recently. When I read about the approach that they took to the issue, it seemed to involve a lot more public consultation and discussion. Will you expand a little on the approach they have taken to this issue? What can we learn from it? What would you like to see included in this Bill?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q We received a briefing from GeneWatch UK, in which it talked about its concerns about a potentially significant impact on trade. As you perhaps know, the Scottish Government are waiting for the EU to complete its consultation on gene editing and GM, and the difference between those two, and whether or not it may allow them to be permissible within Europe as well.
GeneWatch UK said that if exempt GMOs are not traceable—because they are considered to be, as we have heard from several witnesses, the same as conventionally bred organisms—manufacturers should be required to publish a validated test for each GMO released. It suggests that all countries that require such organisms to be regulated could potentially refuse all imports of food and other products that contain that exempt GMO. Could you just expand a little on that for us? I would be interested to hear your points of view.
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
There are a number of things that I think we have heard robust evidence on, but you have clearly spent a lot of time looking at this in a global context. Countries such as Canada, Japan and Argentina are forging forward and allowing their scientists to develop new lines and strains to move forward their agriculture. Do you have any comments on how they are doing it? In all candour, I am worried that, to prevent worries and questions such that you are raising, we almost throttle something that has the potential to be genuinely transformative. What assessment have you made of what Canada, Argentina and Japan, who are forging ahead, are doingQ ?
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
Q I can believe that. It is already happening out there in the world, I just wondered what you thought about what was going on in Canada, Japan or Argentina?
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
Q Sorry, what I meant was, obviously they have stuff in place and they have some sets of regulations in their countries to address your concerns, along with the laws that they have passed to allow gene edited, precision bred products. I wondered whether you have looked at what they have done to protect the safeguards while being able to forge ahead with scientific research.
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
No, I was—
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Order. It is 2.50 pm. We have to finish there. I thank both our witnesses for their time and their full answers in this session. I am sure the Committee finds them very helpful.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
We now move on to our next witnesses. Before we do, Professor David Rose of Cranfield University was due to give evidence on this panel, but unfortunately he has had to withdraw because he has covid. I welcome Dr Michael Edenborough QC, IP law specialist from Serle Court, and Professor Sarah Hartley from the University of Exeter. We will finish at 3.30 pm. Can you both very briefly introduce yourselves?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you for joining us.
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q Thank you for your attendance this afternoon. A question to Dr Edenborough first: what impact has changing regulations on precision breeding had on the patents that are held in countries, with specific reference to small businesses? I am interested in how we can ensure a spread of the benefit of such techniques is felt across different organisations.
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q That is very useful and similar to the evidence that Mr Angus gave us earlier this week—indeed, it gives an open market. To Professor Hartley, your experience in this area is extensive, including understanding the global impact that this technology could have, or is having. Could this technology allow us to be a good global neighbour to those across the world who are struggling to feed themselves? That is more a food security point of view.
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation sponsors work in this area—at the Roslin, I think. Given that degree of altruism in this area, what changes to the governance framework might assist in improving food security? Or is that best left to that philanthropic drive?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q Would you say it is the design of how the work progresses more than anything?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q Good afternoon to both of you. Professor Hartley, in your previous answer, you said there was essentially nothing in this Bill to promote the public good. What would need to be in there to allow that to happen?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q You have done work before on public engagement. What would need to be changed to respect the outcomes of the public engagement that has gone on so far?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q Perhaps I could return to Dr Edenborough now. You may well have heard some of the discussions about the definitions at the start of the Bill, and there clearly are different views as to what they mean. As someone who might be called on to interpret the Bill, how confident are you that that will be straightforward?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q Could you elaborate?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q Well, it highlights the concerns that we have. Going on from that, my next question is on the terms “precision bred organism” and—this is not in the Bill, but it is related to it—“qualifying higher plant”. Will those terms be easy to define if a challenge comes as to what would constitute those categories? It is the same question that I asked before, really. From this legislation, would you be able to discern the answer if someone comes to you and says, “Is this or isn’t this one of those categories?”?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q In your earlier answer to the Minister, you—I think rightly—pointed out that this Bill does not add anything in terms of intellectual property rights. In the absence of the Bill providing certainty, how might the wider gene editing debate develop commercially, and will it further the interests of research and development in the UK?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
That is a very sobering prospect. Thank you; that was helpful.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Thank you to both our witnesses for your evidence so far. I would like to hear your views on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the implications for the future. Scotland and Wales in particular have objected to these measures—until such time that we, in Scotland’s case, have heard from the EU about its consultation on this.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q In terms of the implications of regulatory divergence from the EU—[Interruption.] Is that a tough one?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Okay. Obviously, the problem for Scotland is that we would like to stay aligned with EU regulations as far as is possible and practicable. What are the implications for us and for exporting if the 2020 Act forces us away from alignment with EU regulations? I am thinking in particular about the impact on trade.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q People have contacted me about what happened with Monsanto, and I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the potential implications for that of anything in the Bill. I think Monsanto sued farmers because they retained seed from a crop, rather than buying seed again from Monsanto for the following year. Is there anything in the Bill that enables that? You are an expert on this subject and I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Fascinating. Thank you very much.
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
Q We spoke in a previous evidence session about the difficulty of codifying the beautiful complexity of biology into law, because biology in and of itself is not in a static state. I think the quote was, “Biology is not physics; it’s not a specific number.” So I am sympathetic to some of the comments that you made earlier. What I want to chase with you is what the consequences of the uncertainty in the drafting are. I cannot understand why someone would want to say that something has been genetically edited when it has not been, and I cannot understand why someone would want to say that something has not been genetically edited when it has been—and that is an expensive process. You have much more experience, so what are the consequences of the uncertainty in the drafting?
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
Q But there is no risk to humans, no risk to health. This is about a commercial give and take, in effect. That is the consequence of the uncertainty in the drafting.
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
Q No, it is not—forgive me, Mr Stringer; shout if you want me to stop. The classic example is that Belgian Blue cattle, through a natural genetic mutation, ended up with double-muscle haunches. Everyone thought this was wonderful because you have a cow with a massive bum that is more saleable for the same food. But then there was the discovery of consequences about birthing and ease of birth, and it was dropped out. So I do not think saying, “It could have occurred naturally,” and saying, “It is risk free,” are the same thing.
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
Q Biology can make mistakes—some mistakes are positive, and some are deleterious. But gene editing allows us to press fast-forward; it is a speeding up of the opportunity that natures engages in, but within an individual species. That is all true, but it is just happening faster, and with more opportunity and structure behind it, so we can go, “Actually, no, don’t do that—it’s a bad idea.”
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
Q That is not my understanding. What you are saying, in effect, is that what we do not want to be doing is creating a plant that is both drought-resistant and has a natural pesticide resistance, and—steps 3 and 4—tastes better and has vitamin D in it. You do not want to do all those in one go. I can see that argument, but surely the regulatory regime in the Bill will allow for people to say, “No, that is just a bit too complicated, when you have to go through the phenotypic analysis at the back of it.” But I want to come back to the core point: what are the consequences of having to accept the biological uncertainty within the way we describe things? What bad is going to happen?
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
Q I presume it would be somewhere between the market and the regulator, and we have heard about the importance of that. If you are going to go far down and take multiple steps, you are going to have to know that you are going to get a commercial return at the end of it, because this is not cheap or easy. So in the other instance you were mentioning earlier, I was thinking, “Okay, that could make it much more expensive to do, but then it is going to get disintermediated by something that is not as expensive.” I hold to the view that law and biology are always going to do this and we have to make sure that we have got ourselves protected against any big negative consequences. That is why I keep pressing you on the “for instance”.
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
Q Okay, but if I flip it the other way and you do not have the discretion, you are effectively closing off avenues to what biology will do naturally. If you want to say, “No, we can only do this, this, this and this”—
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
Right. I am very grateful for the exchange.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q May I ask about liability? I hope this is within your remit. What happens if an organic farmer finds that there is contamination? Does the Bill provide any mechanisms or safeguards for people who might want to resist going down this path and are affected by it?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q Contamination was always the concern with GM.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q But if your organic product has an organic trademark, in terms of the badging—there are rules about importing and exporting organic produce—that could potentially harm their ability to apply for organic certification.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q But you are saying that it might be quite difficult to actually assess whether it had affected the product in that way.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q If you have a field of organic crops that could be contaminated, you would not necessarily know the extent to which the produce had been contaminated. The certification is based on what you have used on the field, how you have farmed and so on, so you would not know if something had affected it. Do you see what I am saying?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q It might be quite difficult to quantify the extent to which—
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
I want to take this point about damage and liability a little further. You look alarmed, but actually I want you to simplify it a bit. The way you are describing it to me, I think the onus will really be on the person claiming that they have been damaged to make a claim and go to court. There may then be some difficulty for them. I think you are saying that there would be less difficulty in proving causation, because there would be a marker, but there would be considerable difficulty in proving the extent and the fact of the damage that had occurred. Is that correct?Q
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
Q What could offer better protection than this reliance on what looks, from the point of view of the organic farmer, to be a very unsafe means of obtaining redress?
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
Q I think what I am trying to say is that we are talking about a process of tort.
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
What might the alternatives be for offering protection, rather than going through the tort route?
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
Q This may not be a question for you; it might be one for Professor Hartley. Is there the potential for a real inequality of arms in this—that we are going to see, not invariably but typically, smaller organic producers against potentially global or large commercial entities in court?
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
Thank you. Do you have anything to add, Dr Edenborough?
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
Q Is there any way you would suggest to rebalance that inequality, other than the strict liability, which I think you felt was very difficult?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
We have about 90 seconds, Daniel.
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q This will only take a second. I am trying to conclude this long and interesting discussion about liability. I think what you are saying is that in the end it will require something in law—in the Bill—to actually provide that protection. Is that correct?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
That was certainly under 90 seconds. I think that is a good place to finish. I thank both our witnesses for the time spent with us and their detailed answers.
Examination of Witness
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Welcome to the Committee. For the next session, we have until 3.50 pm. Would you please briefly introduce yourself by telling us your name and position?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q For the sake of transparency, I would like to put on record that I have known Ed for some years and many of his family are constituents of mine.
We have focused a great deal on food in our two days of conversations with witnesses. Can you expand a little more on what benefits there might be within the feed sector?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q Some of those comments looked at the positive impacts that might be available through the use of this technology moving forward. Do you think the uptake across farmers and the wider supply chain—I think your membership covers the UK, so feel free to speak from a UK-wide perspective—would be large, and could you give me your views on labelling? Would it be possible to have a compulsory focus on labelling, and would that be an enhancement? What do you think about that?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q You have probably answered some of my questions already, but I am going to explore some of those points further. If I understood you correctly, the risk is that if we end up moving a bit more quickly than our European partners but it is not clear that we are getting to the same point, it is quite likely that the industry as a whole will look at it and think, “This is too expensive and too risky, so we will wait.” Is that your analysis?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q So you are saying it depends on the FSA’s approvals process. What would need to be in this Bill to give the levels of reassurance that you would be looking for?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q One final question for the moment: to the lay observer, these flows backwards and forwards between different countries and within the UK are quite staggering. I may be pre-empting the next question, but, given the issues you have just talked about, how much will the different approaches taken in the different parts of the United Kingdom impact on your people?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Ed, you seem to be suggesting that while the EU is retaining its approach to gene editing and GMO, the UK could negotiate on a product-by-product basis with the EU on any gene edited products it wished to export to the EU. Could you take us through that process? You say that FSA has to approve that. Would there be costs that could come about as a result?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Without labelling and really strong traceability, what do we do regarding cross-contamination? How do we prove to Europe, while Europe is adopting its current approach, that the product has not been contaminated—I know that is a loaded word, but you know what I mean—by gene edited products when there is no traceability in the scheme and no labelling?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Yes.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
I’m afraid that brings us to the end of the session. Thank you for your time and evidence.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Good afternoon, and welcome. We have until 4.10 pm for this session. I would be grateful if you could introduce yourself for the record with your name and position.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you very much. We will move on to questions, starting with the Minister.
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q Good afternoon, Mr Temple. I wonder if I could ask you on a broad basis what you, as a member of the farming community and somebody with vast experience in farming and seed production, feel the likely uptake by farmers of precision bred products and technologies will be. What is your experience from other countries of PBOs? Could you speak a little about how you manage co-existence currently and whether you think the same regime will continue?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
It is, but you can answer as much or as little as you like.
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
No, that was perfect. It was an interesting contrast between the field—literally—and to how this can help on a global basis, rather than from a more academic standpoint. It is an interesting juxtaposition to what we heard earlier. Thank you very much.
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q Good afternoon and welcome. I do not know how much of a chance you have had to look at the details of the Bill, but it proposes a notification system and a public register. How supportive of that approach are you, and what effect do you think they will have?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q On labelling and transparency, you have probably seen the research from the Food Standards Agency showing that the public would like to know more about where their food comes from. I think that is a growing trend in general. What do you feel about the labelling issues?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q You may or may not have heard the evidence from our previous witness from the Agricultural Industries Confederation, who expressed concern—pretty much using the language that you have just used—that we are out of kilter with other places, particularly Europe, and that that could have a dampening effect on these developments. Do you share that view?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Mr Temple, you said that you do not want farmers to be out of kilter with the rest of the world, but as we have heard today, and as I have read—this is one of the Scottish Government’s concerns—we may be out of kilter with Europe’s approach to GM and gene edited foods. Does that concern you? Some of the farmers that you come into contact with must export their goods to Europe. We have heard that there is the possibility for products to get through on a product-by-product basis, but that sounds kind of costly and would take up a lot of time. Are you not concerned about that?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Although we heard from earlier witnesses that places like Argentina seem to have rather more regulations in place than this Bill allows for. Does that not worry you a bit?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Do you think this approach will in any way make up for the impact of Brexit? Do you agree with the Government’s thinking that it might make some headway, in terms of the big impact on farming and agriculture from Brexit?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
If there are no more questions, I thank you for your time and evidence and we will move on to our next witness.
Examination of Witness.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Our next witness is Ross Houston. We have until 4.30 for this session. Can you hear us?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Excellent. Would you introduce yourself for the record, please?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q Welcome, Professor Houston. Could you explain how you are using precision breeding in your work, and what the potential benefits might be for aquaculture in the UK—Scotland in particular—and across the world?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q I will ask one further quick question before others have their chance. You explained that you are using CRISPR technology and the broader technologies, hence why in the Bill the definition is slightly broader. Will you define how fast this field is moving and spend a moment discussing the Bill and whether you think that we have the balance right to allow research? Arguably, the Bill is about enabling; it is not about that further piece down the line. Do you think that we have got it about right in the Bill, and that regulatory environment domestically and internationally?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
That is excellent. Thank you.
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q Thank you for joining us this afternoon, Mr Houston. Aquaculture is slightly different—I assume you are talking about the farmed sector—as there is always the issue of escape and the impact that could have on the wider environment in our seas and oceans. How do we protect against that? Given the measures in the Bill, how do we check, or what is the authority that would be overseeing, to see whether there had been any impacts as a consequence?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q I can see the potential benefits, but I am slightly worried about the potential risk in the wider natural world, and I do not see anything in the Bill as it stands to either monitor that or check that, or to provide sufficient safeguards. Can you reassure me?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Basically, I can absolutely see the benefits, but I can also see risks, and it is the risk side that I am worried about. What I am asking you is whether you can see anything in the Bill—I cannot—that provides a structure for monitoring and mitigating those risks.
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q That is fine. I am certainly not laying it on you; it is down to us to come up with the answer to that one.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q You will be aware, of course, that the Scottish Government want to wait until the EU’s consultation on gene edited products is complete, because they wish to retain regulatory alignment with the EU and there are concerns about the export of salmon, which is a huge sector for Scotland—and for the UK, for that matter—to Europe, and to France in particular. Given that you are in the sector and close to it, can you tell us about your concerns about that potential impact? If the EU retains its current opposition to gene editing, what would be the impact on UK products trying to get into the EU?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Would you accept that, given the importance of Europe to the salmon export trade, it makes sense to wait to see what Europe is doing? I believe there will be some sort of response by next year. I am worried about the impact that moving ahead of Europe will have on salmon in particular.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q I was reading earlier this week about how in Japan they have been using CRISPR to change Japanese sea bream. I think the technicality is that you end up with bream that have 20% more meat, because it knocks out a protein that means muscle growth is supressed. Basically, there is less muscle in the fish and presumably more fatty meat—if that is what you call it on a fish. You mentioned the impact on human health earlier, and you mentioned allergies—that was with CRISPR rather than with gene editing—but to what extent do you see us getting to a situation where the finished product, the fish, is so changed that it is nutritionally a different product? To what extent do you think we would need labelling for that? Allergies are one thing, but I wondered about it from a nutritional point of view. People are often told to eat fish. Should it be marketed as something that is different?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
I want to try to get two questions in, very quickly.
Katherine Fletcher (Conservative, South Ribble)
Q I will be very brief. There were tanks of fish when I was at university and I have seen the distress that sea lice cause to salmon. It is a problem that has been impenetrable to science, so I can see why that is exciting. My question, as someone who is going to practically implement this, is not necessarily about the technique for inserting the change, but about the thing that is concerning most people. How are we absolutely certain that we have made a very specific change and we have not missed a bit or left a bit of rogue DNA in the wrong place? Can you briefly talk about what you would do within Benchmark Genetics to ensure that, in the nicest possible way, you were getting what you had paid for?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Did I catch you saying that the Scottish Government are funding precision breeding work within your institute?Q
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q Brilliant. The “yes” was all I needed. Could you please expand? Professor Whitelaw, whom you must know very well, basically said that the value of moving now was that it enables us to enjoy the benefit of the R&D. You said we would fall behind. How would this affect our ability to potentially attract world-leading scientists from all over the world, some of whom I met at Roslin, to come and work with us on finding some of these solutions? Would it be detrimental if we did not move ahead?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
A very quick response.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you. We will have to finish there, as we are out of time. May I thank you very much for your time and answers? We will now move on to the last panel, if they can join us at the table.
Examination of Witnesses
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Q Thank you and welcome to the Committee. May I ask you to introduce yourselves and your position, very briefly, please?
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
Thank you. We will finish this session at 5.10 pm. I will move straight to questions, but I ask our witnesses not to say if they agree with somebody; that just takes time. If there is a different point of view, we are interested in that.
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q Good afternoon everybody and thank you for taking the time to join us. I will start with Mario. I know that NIAB works with a range of partners across industry and academia. What effect do you think the Bill would have on research and the plant breeding industry? Where would you look to improve the Bill? What challenges or areas would you like to bring up?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q Thank you. That is helpful. Moving to Nigel, do you think the legislation allows for enough transparency from breeders? Could you talk a little bit about the current seed system and whether we need to enhance the regulatory framework?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q Thank you. Moving to Professor Martin, in your current work researching the bio-fortified tomato—which, as you said, is your fruit of choice—what are the benefits of using gene editing techniques?
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Q I can almost feel your excitement. Thank you. To Professor Harwood, as a member of the advisory committee on novel foods and processes, which I think you said was your other hat, what are your thoughts on food safety in regard to the use of precision bred technologies? It is obviously of paramount concern to not only those in this room, but the broader population, as we have heard.
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Okay, so more of a two-tier approach.
Jo Churchill (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)
Thank you.
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q Welcome to all of you, particularly the representative from NIAB. I have three quick questions, if we could rattle through them with each of you.
First, you will all recall the public confidence issues from 20 or 30 years ago, and that is one of the challenges now. I would like to hear whether you think the Bill has enough in it to reassure the public around some of those issues. Secondly, and in some ways related to that, most of you are plant focused, but this Bill obviously introduces animals, which is a very different set of issues and is, in some ways, perhaps more challenging. Do you think they should have been separated out? Thirdly, what do you think the public register will be used for and what benefit does it bring?
Finally, specifically for Cathie and Wendy, I had a constituent contact me, who has an issue around vitamin D being added to tomatoes. How will that constituent know whether these tomatoes have been modified in that way in future? It touches on Professor Harwood’s final point, and goes back to my initial point, on the question of labelling and reassurance. Where should that balance be struck?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Q But that is not in the Bill as it stands, is it?
Daniel Zeichner (Labour, Cambridge)
Not in yours, but possibly in others who are less public spirited.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q I absolutely agree with you, Mr Moore. Public confidence and transparency around all of this is vital, but we have heard criticisms today that the category of “precision bred organisms” is not recognised anywhere else in the world and is not based on scientific criteria, which could potentially present problems for trade in these goods. Do you know where the term “precision bred” came from?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Okay. I want to ask about clauses 6 to 9, which explain that applications for precision bred confirmation will be made to the Secretary of State by giving a marketing notice, and that he will then refer them to the advisory committee. For what seems to a layperson to be a fairly complex arrangement, it is rather lacking in detail. Do you feel confident that there will be sufficient protections in place, such as monitoring of persons who wish to apply for those confirmations? Do you have any concerns about that? Do you think that is an area that could be strengthened somewhat?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Would you like to see further detail in the Bill?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Okay. We have heard some criticism that there is not sufficient detail on the make-up of the advisory committee, for example, and concerns about not knowing who and what might be discussed on the board or the committee.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q So, 22 days from your application going in—to DEFRA officials, not Ministers?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Oh, right, okay. I see.
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
Q Just a follow-up to that: why can’t you do it for 20 days? What is happening during those 20 days?
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
Q I thought you said it had been approved, and then there were 20 days?
Kate Green (Labour, Stretford and Urmston)
I see. Thank you.
Graham Stringer (Labour, Blackley and Broughton)
If there are no other questions, I thank our witnesses for appearing and giving us such full answers. The Committee will meet again on Tuesday 5 July in Committee Room 11 to begin line-by-line scrutiny.