Food Waste and Food Distribution

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) on bringing this important debate to the Chamber.

The contribution that food waste makes to carbon emissions is well documented. More than 10 million tonnes of food is wasted every year in the UK alone, producing 18 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, which is a most potent greenhouse gas. It degrades more quickly, but it is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases. Let us not forget that. The food waste index report indicates that 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions are due to food waste—five times more than the aviation sector, as has been mentioned. We mention the aviation sector a lot, but food waste is one of the main contributors to global warming.

Much is made of commercial food waste, and legislation is often targeted at it. However, according to the Office for National Statistics, more than half of food waste happens in the home, and the majority of food that is thrown away is considered edible. Though businesses must bear a higher responsibility for reporting commercial food waste, households must also be incentivised to reduce their own food waste. We heard a powerful comment about what people can do to change their mindsets about food and about what is edible and what is not. There is a lot that households can do to reduce waste by changing behaviour. The waste and resources action programme suggests measures such as ensuring that fresh food is refrigerated below 5°C and purchasing loose, rather than packaged, fruit and vegetables.

More can also be done on date labels. WRAP suggests not putting a label on uncut fresh produce, unless it can be shown that a best before date reduces overall food waste. We Liberal Democrats strongly believe that the UK must adopt circular economy techniques and cut resource use, waste and pollution by maximising recovery, reuse, recycling and remanufacturing. We can do so much better on recycling; too much organic waste is still landfilled or incinerated. Scotland will ban the landfilling of organic waste by 2025, but a similar ban in England will not come into effect until 2028. A 2025 ban would cut emissions by an extra 13% by 2030. Why are the Government not bringing that date forward?

There are many examples from the voluntary sector of the distribution of food that would otherwise go to waste. Organisations such as FareShare, which has been mentioned several times, play a pivotal role in diverting surplus food from the food industry. It redistributes food to a network of 8,500 charities across the nation. In my constituency of Bath last year, FareShare delivered the equivalent of more than 230,000 meals through 27 local organisations. That is an enormous amount, and we must congratulate FareShare on its incredible work.

However, it should not be down to voluntary organisations to plug the gaps that the Government allow to proliferate. We must address the underlying causes of food poverty and over-production. Businesses are not obliged to disclose their food waste data publicly. Will the Government consider bringing in mandatory reporting of food waste for businesses? Mandatory reporting was included in the Government’s resources and waste strategy, among other legislative changes, such as a mandatory food waste prevention target. The changes in the strategy have been broadly welcomed by many, and dozens of large supermarkets have called for voluntary reporting to become mandatory, but we are yet to see the strategy implemented. Could the Government indicate when it will be?

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I am worried about others wanting to speak, so I will not.

Reducing food waste and improving food distribution is an opportunity to encourage sustainable, community-driven initiatives that reduce food waste and food miles. Recent research has indicated that the UK could grow up to 40% of its own fruit and vegetables by using urban green spaces. Liberal Democrats want to restore market garden hinterlands around our towns and cities. That would reduce food miles, provide satisfying jobs and reduce food waste and packaging. It would be a combination of small and medium-sized enterprise and community-supported agriculture.

In my constituency, projects such as CropDrop do incredible work to bridge the gap between locally grown produce and those in need. Since its inception, CropDrop has been a beacon of sustainability, highlighting the importance of allotment access and minimising the waste of locally grown food. In 2020 alone—its first year of operation—CropDrop completed over 150 journeys, delivering an estimated 21,000 meals. That is a prime example of the circular economy that Liberal Democrats want to see implemented across the UK.

Reducing food miles from plant to plate reduces emissions as well as wastage. However, we cannot leave filling the gap to the voluntary sector. The Government need to step up and act on this issue with a sense of urgency. Already inadequate action to address food waste has been delayed. Meanwhile, more food continues to go to landfill and emissions continue. We can do better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)]

It is nice to see you in the Chair this morning, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) for securing this important debate on food waste and redistribution.

As the SNP spokesperson for the environment and food, I welcome the opportunity to address this issue, which plagues our society: wastage and the unconscionable amount of food waste that we allow to happen each and every year. I will also highlight some of the excellent work being undertaken in Scotland in relation to this subject. It is not just a matter of leftovers on our plates, as important as that is; it is also about the obscene waste of perfectly good, nutritious food while people in our communities the length and breadth of these isles and beyond go hungry.

[Deidre Brock]

The managing director of Too Good To Go, an organisation that has been mentioned several times this morning, has said that the UK Government’s refusal to introduce mandatory food waste reporting is a blow to the UK food waste reduction waste efforts. There has been a lot of criticism about the constant delays on this issue. The European Commission has proposed introducing legally binding targets to try to limit food waste across the EU, leaving the UK behind once again in progressive regulation. Is my hon. Friend as dismayed as I am at the Government’s intransigence on this vital issue?

[Steven Bonnar]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes excellent points. We are all frustrated with the Government’s intransigence, not just in this area but right across the food, environment and rural affairs spectrum; some of the matters are really disappointing. I know that she is keen on these particular issues and that she has done some excellent work on them, so I commend her for that.

The food waste numbers are stark. In Scotland alone, we waste a staggering 1 million tonnes of food and drink every single year. Shockingly, around 60% of that waste originates within households, with an additional 25% of it coming from food and drink manufacturing. That is enough food to feed countless hungry families, yet it ends up rotting in landfill, emitting harmful greenhouse gases and contributing to the very climate crisis that we are also threatened by.

This issue is not just about individual actions, important as they are. It is about a systematic failure: the failure of the UK Government to take decisive action to address this issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) has just said. Instead, they prefer to prioritise their own narrow political agendas over the wellbeing of our planet and our people.

However, perhaps most frustrating is the fact that so much of the waste is entirely avoidable. We know that 70% of food waste is still edible and that preventing such waste in the first place is not only morally imperative but economically and environmentally sound.

UK Food Security

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Dyke]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I will come on to that later in my speech.

We must ensure sustainability in our food production, which encompasses the nutritional quality of food, its accessibility and the stability of supply. When we talk about the sustainability of food production, we must first look inwards at food being produced at home. British farming is facing a crisis. I hear daily from members of my own family, neighbours and friends about the challenges that they are facing, and their concerns and anxieties regarding their business.

For that reason, I feel honoured to work alongside organisations such as the Farm Safety Foundation, which campaigns to raise awareness of the mental health crisis facing farmers and farm workers. The immense pressure that the industry has faced over recent years is taking its toll financially, physically and mentally. Many farms across the country are on the precipice, with 110,000 farms having closed their farm gates since 1990. Many farmers do not know whether they will survive the next 12 months.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The Environmental Audit Committee has said that the food system globally and in the UK has become too driven by price alone. That race to the bottom for the cheapest food results in a squeeze on farmers’ incomes and results in the mental pressure the hon. Lady is talking about, as well as undermining food security. Does she agree that the Government must do more to ensure that UK trade policies support fair terms of trade for farmers here and abroad, rather than driving the import and export of cheap food?

[Sarah Dyke]

That is my very next point—the hon. Lady makes a very good one.

Unfair supermarket buying practices are leaving family farms teetering on a cliff edge. The current groceries supply code of practice is inadequate and rarely enforced. Nearly 70% of British fruit and veg farmers agree that we need tougher regulations to address the imbalance of power. Although our food system is structurally resilient, it is functionally non-resilient and it is not sustainable in the long term.

British farmers are receiving incoherent messages from the Government. On the one hand, they are told to engage more on sustainable practices, which is welcome, but on the other hand, this Conservative Government sign irresponsible trade deals with Australia and New Zealand that undercut our farmers on welfare practices and food standards. Good food security needs a trade policy that protects British agriculture.

We also need proper scrutiny of our trade deals. Even the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), did not have a positive opinion of them, stating that the UK’s free trade deal with Australia was

“not actually a very good deal for the UK.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]

We need to support the production of sustainable food at home and allow parity in the market. We should allow the system to put more emphasis on localism to provide a food system that is resilient and delivers a vibrant, cyclical local economy. I represent a constituency in rural Somerset, where people live next to local food suppliers, but their food is not always available to buy locally, despite the wishes of those producing it.

Polling by the Sustain alliance states that 75% of farmers indicated that gaining access to alternative, local markets gave them opportunities to demand a more competitive price for their produce, while keeping revenue local to create local jobs, and incentivise further investment on their farms. The current market limits those opportunities, whether that be difficulties with planning applications, stopping the construction of farm shops, for example, or the restrictions with buyer contracts that prevent farmers from shortening the supply chain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in managing to squeeze that in. That was an excellent bit of Order Paper operation. I am happy to meet him to talk about what we are doing in his area to smooth the experience of victims of crime who have to go through the criminal justice system. They have suffered trauma already; the system should not add to that.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

4. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to prosecute people for the trafficking of vulnerable adults and children into the UK.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Courts)]

The CPS has specially trained prosecutors who work closely with law enforcement agencies to bring to justice those who commit the heinous crimes to which the hon. Lady refers. The CPS has, for example, recently obtained convictions in the first prosecution for trafficking people for organ harvesting. That presented many complex and difficult challenges, and I commend the teams in the CPS for their work on that.

[Deidre Brock]

Last year, the number of potential UK victims of modern slavery reached a record level, with referrals for women and children both at all-time highs. In 2022, the average wait for a first decision in modern slavery cases was six days. In 2023, it was 23 days. Modern slavery is getting worse, not better, and now the UK Government are actively making progress on seeking to strip people of modern slavery protections. When will the Government accept that this is a crisis, and take the urgent action needed?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Lady is quite right to draw attention to the seriousness of this crime, but the Government accept the urgency, which is why, for example, we have the CPS available to provide early advice to law enforcement in exactly the cases that she refers to. We have specialist prosecutors providing that advice, so that we have the right advice and the right charges against the right people at the right time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

4. What recent assessment she has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the duty and customs regime following the UK’s exit from the EU on the fresh food and drinks sector.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

7. What recent assessment she has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the duty and customs regime following the UK’s exit from the EU on the fresh food and drinks sector.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The Government recognise the importance of trade in the food and drink sector. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regularly reviews UK import and export trade statistics, including from the European Union. In April, the Government presented their draft border target operating model for all goods imports into Great Britain. To ensure enough time for proper preparedness, we will implement the model across three milestones between the end of October and 31 October 2024. In the longer term, the UK single trade window will enable all information required to import and export goods to be submitted to border agencies through one interface, further simplifying the process for traders.

[Dr Coffey]

It is the European Union that has put certain checks in place in its export arrangements. We have had a pretty open door since we left the European Union, which is why we are implementing the target operating model to ensure that we introduce further controls, mindful of the biosecurity risks that we face.

[Deidre Brock]

Mike Park, the chief executive officer of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, told The New York Times that his industry members were the “poster boys” of Brexit, but now admit that Brexit has delivered nothing, saying:

“It has left some very negative legacies and hasn’t provided any of the positives we were promised.”

Given the latest polling shows that only 9% think that the decision to leave the EU was more of a success than a failure and 62% describe it as more of a flop, and given the damage to Scotland’s global fresh food and drinks sector, can the Secretary of State finally agree that the only Brexit growth our economy is experiencing is in managed decline?

[Dr Coffey]

What can I say? Rubbish. The quota for British fishermen, including Scottish fishermen, has gone up since we left the European Union. We have signed new trade deals, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership being the latest. We have announced an extra five agricultural attachés around the world, making 16 in total, who will promote great British food, including fish, around the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

7. What recent assessment the Committee has made of the potential impact of (a) the Elections Act 2022 and (b) provisions in the Online Safety Bill on the transparency of political campaigning communications.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

The commission’s view is that the digital imprints requirement in the Elections Act 2022 will increase transparency by helping voters to understand who is paying to target them online. It could provide further transparency if the requirement was extended to cover all digital material from unregistered campaigners, regardless of whether they paid to promote it. The commission has said that other changes in the Act relating to non-party campaigners will bring limited additional transparency while increasing the complexity of the law. As currently drafted, the Online Safety Bill would introduce new freedom of speech protections for some campaigning content, but it does not include any provisions that would directly affect the transparency of political campaign activities.

[Deidre Brock]

Today, openDemocracy and Who Funds You? released an audit showing that the least transparently funded think-tanks raised more than £14 million in the past two years from mystery donors. Those think-tanks appear across the media, such as on the BBC. They have secured hundreds of meetings with Ministers since 2012, and advised the likes of the former Prime Minister on policy choices that were subsequently proven disastrous. What steps is the committee taking to ensure that the funding of such think-tanks is transparent and accountable, and that foreign funding bodies are not able to commandeer our politics?

[Cat Smith]

The commission regulates the spending of organisations campaigning for or against a political party or candidate during the regulated period ahead of an election, or for a particular outcome ahead of a referendum. It also regulates donations to political parties and candidates. Unless an organisation is engaged in regulated campaigning activity, it will fall outside the commission’s area of responsibility. The commission does not have a role in regulating the spending of political activity more generally.

As for foreign money, the commission is committed to ensuring that political funding is transparent and to preventing unlawful foreign money from entering UK politics. It continues to recommend changes to the law to ensure that voters can have greater confidence in political finance in the UK. That includes duties on parties for enhanced due diligence and risk assessments of donations and a requirement for companies to have made enough money in the UK to fund any donations.

Support for Local Food Infrastructure

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Robertson. I commend the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this debate. His passion for the subject has always been clear in the time I have known him in Parliament. He started with some quite startling facts about the nine largest retailers controlling over 90% of the market in food, and the huge percentage of fish caught here that is processed off-shore and the impact that has. He also expressed some concerns about local food partnerships. We heard from other Members about the planning changes that are needed, and how £10 spent on a local box scheme means much greater spend in the local area. That point was well made. The need for a wider conversation about our food system was another important point.

I thank Sustain for its very useful briefing ahead of this debate. Much of it reflects what is going on in Scotland, where food policy is devolved. As I often do, I will share with Members some of what is already under way in Scotland. One of Sustain’s recommendations is for all local authorities that do not have a food partnership to aim to start one, in collaboration with the Sustainable Food Places Network, by 2025. Scottish councils are well represented in that network; half of all our local authorities now have a food partnership and are members of Sustainable Food Places—with more to follow in the next few years.

Last year, the SNP Scottish Government ran a consultation on a local food strategy. It had three main themes: connecting people with food, connecting local producers with buyers, and harnessing the buying power of public sector procurement. Nearly 300 people participated in 18 workshops designed and co-ordinated by Nourish Scotland in partnership with Scotland’s Sustainable Food Places Network and the Scottish Government. There was broad support from everyone for local food, but a number of barriers were identified, some of which we have heard about today. They include a need for suitable infrastructure and short supply chains, for local food to be affordable and accessible for all, and for more land to be made available and accessible for those who wish to enter the market. There was also acknowledgment of the value of dynamic purchasing systems and the need to extend public sector procurement for local food to all publicly owned settings, which I note is one of Sustain’s key recommendations. Work is now under way to address the key challenges identified, building on the ideas and suggestions made at that time, as well as relevant Scottish Government strategies and policies.

Underpinning that action is the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament in June. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that Act, which begins to lay the foundation for a transformation of Scotland’s food system. It requires the Scottish Government and a range of public bodies to produce good food nation plans that are geared towards ensuring that high-quality, locally sourced food is affordable, accessible and a practical, everyday reality for everyone. An independent food commission will also be established which will scrutinise and make recommendations on those plans and give progress reports.

Alongside that, the Scottish Government’s vision for agriculture, published in March, aims to transform how we support farming and food production to deliver nutritious food that is local and sustainably produced. Work is under way now with farmers, crofters and land managers to ensure that they have the right support to continue delivering high farming standards and to create more localised supply chains, enhance producer value and cut food miles. That ties in with the consultation on the forthcoming agriculture Bill at Holyrood, which covers a range of areas including promoting quality and sustainable food production, and ensuring a fair income for farmers and crofters, which is crucial.

Another tangible way in which the SNP Government are investing in and boosting the profile of local and regional produce is through the regional food fund, which awards projects grants of up to £5,000. Since its launch four years ago, the fund has supported an incredibly eclectic range of collaborative initiatives from all over Scotland. This year, 24 projects have been granted awards, from food and drink festivals and events to food tourism collaborations, and from online and physical markets to e-commerce. Regional food groups will deliver projects such as a “buy local” campaign from Eat and Drink Dundee, and a food heritage project by Lanarkshire Larder.

A number of hon. Members have made the point that harnessing local food is all the more crucial in the context of the cost of living crisis and the need to bolster our food security. This summer, the annual rate of inflation reached its highest level since 1982, and perhaps even before. Food and non-alcoholic drink prices were 12.6% higher in the year to July 2022. The research firm Kantar forecasts that the average annual grocery bill will rise by £380—a shocking figure. We know that low-income households are hit the hardest by price increases, as they spend a higher proportion than average of their income on energy and food.

Supply chain challenges, rising energy, fertiliser and transport costs, as well as labour shortages, have contributed to escalating prices. Although those problems have been exacerbated by Russia’s war on Ukraine, our food security was already under threat. Recent years have seen an unfair burden placed on community organisations such as food banks, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted very effectively. The folks running those services do an utterly incredible job. I have to commend those operating food banks in my own constituency—they are providing lifeline support—but food banks are a symptom of a dysfunctional food and social security system.

The Scottish Government intend to incorporate the right to adequate food in Scots law. A draft national plan has been published to end the need for food banks as a primary response to food insecurity. Achieving that means focusing on tackling the causes of poverty holistically, through fair work, social security and helping to manage the cost of living. For instance, the SNP Government have used their limited powers to increase Scottish social security payments by 6%, and have just announced that they are increasing the Scottish child payment to £25 per child for those who are eligible. We urgently need a similar raise in reserved benefits. Another reserved area that we are greatly concerned about is the UK’s pursuit of post-Brexit free trade deals, which is a subject that was well aired in the debate on the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill earlier this week.

I hope the Minister has heard the very sensible suggestions that Members have made, as well as their commitment and passion for local food production and the benefits it can bring. I hope he will take that forward in his new post.

Protecting and Restoring Nature: COP15 and Beyond

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it. She began with a typically well-informed and passionate speech, and one thing among many that struck me is that our only world is on fire and being bulldozed, which set the scene for a debate that can only lead those viewing it to agree entirely.

The hon. Lady spoke of the recent negotiations in Nairobi, and how the proposals are littered with brackets, as they remain to be ratified. We all devoutly hope those brackets will be removed, because Governments must provide robust commitments, with action targets, at COP15. Governments cannot be allowed off the hook and to fudge the commitments with warm words; they must have the targets, monitoring, enforcement and funding required to achieve them.

I also commend the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for highlighting how alarmingly quickly this is happening. The speed of biodiversity loss, even among wildlife in the UK, is terrifying. We are clearly guilty of taking biodiversity for granted.

So the COP15 biodiversity conference in December comes at an extremely critical moment. As we have heard, biodiversity is declining more rapidly than at any point in human history. The Aichi biodiversity targets set in 2010 have largely been missed, and nature continues to decline, with more than one in five species globally at risk of extinction. In the UK alone, more than 1,000 of the more than 8,000 species assessed in the 2019 state of nature report are threatened with extinction. As we have heard, once common species such as the swift, the house martin and the greenfinch have been moved on to the red list in the latest “Birds of Conservation Concern” list for the UK, meaning that they are in critical decline and in need of urgent action.

Scientists are warning that the Amazon rainforest is at a dangerous tipping point that could trigger a mass and irreversible loss of trees. Warming seas and ocean acidification are wreaking havoc on coral reefs. As any of us who heard Sir Patrick Vallance and his colleagues’ evidence the other day will know, biodiversity loss and the biodiversity emergency are intrinsically linked with the climate crisis. It is therefore imperative that all countries at COP15 recognise the scale of the biodiversity crisis that faces us all and that international leaders use the conference to urgently set the most ambitious targets possible for biodiversity and nature protection.

The IPBES—Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services—assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature, released this week, bears stark witness to the catastrophic extent to which humans are overexploiting wild species and habitats, and concludes that a key driver of biodiversity loss is the failure of national Governments to include nature and wildlife as a consideration in their decision making. It also found that where nature has been considered, it has been primarily for its economically productive aspects, such as food production. That is why it is such a disappointment to see the UK Government’s recent abandonment of wildlife protection conditions for farm subsidies in England in favour of sheer food production capacity. We all recognise, of course, the food security issues we face globally, but in addressing those we cannot ignore the pressing need for action on these matters.

Whoever the UK Prime Minister is in December, they must attend the conference and fully commit the UK Government to addressing this biodiversity emergency. The fight against climate change and the biodiversity crisis cannot be abandoned to placate uninformed naysayers, and we fully support the call by a range of non-governmental organisations for the new Prime Minister to convene a meeting of leaders in advance to help foster international consensus. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to that suggestion.

If the UK Government need an example of how to demonstrate global leadership on this issue, they do not need to look far. The Scottish Government were among the first globally to declare a climate and biodiversity emergency. Scotland was also the first country in the world to complete and submit a full report on all 20 Aichi targets, doing so in 2016. Scotland’s national economy and its marine economy will be vital to securing a net zero future, with nature-based solutions accounting for about 30% of the emissions reductions needed. But in turn, we must ensure it is protected and enhanced.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

rose—

[Deidre Brock]

I had not noticed the right hon. Gentleman coming in, but of course I will give way to him.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have been here for quite a while now—I am just a quiet presence, so I would not be noticed.

With all that the hon. Lady has set out being the case, does she agree that it remains incomprehensible that the Scottish and UK Governments both continue to allow industrial-scale fishing with gillnets, which not only leaves a massive amount of plastic pollution but is an utterly unsustainable way of catching fish?

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Absolutely, these are things that the Scottish Government are of course looking at—I am not sure about the UK Government’s position. He will know that Marine Scotland and its partners have developed a Scottish marine protected area monitoring strategy, which will look at issues such as he has raised. It also intends to add to the existing marine protected areas network, which will cover at least 10% of Scotland’s seas, and is introducing a strengthened framework to help address situations such as the one he describes. I am well aware of the issues associated with gillnet fishing and the accumulated debris that it results in. We should certainly continue to press all Governments on that matter, at all times. I am very much aware of that.

I know that Members here quite often roll their eyes about these sorts of things, but I have to say that Scotland is pressing ahead on this matter. It is taking action, and it would be useful if we all shared best practice rather than rolling our eyes and thinking, “Here’s Scotland talking about itself again.” We can all learn from each other at all times.

[Barry Gardiner]

I certainly would not roll my eyes, and I pay tribute to the Scottish Government for setting up the natural capital convention. It must be almost 10 years ago now that the first natural capital convention in the world took place, so Scotland has shown leadership on these matters. The point is that we must all try to learn from each other and make sure that we get the best out of it.

[Deidre Brock]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Further to that, a global partnership led by the Scottish Government produced a statement of intent known as the Edinburgh declaration, calling for transformative action to be taken at all levels to halt biodiversity loss. With signatories from every continent, the declaration called for greater prominence to be given to the role that regional Governments, cities and local authorities play in delivering a new global framework of targets. The Scottish Government are backing this up by enshrining nature protection in law and prioritising biodiversity across a range of policy areas.

The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who is no longer in her place, and other Members who have spoken in this debate, will be pleased to hear that, since 2012, the Scottish Government have funded the restoration of more than 25,000 hectares of degraded Scottish peatland, with further plans for the next 10 years, backed by £250 million of funding. Peat stores more carbon than all other vegetation types in the world combined and is a vital nature-based solution to protecting biodiversity.

In Scotland, we are also revitalising our woodlands and forests. In 2019 alone, 22 million trees were planted in Scotland, comprising nearly 84% of the UK’s mainland tree planting. The Government are supporting the restoration and expansion of Scotland’s rainforest and establishing a national register of ancient woodlands.

The preservation of marine habitats, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion mentioned, is equally crucial. That is why the Scottish Government plan to designate a suite of highly protected marine areas covering at least 10% of Scotland’s seas. That will provide additional environmental preservation over and above the existing MPA network by establishing sites that will be protected against extractive, destructive or depositional activities.

We have talked about biodiversity spreading across a range of sectors, but it is also one of the main principles of the new Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, under which Ministers, relevant authorities and organisations must have regard to halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity when preparing national food plans, as planned under the Bill. One of the everyday ways that we can halt biodiversity loss is by reducing food waste. Currently, about 30% of all food produced globally goes uneaten.

Last month, Scotland also became the first part of the UK to implement a ban on many of the most problematic single-use plastics. Plastics and waste, as we know, can wreak havoc on our natural environments, as Everyday Plastic and Greenpeace highlighted just yesterday as they launched the results of their big plastics count.

By the end of 2022, the Scottish Government will publish a new biodiversity strategy for the next 25 years, which will propose to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and reverse it by 2045. That will help guide the way that Scots use and manage land and Scotland’s approach to protecting habitats and ecosystems, which will mean a substantial restoration and regeneration of biodiversity across our land, freshwater and sea. Vitally, a series of outcomes will be developed across rural, marine, freshwater, coastal and urban environments. The plans to introduce a natural environment Bill will put in place a robust statutory enforcing, target setting, monitoring and reporting framework. Those targets will be based on an overarching goal of preventing any further extinctions of wildlife, halting declines by 2030 and making real progress in restoring Scotland’s natural environment by 2045. The Scottish Government will also ensure that a review of environmental justice and the case for an environmental court takes place during this parliamentary Session.

At COP15, we need to see similar transformational action targets from all the world’s Governments. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) notes, it is important that we address the task with optimism. That is where we need the UK Government to step up, raise the political profile of biodiversity to the highest level, show global leadership and press hard for international commitments to halt and start to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. Ministers should listen to their chief scientific adviser on this. At COP15 we must see a commitment to sustainable solutions that offer real results.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

I was going to come to that later, but I will respond to it now. I am sure the hon. Member would not expect me to be able to speak for whoever may win the election to be leader of our party and the next Prime Minister. However, I can assure her that I know that our party is committed to this issue, and that is not going to change suddenly. The Conservative party is very aware of its importance, and I am sure that, whoever takes over as Prime Minister in a few weeks’ time, we will continue to champion nature recovery globally and that there will be a senior level presence at COP15. I would not dare to say whether that will be the future Prime Minister, but I join her in saying that I would certainly like that to be the case.

[Deidre Brock]

The Minister is obviously not able to give an indication yet of whether the Prime Minister will be attending COP15, but can he indicate whether a role equivalent to that of the COP26 President will be created to reflect the importance of that summit?

[Steve Double]

I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Member does not think that is me, because it is very clearly part of my new role as a Minister to take up this cause. To be serious, I take her point. We do need to take this issue seriously, as this is a critical moment for nature globally. The UK is proud to be playing a leading role, and I am sure that, whoever attends and whatever title they have, we will continue to play a global leadership role in ensuring that we set the world back on the road to nature recovery. We recognise the importance of COP15 as a key moment in that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right about the presidency, which goes with the host nation, but I think the SNP spokesperson was talking about someone in the Government having that prominent role. I think that is correct.

[Deidre Brock]

indicated assent.

[Steve Double]

As I was saying, we are leading from the front to ensure that we have the policies and finance in place so that these ambitions are realised. As leader of the Global Ocean Alliance and ocean co-chair of the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, we have worked closely with Costa Rica and France to bring together over 100 countries in support of the 30 by ’30 target. I am very proud, and I believe we should all be very proud, of the UK’s leadership to date in bringing parties together and building consensus through partnerships such as the leaders’ pledge for nature, which has now been endorsed by more than 90 political leaders.

We are determined to work with fellow countries to translate our joint ambitions into action on the ground, by building consensus and finding solutions to help agree a strong global biodiversity framework. To secure not just 30 by 30, but all the targets that are so necessary to protect nature, we need urgently to demonstrate our collective seriousness about closing the large funding gap over the course of the next decade. The UK brought nature from the margins of the global climate debate into the heart of our response at COP26. Ensuring that promises made in Glasgow are honoured in full, that we build on them, and that they are translated into effective action as soon as possible are huge priorities for the UK in the year of our presidency and beyond.

Making sure that aid is aligned with our goals is also hugely important. Indeed, we are leading by example, by doubling our international climate finance, investing at least £3 billion of that in nature, including nature-based solutions, urging other donor countries to do the same, and launching a pipeline of new programmes that will help people to protect and restore biodiversity on land and sea. We are calling on multilateral development banks to mainstream nature across their entire portfolios, as well as supporting countries when fulfilling their commitments to the Leaders Pledge for Nature. We are also pulling every lever we have to get private finance flowing in the right direction, from reducing risk to increasing investment.

Adopting a new framework at COP15 will not be sufficient if we do not also put in place mechanisms to ensure that countries can implement it. Frameworks need to result in action on the ground. The global failure to achieve the Aichi targets was driven by partial and insufficient implementation. That was arguably because parties found it challenging to translate international targets into effective national action that could be delivered at the scale and pace needed. The post-2020 global diversity framework must be underpinned by enhanced planning, reporting and review mechanisms that will hold parties to account for their commitments and support implementation—that was the point about data raised by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). It is so important that we help countries to develop those capabilities.

The UK, in partnership with Norway and the UN environment programme world conservation monitoring centre, has led a programme of workshops to support discussions between parties to enhance mechanisms for planning, reporting and review, with the aim of strengthening the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and achieving the ambitious 2050 goals and 2030 targets. To summarise, the UK remains committed to securing an ambitious outcome at COP15—one that sets the direction and leads to action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss globally by 2030. We will work closely with China as the presidency, and support Canada as host in achieving those outcomes.

Many excellent contributions from across the House have raised many important points, and I will try quickly to respond to some of them. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked about the UK’s goals, and I tried to outline those in my response. We are clear about the goals that we need from COP15, and we must ensure that they are actionable. We need to see action. We do not need just more targets set or policies agreed; we need them to be put into action on the ground. She asked whether I would commit to keep Parliament updated, and as long as I am in post, I will be more than happy to do that. She also asked about the next Prime Minister attending COP15, and I have already addressed that issue.

The hon. Lady also raised the important matter of the maritime environment. As an MP who represents a coastal constituency—one of only three constituencies that has two separate coastlines—I am absolutely aware of just how important that issue is. We have made great progress on protecting our maritime environment, with over 100 maritime protection areas now in place, but I accept that we need to do more, and that we need to improve enforcement of the protection of those areas. I am more than happy to look into what more we can do to make sure those conservation areas are protected effectively—that it is not just a paper exercise. I would also point to the work we have already done in banning microplastics and the other measures we have taken to prevent maritime pollution, so I take the hon. Lady’s point, but she can be assured that the maritime environment is something I take very seriously.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

This is, of course, English legislation. As I said on Second Reading, the regulation of genetically modified foods is a devolved matter. The Scottish Government have been clear that they are opposed to GM food while they sensibly await confirmation of the EU’s position on gene editing.

The potential impact of the Bill on Scotland, through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, must be recognised and commented on. Indeed, as we have heard from the Opposition, the Regulatory Policy Committee and others, there are concerns about a variety of trade, transparency and marketing issues that were not addressed in the impact statement. The Scottish Government have been clear that we intend to stay aligned with EU regulations as far as is possible and practicable.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I have been listening closely to what the hon. Lady has said. At the very beginning of her speech, she said that the Scottish Government were against genetic modification or genetic editing, but in her next sentence she said, “but we are waiting to see what the EU is going to do.” Which is it? Are they against genetic editing or are they waiting to see what the EU does before they change the law in Scotland?

[Deidre Brock]

It is quite simple. We are currently opposed to GM food, but obviously we do not want to erect further barriers to our largest market, so we are waiting to see the position after the review.

The amendments and new clauses that I have tabled and which we will discuss later on seek to amend the 2020 Act to ensure that the Scottish Parliament’s authority to legislate in the marketing of precision bred organisms is respected, and seek to prevent the operative parts of the Bill from coming into force until a common framework agreement on precision breeding has been agreed between the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I would be grateful if the Minister, when she rises to speak, could give an explanation of why that common framework procedure was not followed before the Bill was introduced.

If the UK Government press ahead without taking such steps, we are concerned about the impact on exports due to what is currently a much higher bar for approval in the EU. We heard criticisms in the evidence sessions that the category of precision bred organisms is not recognised anywhere else in the world, and is not based on scientific criteria, which could present problems for trade in those goods. If the EU retains its current opposition to gene editing, there are, for example, concerns about the export of Scottish salmon to Europe, and to France in particular. It has been suggested that products might be considered on a product-by-product basis, but we have heard little detail and there are real questions about cost and workability.

On the need for alignment with the EU, I have tabled new clause 10, which would ensure that, if gene editing does get the green light, we ensure strong labelling and traceability. Otherwise, how do we prove to European importers, while the EU has its current approach, that the product has not been contaminated? I know that is a loaded word, but it expresses the views of a considerable number of people who are concerned about GM foods.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. Is she saying that we should not bring the regulations into force until the EU has brought its regulations into place?

[Deidre Brock]

Yes, I am. I thought I was fairly clear on that, and I think the Scottish Government’s position is very clear. I refer the hon. Member to the letter that the Scottish Government wrote to the UK Government on the issue recently.

My new clause would ensure clear and visible labelling—

[The Chair]

Order. I gently say to the hon. Lady that we are discussing the amendments before us—amendment 29, 30 and 28. I do not want her to use this debate as an opportunity to give us a taster of her future speeches. She will have plenty opportunity to make her case on her amendments. Could she make sure her remarks relate to amendments 29, 30 and 28?

[Deidre Brock]

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Davies. If the Opposition were to choose to press amendment 29 to a vote, I would support it. From the moment the Bill was published, the Scottish Government raised the issue as a direct threat to Scottish interests. The EU is not considering animals as part of its review, so the potential for the UK Government to align with our largest trading partner and its eventual position is even further reduced by this measure. I look forward very much to the Minister’s comments on those points and to the points I raise in the future.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for his opening statement, which highlighted that Labour is supportive of science and innovation, and of making sure that as a country we optimise those things in which we really do excel.

I acknowledge the support that the Bill has received from the research community, industry and a broad base of stakeholders. We heard in the evidence sessions how important and exciting this area is, and about the potential benefits for the food system and the environment. None the less, at the outset, I would like to state that I appreciate the concerns raised. I hope that the debates that follow and the way in which we proceed reassure the hon. Member and others. We intend to move slowly and steadily and to follow the science.

As explained on Second Reading, the Government believe that legislation has not kept pace with developments. The existing provision is some 30 years old, and our understanding of the safety and benefits of technology such as gene editing has advanced significantly. We have already taken that first step in regulatory reform with the statutory instrument that came into force in April. It has already enabled exciting research in the hon. Gentleman’s and my part of the world, East Anglia, into high vitamin D tomatoes, which could bring health benefits to many, although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s observation that even in that case we need to think carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

As I have said, we heard from Dr Lewis of Genus in our evidence sessions. PRRS is a truly devastating disease, taking hold of pig populations both in the intensive and extensive rearing systems across the UK, and indeed across the world. It causes high mortality, suffering and acute antibiotic use at a time when we are trying to address challenges such as antimicrobial resistance, and it costs about £1.75 billion across the European Union and the UK alone. I ask Members to consider why we would not want the Bill to allow technology to acquire the ability to alleviate the effects of disease on the health and welfare of pigs and other animals.

[Deidre Brock]

I appreciate the Minister’s enthusiasm and her ambitions for everything that the Bill might be able to achieve, but given that Europe is not looking at gene editing for animals as a part of its review—certainly not at the moment—how will that further affect our trade in animals with Europe, particularly if no labels or traceability are attached to these animals?

[Jo Churchill]

I believe that the hon. Lady has tabled amendments on that subject, and we will come on to discuss them. In my view, this is part of our responsibility, alongside that of the scientists, who are at the forefront of what they do. I would gently temper the hon. Lady’s description: this is not unbounded enthusiasm; it is pragmatism. It is about a deep belief in our science and our ability to do good; that is different from enthusiasm. We are building in transparency, and we need to utilise those skills. On my visits to these great institutes around the country, I have met scientists and researchers from across the world, not only Europe. Although I take the hon. Lady’s point about gravity economics, what we do has a broader benefit to people across the world. There are clear benefits.

We need to safeguard welfare, and that is why we have laid down in the Bill a framework for the regulatory system. It is imperative that we get this right. That is why it is important that we work with expert groups, industry and non-governmental organisations on enabling the right regulations to ensure that the system is effective, safe and workable.

All animals are protected by comprehensive and robust legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which makes it an offence to cause any captive animal unnecessary suffering and to not provide for their welfare needs. The Bill’s system to protect animal health and welfare will work with those regulations. The Animal Welfare Act is supplemented by detailed regulations on farmed animal welfare. The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 include specific requirements to protect animals that are bred or kept. The regulations prohibit breeding procedures that cause or are likely to cause suffering or injury. They state:

“Animals may only be kept for farming purposes if it can reasonably be expected, on the basis of their genotype or phenotype, that they can be kept without any detrimental effect on their health or welfare.”

In addition, animals used in scientific research projects, which would be the first stage of developing a breeding line using precision breeding for animals, are protected by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—ASPA—which was referred to in the evidence we took from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which was glad to see that that is the case. This legislation ensures that animals are only ever used in science where the potential harm to animals is limited, there are no alternatives, and where the number of animals is the minimum needed to achieve a scientific benefits, and that includes a harm-benefit analysis.

The measures we are introducing support the regulations by requiring an animal welfare declaration and independent scrutiny by an expert group before an animal can be marketed. We are ensuring that the health and welfare of the animal and its offspring will not be adversely affected by any trait resulting from precision breeding.

If we want to drive innovation and investment in this area while continuing to be at the forefront of animal welfare, we need to move forward and show how the best regulatory systems can work. The Bill provides a clear signal that the UK is the best place to conduct the research and bring products to market. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

When we discuss clauses 11 to 13, I might raise some examples of where I am concerned about animal welfare standards. I do not think the farm animal welfare codes are particularly effective. There was concern about seven years ago that the Government wanted to put them on a self-regulatory footing. I need to check what happened with that, because there was public outcry about self-regulation on that front. The Government did a complete U-turn, but I am not sure whether they have tried to do it by stealth in the time since. I have a mental note to check what has happened to that since I played a leading role in trying to stop it being moved to that footing.

There have been undercover exposés filmed at certain farms about the way some animals are treated. I like to think I have a very good relationship with the National Farmers Union and Minette Batters. The vast majority of farmers want to do the right thing, but looking at some of the red tractor farms that are meant to be higher welfare and seeing what is being uncovered as a result of people going and filming, we cannot be complacent. The red tractor mark is meant to be a badge that consumers can trust to mean higher welfare, but there are many examples where they do not seem to have met those standards. That is proof that something is going wrong in the system.

[Deidre Brock]

I draw attention to clause 17, which is about the importation of precision bred organisms into England in this case, although the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 means that it can affect the situation in Scotland, too. I am not clear what kind of monitoring there would be of the gene editing procedures that are taking place in the countries that will be importing those organisms into the UK.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That is a fair point. Hopefully we will come to that when we get to clause 17.

To conclude, Joanna Lewis at the Soil Association talked about this “unhelpful trajectory”, and how that is in conflict with the Government’s goals on the sustainable farming transition. She says:

“We therefore need to ensure that we are not accelerating that trend through carte blanche deregulation.”—[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 56, Q92.]

I agree. She goes on to say that there is an opportunity to put good governance at the heart of the Bill, and to get that public interest test in there, which I support.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Third sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

That is helpful. I am sure you are aware that there are other views on that. Thank you, Chair.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Q You spoke about discussions with the devolved Administrations about this. I heard this morning that the discussions around this did not go through the common framework procedure. Are you able to tell me why that was?

Professor Henderson: I am afraid I am not. As a chief scientific adviser I am here to talk about the science. I spoke to my scientific counterparts and officials in the devolved Administrations who have a scientific interest, but I am not aware of the process you are talking about.

[Deidre Brock]

Q I am told that it is only being offered retrospectively, which seems odd. Obviously, Scotland has said that it will wait until the consultation with the EU is completed. What will happen if the EU goes down a different route with gene editing and genetically modified organisms? We are trying to export products to the EU but the EU Commission’s first question, probably quite rightly, will be, “How do you prove whether the product is non-gene edited or gene edited?” Once it is in the environment, as I understand it, it is very difficult to remove, particularly in the case of crops. How will we do that without labelling and proper traceability schemes?

Professor Henderson: This is a double-edged sword because it is genuinely scientifically impossible to tell precision bred organisms from traditionally bred organisms in some cases, and therefore this will become a problem, regardless of the legislative environment that we work under, and it will be harder and harder to trace these types of organisms through systems globally, not just in the EU.

In terms of this legislation, all varieties that are approved for growth will be on a seed varieties listing and will be designated. It will clear that they are PBOs, as per their listing. So if you are shipping tomatoes or something, it will be possible for that to be a discrete product that can be traced to the extent that is required through that process.

It becomes more problematic with products where things may be blended, and then it will be up to the producers or those selling to make sure that they have a supply chain that will satisfy the people they are selling to.

[Deidre Brock]

Right, fine.

[The Chair]

Order. I just want to say there are two minutes left.

[Deidre Brock]

Q I have one question left. If a gene edited animal breeds with a non-gene edited animal and produces offspring, how would they be described? What label could be used to describe those products?

Professor Henderson: Just to make sure I understand you correctly, are you talking about a precision bred organism breeding with a non-precision bred organism?

[Deidre Brock]

Yes.

Professor Henderson: You might be better placed asking this question to animal breeders later today, but I imagine this is to do with the way in which you describe the varieties and the strains of livestock when you are sending it to market.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Yes. Are you saying you cannot answer that and that I am better off speaking to animal breeders?

Professor Henderson: From a scientific point of view, I will again come back to the point that a precision bred organism and precision bred livestock is scientifically equivalent to something that could have been produced with traditional breeding approaches, so scientifically that coupling would not create a concern.

[The Chair]

We have just under a minute. Do you have a question, Daniel Zeichner?

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I understand that point. Thank you.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Professor Whitelaw, I hope to visit you soon at the Roslin Institute, along with your local MP, who has spoken glowingly of you for some time. The Scottish Government want to wait for the EU consultation in this area to be complete before approaching gene editing in the way that the UK Government are. That presents potential problems if the EU decides to stay where it is or just moves marginally, or has a different approach from the UK Government’s approach. If that happens, how do you see that affecting trade with the EU and our export trade there? This is the big concern for the Government. What is your answer to that?

Professor Whitelaw: I am not sure I can comment on export trade. It is not an area that I am knowledgeable about, but maybe I can comment more generally. One of the benefits of the Bill is to give momentum to investment in this area. I do not mean just money, but talent coming into the field, into the universities, and students knocking on my door and saying, “I want to do a PhD on genome-edited animals.” I see that increasing and I see that as a huge benefit for the UK and for Scotland. To me as a researcher, that is one of the major drivers—to see that investment opening up. Yes, it will happen in the commercial world. We have seen how other countries that brought in legislation on genome editing have seen a proliferation of small and medium-sized enterprises and innovative ideas coming through. That is what I want to see come out of the Bill. That is the bit that drives me. I am really not knowledgeable about the impact on exports.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Dr Lewis, you were discussing the PRRS—the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome—that you are working on. Could you tell me how quickly, once this Bill comes law—if it becomes law—you will be able to scale up and it all becomes commercially available? If you could have a stab at that, it would be helpful.

Dr Lewis: It depends on the timeline and when the Bill would come into effect. Rather than talking about a specific gene edit, one way to also ask the question, even in the current state, is: when I produce an elite animal today, how long is it until it really impacts the whole flow of pigs? I can answer that perfectly today. Based on the structure of the pig industry, you have to have pure line animals, then you have to create crossbred animals that are the mothers of the commercial offspring, and then you use a terminal sire. Basically, if you look at getting the whole pyramid to be 100% influenced by new genetics—you are putting in three different levels, three breeds coming together—that would roughly be about five years.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Five years. That is interesting. Thank you. I have asked other witnesses that question just to see how long it would likely take.

Finally, Roslin has got a tremendous reputation for really high quality research. Do you think the Bill guarantees the absolute traceability of gene edited products and also the strictest possible monitoring of what science is doing in this area, or is there more that could be included in the Bill to ensure that?

Professor Whitelaw: I will answer the science question, then touch on the traceability. Our science is very well scrutinised through current legislation, because it is under the contained use. We have to go through a variety of permissions before we do an experiment with animals, and that is visible. Therefore, I do not think the Bill will necessarily affect the regulation of what we are doing; but as I said, I hope it increases the volume of what we do.

When it comes to traceability, which was mentioned earlier, genome-editing technology generates the equivalent of what is naturally found. Every animal born carries 40 de novo mutations, and genome editing adds another one to that list. Without having an audit trail of individual animals, you will not be able to identify one genetic change from another. It is impossible to categorically say, “That is caused by genome-editing technology rather than a natural mutation.” Therefore, the audit trail of an animal or product will not be based on the molecular analysis of that animal; it must be based on something else.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Which might be?

Professor Whitelaw: Craig might be able to answer this more clearly, but depending on the species, that might be breed books or production systems, which would be embedded within the companies or with different nations.

Dr Lewis: We should be very aware here that there is a species component to that. When we start thinking of cattle, for historical reasons, there is a very strong traceability element through the cattle chain. However, if we look at the pig industry in the UK, it is more done on a—shall we say—lot basis. For example, normal practice in the UK pig industry is to use pulled semen at a commercial level for a terminal sire, so even within a litter, you might have three or sires represented. That is today, so an individual animal traceability in the UK pig industry today does not really exist. When we answer the question on traceability and what exists today, that is very species-specific, rather than “This is the livestock sector.”

Professor Whitelaw: This is the basis of all of my thinking. We are using these tools to create precision changes to the genome—changes that can happen naturally. There is no difference between those two. There is a difference in how they arise; one is because we choose to target a specific DNA sequence and change it, and the other is just a random lottery that evolution throws up. However, from the animal’s perspective, and I would argue from our perspective, in how we look at these animals, it is just a genetic variation that exists. There is no difference. Going to the traceability question, why and what are you tracing?

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Q I know you do not deal with IP, but if it is a natural occurrence, why is IP applicable? Surely, it is not invention; it is a genetic coding. I am just keen to know why you feel you then have the right to impose intellectual property rights on something that, as you are arguing to us, is naturally occurring. Yet, you will impose intellectual property, I would imagine, to be able to make a profit. I am finding a logical failing there. That is just to put that one out there, and maybe you can come back on to that.

We have been dealing with crops so far, and we have now moved on to animals. I must admit that I am now beginning to struggle with this slightly. We are not talking about plants but about sentient animals, and about genetic modifications to them.

The thing I have been reading about PRDC—porcine respiratory disease complex—is that part of it comes down to environmental and conditioning factors. There are obviously some pig farmers, for example, who keep their animals in better conditions than others, but many do not. Even when you keep your animals in optimal condition, there are certain conditions that they are kept in that will encourage that disease.

My question is on behalf of the millions of people who are increasingly becoming vegan or vegetarian. We are now introducing genetic editing to enable us to keep those animals in sometimes quite horrific conditions. It is for this disease at the moment, but what is to say that exploitation of these animals is not going to only deepen? Now we can keep these animals knee deep in their own crap—sorry, Ms McVey—and we can edit their genes so they can survive in those conditions. That is how some people will see this and that is how much of the public will see it. Can you give me some reassurance that that is not going to happen? When profit is the bottom line, I see these animals becoming more robust and able to live in ever-more extreme and difficult conditions.

Dr Rice: Perhaps I can jump in. If you have read about PRRS virus, you will probably know that it is actually not dependent on conditions. Animals in the wild, as well as animals in production, all get sick. What actually happens on farms today is that farmers have to install multimillion filtration systems—because viruses are airborne—to filtrate outside air through very complicated filtration systems so that viruses cannot get into the farm. So it actually has nothing to do with the conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

If we could all be conscious of time, please.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Nuffield Council has obviously welcomed aspects of the Bill, but there will be a lot of detail required in legislation that we have yet to see. A lot of it seems to subject to the negative procedure as well. If the Bill is amended as it goes forward, what are the main areas that you want strengthened in regulation?

Dr Mills: I concur with Dr Campbell. In the first place, there is quite a lot that is opaque or simply missing, because it is subject to further regulations. It is unfortunate in some respects that you will have to debate the Bill with those uncertainties in front of you. It would be nice to see the constitution and membership of the animal welfare advisory body, for example, specified. The powers, resources, reporting lines and enforcement functions will be really important in thinking about how well whatever government system we end up with for precision breeding functions.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Would you speak a little about the point you make in your document about the release of precision bred organisms, and about the reassurance you are seeking on the inclusion in primary legislation of a minimum prescribed period for those proposed releases? How might that be published? What time would be needed to examine that? What are your thoughts on the current shortcomings on those issues in the Bill?

Dr Mills: This may be a minor and easily remedied technical point, but certainly from my reading of the Bill, it struck me that in order to release a precision bred organism one had to comply with part 2 obligations and notify the Secretary of State. If that organism was not being made available, however, or marketed, I do not think there is any further obligation to secure prior permission. If that is the case, at the very least the power to make regulations to provide a period during which that release can be examined, representations made, decisions reached and possibly enforcement powers brought to bear should be given effect. That power should be exercised mandatorily rather than at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

[Deidre Brock]

Did you want to say something, Mr Stevenson?

Peter Stevenson: Yes, if I may. As I said earlier, I think the animal protection provisions in the Bill need to be clarified and strengthened. For example, clause 11, requires an applicant for a marketing authorisation to assess and identify the welfare risks, and clause 12 says the welfare advisory body must then make a report on whether the applicant has properly identified and assessed the welfare risks. To some degree, the way it is written puts the applicant in the driving seat—playing the lead role in determining which welfare risks will receive primary consideration. The Bill needs to be amended to make it clear that it is the welfare advisory body that is in the lead. Of course it will look at the information supplied by the applicant, but the Bill must require the advisory body to carry out its own independent, far-reaching investigation into the possible welfare risks. It should not be fettered by just what the applicant has said.

[Deidre Brock]

Thank you.

[Clive Lewis]

Q Mr Stevenson, if you could change the Bill, what are the key changes you would make? For example, do you agree ethically with the plant component of the Bill, in terms of gene editing plants, but not the animal side? You have talked about some of the changes that will need to be made on welfare and about putting the farmer, or whoever it is, in the driving seat with the changes you talked about just now. I am keen to know if you make a distinction between plant gene editing and animal gene editing. Does the Bill go far enough in the revisions that it makes to deal with gene editing of animals, or do you want to throw it out completely?

Dr Mills, on gene edited exports, one presumes that once this biotechnology is achieved, it does not make a difference what welfare rights we have in this country for animals. A big part of the Bill is giving British biotechnology the ability to get out in front on this, and we could then sell that technology to other countries that have much lower animal welfare standards. Is that a concern?

Peter Stevenson: I do not know enough about plants to give a proper opinion. When it comes to the animal side, as I said earlier, there are a few cases in which I think gene editing could be beneficial, but ideally I would like to see animals removed from the Bill and much more thought given to how gene editing is going to be used and what protections should be there before legislation is introduced.

For example, the arguments that gene editing can be beneficial in terms of disease resistance have been overstated. Yes of course, if you are looking at diseases that have nothing to do with the way animals are being kept, gene editing for disease resistance can be helpful, but the science is absolutely clear that many diseases stem from keeping animals in intensive conditions. Very specifically, the crowded, stressful conditions in intensive livestock production can lead to the emergence, the spread and the amplification of pathogens. Gene editing should not be used to tackle such diseases. These diseases should be addressed by keeping animals in better conditions. There is a very real danger that if you gene edit for resistance to diseases that primarily result from keeping animals in poor conditions, that could lead to animals being kept in even more crowded, stressful conditions, because they may be resistant to the diseases that are inherent in such conditions.

Having said all that, I suspect Government isn’t about to drop animals from the Bill. I have talked about how the Bill should be strengthened in terms of giving a stronger central role to the welfare advisory body, but it also needs to be strengthened in setting out what that body should be looking at. The Bill is very unusual. Usually primary legislation provides more definition.

For example, the welfare advisory body should be looking for things like a piece of gene editing aimed at animals growing faster or providing higher yields, and asking, “Has this caused a problem for animals that have been selectively bred for such purposes?” If it has, it should be very careful and look at whether that is likely to happen with gene edited animals. It should also be asked to look at whether the desired objective of the gene editing could have been achieved in less intrusive ways. An awful lot more thought needs to be given to the use of gene editing in animals.

I will add one point. It is more than 50 years since Ruth Harrison’s book “Animal Machines” first alerted us to the dangers of intensive livestock farming, yet gene editing is doing exactly that: treating animals as machines that can be fine-tuned to make them a bit more convenient for us. The Bill sits at considerable odds with the recent Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 that regards animals as sentient beings. The two do not mesh.

Dr Mills: To pick up on what Mr Stevenson said and to clarify, the Nuffield Council certainly sees many benefits in genome editing as applied to animals. Unlike perhaps a number of other commentators on the issue, we does not see genome editing as necessarily being the last resort. We recognise that, in some cases, there are social conditions that are every bit as intractable as the biology of animals; indeed, given the technologies that are becoming available to us, the biology of animals is perhaps more tractable. Our way of approaching this is to treat those things symmetrically and to consider in what way different interventions might promote a just, healthy and sustainable food and farming system, taking into account the interests of the people and animals that are dependent on that system.

You asked about the technology being sold to countries that have lower animal welfare standards than the UK. I am very happy to live in the UK, a country that does respect animal welfare. Of course, the science and the technology are very easily translated across national and jurisdictional boundaries, but that really is an argument for the governance of breeding according to purposes. It should be consistent with the purpose of securing safe, just and sustainable food and farming systems. A technology can be applied in any number of contexts, and one cannot necessarily control them all. However, if you set out in the right direction, you have a much better chance of arriving at a desirable destination.

Dr Campbell: Chair, may I comment on that?

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (First sitting)

Deidre Brock Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. I call the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Q Thank you, Mr Stringer. Mr Exwood, the Minister asked you about your members’ views. Have your members been surveyed on the Bill, and if so, what did they say? Is there a difference in views on this matter between, say, organic farmers or small family farms, and larger farms?

David Exwood: Absolutely. We run our consultation process and work up our policy as one organisation that brings in all sectors—organics being one of them. I think everybody recognises the advantages of technology; everybody recognises the benefits that breeding brings. That goes for organic farmers and smaller farmers as well as large farmers. We have to co-exist alongside organic farming in all circumstances—we are very clear about that. We do not see that as a challenge; we already run slightly separate systems and it does not significantly alter business in any way.

The key element of the Bill for small farmers is that it is drafted in such a way as to make it as widely available as possible. It needs to be open to as many farmers as possible—that is how it will bring the most benefit. Breeding actually brings benefit to all farmers, and a good variety of wheat or sugar beet, say, is something that all farmers will benefit from, regardless of their size.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Do you agree that sufficient safeguards can be put in place to protect organic farms from what they might see as a sort of contamination—if I can call it that—from those products?

David Exwood: Yes, I do. As I said, we run existing codes, and conventional and organic already co-exist. This does not change that in any way. We have to make sure that we are able to do that. There has to be a co-existence—I am very happy about that—which is a key part of our policy and our ask. I do not see the Bill as being a challenge to that.

Dr Ferrier: The market for organic versus conventional or other systems currently enables segregation for different specifications that the market might ask for. We see that continuing to run as it does at the moment. When a buyer has particular specification, there is certification for organics. As we understand it, the certification for organics would not currently allow the use of precision bred organisms. Obviously, that could change, allowing for segregated supply chains, just as with food-grade versus industrial-grade oilseed rape, or with sweetcorn and forage maize, which are kept apart.

If you are getting a new variety of a particular crop, for example, and you grow a crop for seed multiplication purposes, the high-purity requirements for that seed are there and are managed within the supply chain. We see that continuing to apply for organic farmers.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Q Earlier, you were asked about our relationship with the EU on this matter, and you mentioned progress in precision breeding across the world. How does that fit together, where is most of the research taking place, and which countries should we look at to make comparisons with the UK?

Dr Ferrier: Certainly, the most recent development in countries reviewing their legislation, and one that I think would be really useful for you to look at, is what Health Canada, the Canadian authority, has done. It has recently reviewed its legislation and put out some technical guidance. The key thing is that it confirms that precision bred organisms do not pose any additional safety risks compared with conventionally bred plant varieties. That is driving Canada’s regulatory process. It is not proposing different authorisation and risk-assessment processes. It does not believe that that would add any significant benefit for consumers or the environment, because the science does not show any additional risks—that is very similar to the European Food Safety Authority opinion from the end of November 2020.

Argentina is certainly a very interesting case. Since it has put in place proportionate and enabling regulations—such as those that the Government propose in this Bill—it has seen a real increase in the number of small and medium-sized enterprises and public-good breeding R&D activities taking products through that regulatory process, so that it is not just the preserve of the largest companies that are able to pay for and absorb any uncertainty in a less ideal or dysfunctional regulatory process.

Japan is another example of where a product—a tomato—has been through that process. In countries that put in place proper regulation, the actual process is functional and works well for the companies. Those countries then see investment in R&D and into commercial companies. That is bringing through the products. South America, North America and Japan are investing in this. It is interesting to see how quickly the science develops into commercial opportunities once the regulations are right.

David Exwood: The challenges that we face as farmers in the UK—sustainability, climate change and so on—are the challenges faced by farmers across the world, and we are all looking for solutions to those problems. It is interesting that across the world, there is a move on this technology, which we are seeing quite widely. That is because everybody is looking for answers and solutions to the challenges that we all face.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

You are back, Professor Henderson. We move on to the SNP spokesperson, Deidre Brock.

[Deidre Brock]

Q The Scottish Government have stated that they will wait to assess the outcomes of the EU consultation on gene editing and GM. Some feel that the UK Government are rushing ahead with the Bill, potentially to the further detriment of trade with the EU. The UK Government are clearly very confident in the evidence they have received on this, because they are pushing ahead with it. Will you tell us about the peer-reviewed evidence that the Government are relying on that supports the claim that gene editing can make farming sustainable and environmentally friendly? Can you point to that evidence?

Professor Henderson: I can. There is a very wide range of peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates the benefits that can arise from the use of gene editing for precision breeding, for building better crops. The list is long and I would be happy to share a long list of some of the references. There was a review paper published in Nature in 2019 that I often refer back to, which summarises the many routes by which we can use gene editing to enhance crops.

I am wary of time, but I could talk at some length about the different sorts of crops that might be beneficial in this context. There is also an extensive peer-reviewed literature that demonstrates the safety of these technologies and the fact that the unintended consequences through precision breeding are generally lower than those through traditional breeding, and particularly some of the more extreme mutagenic forms of precision breeding. There is very extensive scientific literature.

You started your question by pointing to the differences of opinion politically on the different sides of the national borders within the United Kingdom. I should say that scientifically, there is not a difference of opinion as you change nations in the country and certainly leading scientists in this sector in Wales and Scotland have also been very instrumental in the peer-reviewed literature that I have mentioned, and they agree with the sense of direction of this Bill, although their political leaders do not.

[Deidre Brock]

Q And the potential impact on trade with the EU?

Professor Henderson: As a scientist, trade is less my area of expertise, but to some extent you could argue that this Bill would enable more trade, because it will enable better crops and more crops to be produced, and therefore they could be more readily traded overseas, giving more market opportunities for UK farmers and markets. [Inaudible.] Therefore, I do not see an immediate problem with any trade with the EU, either.

It is also true to say, as I believe your previous—[Inaudible.] Sorry, are you still there?

[The Chair]

We are. We missed a little towards the end there, Professor.

Professor Henderson: I am sorry; if it happens again, I will switch wi-fi on to my phone. I do apologise.

I was saying that, from an EU perspective, the final thing to say is that the EU itself is of course consulting on changing the law in a way similar to the way that we are considering, and it is quite likely to change on the same timescale that we will be producing marketable crops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Q All that is very interesting and very good, but I do not actually see that this is covered in the Bill as it stands. This is all going to have to follow through secondary legislation, is it not?

Professor May: That is correct. At the moment, part 3 of the Bill encompasses the direction of travel, but not the details. That is something we are working on at the moment.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Food Standards Scotland produced a paper in March of this year that pointed out potential for regulatory divergence between the four nations of the UK and that the Bill could result in Ministers in England taking decisions on the approval of genome-edited food and food products with little or no involvement from Food Standards Scotland or, indeed, Ministers in Scotland. It is an independent authority, as you know. Can you tell us how that relationship will be approached and managed, if the Bill becomes an Act?

Professor May: Happily, I am here as a scientist, so I can say that, scientifically, we have an extremely close working relationship with FSS and other regulators around the world, but the closest is with FSS.

If I give an example, at the moment, risk assessments that we might do in FSA are shared very closely with FSS. All that process is done together. Often we are using the same sets of experts—for example, to provide information. Once the risk assessment is done, it passes to a risk management process. I cannot think of an example where there is a difference in the risk assessment part between nations, because the science is the science.

Where there are sometimes differences is in the risk management area. A current example is raw drinking milk, because the science around the risks of drinking such milk is the same, but England and Scotland have different views on how much risk is acceptable. Under this framework, I would fully intend that we would share all the science around the risk assessments of a precision-bred product. Ultimately, though, the decision on a risk management basis and whether to authorise it would fall to Ministers in each of the individual countries.

[Deidre Brock]

That is helpful. Thank you.

[Ruth Jones]

Q Thank you for your time this morning, Professor May. We heard from a previous witness that the EU is likely to develop its work on gene editing along similar timescales. Given the need to share information, how will the FSA and the European Food Safety Authority share information as we go down this path?

Professor May: Previously, prior to Brexit, everything was handled at the European level. As I just mentioned, we share informally the scientific advice, which is very international. Often the people who are providing evidence for a risk assessment are the same people—they may not even be within the EU, but wherever that expertise is available in the world—so there is quite a lot of sharing at that level. Currently, our only formal arrangement with the EU on food safety is around alerts. An alert for a food safety issue that may have an impact on the UK is passed to us, but something that affects countries outside and has no impact on the UK would not necessarily be shared.

I think all of us hope that there will be a reciprocal arrangement for sharing information in future. It is in everyone’s interest to share as much evidence and data as possible, but that is obviously not in my gift to control. There is recognition in the EU that the current GM framework is not fit for purpose for these kinds of products, so the process is already rolling in the EU to look at how it might be changed. How long that will take, and what the outcome might be, will obviously be very different. I would anticipate that it is going to take longer than it will in the UK to get resolution on that.

[Ruth Jones]

Q You mentioned alerts. Obviously, nobody wants to leave it until there is an alert situation, but what about developing more formal mechanisms as we go forward, rather than relying on the good will of scientists?

Professor May: Sitting here as a scientist, obviously I hope very much that there will be good sharing. As I said before, it is in everyone’s interest to share the best science and the best evidence around this. Happily, building those relationships is not in my purview to organise, but I hope that there will be sharing, particularly around the horizon-scanning function. For us as a regulator, it is really critical to think about not just what is on our desks now, but what will be there in two, three or five years’ time. What is the science that we will need to assess the potential risks of products that I have not even thought of yet? Collaborative agreement around what might be coming down the road is really critical for all of us.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Something occurred to me when I was looking at the Bill again last night. Do you feel that you have sufficient capacity to be able to cope with the extra responsibilities that you are taking on? Have the Ministers given you further guarantees that you will be supported in that?

Professor May: That is a very good question. It is hard to predict based on the estimation of what might be coming to our desks. On the one hand, the Bill will remove a tranche of products that would otherwise have been assessed as GM products. We already regulate GM products, and there is the capacity. On the other hand, the purpose of the Bill is to stimulate development in this area, so we may end up with a lot more applications, in which case we are going to need additional resource. We have taken steps in that direction, including recruiting independent experts in this area to provide scientific expertise, but if there were a large volume of applications needing consideration, we would need additional support.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Q Good morning, Professor May. To return to the discussion that we were having a few moments ago about information for the consumer, to what extent does the Food Standards Agency have a role in providing general public information and education? If that is not the role of the FSA, who should be doing it and how important is it?

Professor May: Our statutory mandate is to protect consumers and represent their interests as they pertain to food. That includes a communication role ranging from allergy alerts and food withdrawals through to a more nuanced understanding of the food system—food security, food poverty and those kinds of questions. At the moment, we do a fair bit of public communication around issues that we know consumers are interested in. Precision breeding, on which we have done some work, is a good example. An explainer on what genome editing and precision breeding are, and what impact they might have, is available on our website, for example.

We do a limited amount of work with schools—particularly in some regions of the UK—mostly on food hygiene. There is an opportunity to do more to explain to people the honest truth about food, and to help them to make decisions about safety and their purchasing decisions in that space. There is always room to do more. There is a lot of consumer interest in this class of foods, and I anticipate that we will do more to make sure that people have the facts about it that they will want.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Thank you. I will leave it there for the moment.

[Deidre Brock]

Q The Scottish and Welsh Governments have clearly stated their intention at present for precision bred organisms to be regulated as GMOs. How will ACRE’s advice on releases to the environment take account of the fact that the Welsh and Scottish Governments currently have a different approach from Westminster on this?

Professor Dunwell: Well, we realise that the jurisdiction is different. We have observers at ACRE meetings from the devolved authorities—not at every meeting, but they are clearly invited to attend, and some of them do. They can add their own input into the discussions, even though it will not apply within their jurisdiction. Then of course we have the fact that much of the good science goes on at the James Hutton Institute, the Roslin Institute and elsewhere. Those are world-class centres of science doing this type of research. I am sure that among those scientists there is an intrinsic frustration about the political environment that exists, but I am not going to comment on the policy at that level. ACRE as a committee had sessions in Edinburgh some three or four years ago, and we have spoken to the relevant committees directly. I was part of those discussions.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Is there a counterpart for ACRE in the EU Commission that you have regular dealings with? Obviously, the devolved Governments—certainly, the Scottish Government—are waiting to hear the outcome of the consultation that the EU is undertaking on this area. Can you tell us a little about how that is working currently?

Professor Dunwell: Under the EU system a lot of the discussion was part of EFSA. Obviously it is different now, but in those days it fed back information to ACRE. Even though we have kind of split, we still take account of and look at the EFSA reports on a regular basis. We keep up to date with the discussions in the whole area of science looking forward, because it is our responsibility to make sure that ACRE is not just an isolated UK silo. We have those reports and there still are UK people who sit on EFSA committees, even though we are not part of the official system. It has not disqualified the scientific input from the UK into the EU, which is an interesting element in its own right.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Yes, indeed. I am glad to hear we are not completely cut off. That is great. Getting back to genetically engineered crops, some say that when they are grown on a commercial scale, the risks of escape and contamination are greater. Is that something that you agree with?

Professor Dunwell: Well, it is the terminology “escape”. Perhaps it comes from releasing things into the environment, which has some implication to it, but there is no evidence that any existing genetically modified things that are on the market have any greater impact on the environment either through pollen dispersal or propagule dispersal than any existing variety has. Just because it is genetically modified or, in the future, gene edited, it will not intrinsically expand the danger of gene contamination, which is often an objection.

[Deidre Brock]

Q So the fact that these are expanded and grown on a commercial level will not have—

Professor Dunwell: It is not relevant. There is no evidence for that.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Okay, thank you. Can you tell me a little bit about the old-style GMOs and whether all of them would be included in the definition of a precision bred organism?

Professor Dunwell: No, they would be excluded. You have taken a gene or genes, and you accumulate the numbers of genes. Some of the things that are being grown in the States now might have eight or 10 transgenes —separate genes—all inserted into the same variety. That is completely different from what we are discussing today, which is minor changes that are much more equivalent to forms of mutation that have existed for ever. The domestication of crops relied on mutations, but we did not know at the time what they were. Agriculture and what you eat today is a product of natural mutation.

[Deidre Brock]

Q Forgive me, but could you expand a little on what you said about the US and the insertion of seven different—sorry, I am not a scientist.

Professor Dunwell: There are lots of maize varieties that have been proposed and are grown commercially in the States over large areas. Initially, 20 or so years ago, they just had one or two genes, which were to do with insect resistance or herbicide tolerance, but over time the numbers of genes have been pyramided together, either by introducing them all at once or by crossing together a transgenic plant that has one insert and one that has two, so there are varieties now with six, eight or 10 different genes from different sources in one commercial product.

[Deidre Brock]

Q So that has developed over that 20-year period.

Professor Dunwell: Yes, and it has been done by—

[The Chair]

Order. May I just say that there are a number of people who wish to speak? If there is time at the end, I will come back to you, Deidre. I call Andrew Bowie.