Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

We have heard today of the potential benefits and of how gene editing could have a role to play in reducing our reliance on fertilisers and pesticides and in creating food that is resistant to drought or food that is more nutritious. We have heard about vitamin D in tomatoes, and there has been a long-running conversation about vitamin A being added to golden rice, although it has yet to live up to its billing.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) that the Bill is very thin on the regulatory framework. Perhaps the Government ought to have put those measures in place before steaming ahead with developing these products. His points on labelling were well made, too. The concerns about cross-contamination and support for organic food producers and consumers are valid.

The Soil Association has raised concerns about the commercialisation of crops and tells us that just four companies control more than 60% of the global seed supply. I do not have time to go into detail on those concerns, but they need to be flagged up in Committee. I went to talk to farmers in El Salvador after the Central America free trade agreement, and they want to support organic farms and natural seeds but were told they cannot because, under the free trade agreement, alternatives from Monsanto and others have to be allowed into the market. I would be very concerned if such a situation were allowed to develop here at the expense of people who want to go down the organic route.

The most problematic part of the Bill concerns the gene editing of animals. I accept there are some positives, such as helping to reduce our reliance on antibiotics, but there are other ways to do that. Other countries have been much better than us in restricting the routine overuse of antibiotics.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said the Bill is trying to tackle the symptoms, not the causes. If not for the ever-growing intensification and industrialisation of farming, where animals are crammed together in unsanitary conditions, we would not need to rely on the routine use of antibiotics, as too many farmers do.

We have had an interesting debate on whether we could use technology to suppress the birth of male chicks. At the moment, 29 million male chicks are killed by the poultry industry each year, and 7 billion are killed globally. They are fed into maceration machines—mincing machines—because they do not lay eggs but, again, other countries such as Germany, France and Sweden are already doing things to stop chick shredding without resorting to gene editing.

I am concerned by what the Secretary of State said in response to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) about yields. He did not refute her concern about the Government saying the Bill will enable the development of

“precision-bred plants and animals which will bolster food production”

and “drive economic growth.”

Existing livestock farming methods have already led to the creation of animals that are radically different from their original natural forms. We see turkeys and chickens that are bred to be so heavy that they cannot support their own weight on their legs; the milk yields of cows have more than doubled in the past 40 years, to about 22 litres per day in the UK—that is not natural; and we know that cows, as well as suffering from mastitis, now become infertile extremely quickly from intensive milking. Their life cycle has been reduced from 20 years in the wild to about three or four when raised in intensive farming conditions. Again, the causes, rather than the symptoms, ought to be tackled by the Government as well.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (First sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q Would gene editing give us the ability to grow things in this country that we currently cannot? I am thinking particularly of the situation as we adapt to climate change. Is it the case that there are there crops that, because of weather conditions, soil conditions or whatever, do not flourish in the UK, but where this would mean we might be able to enter those markets in the future?

David Exwood: A key example might be soya beans. The current situation is that people have tried over a number of years to grow soya beans. Clearly, it is desirable to grow more of our own homegrown protein, but given that that is quite difficult, it is the sort of opportunity that this technology could give us—the opportunity to make varieties better adapted to our climate, so that we can grow such crops. I do not want to promise too much, but clearly breeding, as I said, offers some of the big solutions in the future. It is those sorts of solutions that we perhaps cannot quite see yet but that may well help us to be much more sustainable in what we do.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Is the UK is geared up for research into that side of things? We do not put an awful lot of money into food research and research on crops. I do not want to put words into your mouth. It is one thing for the opportunity to be there. Do you think that we are actually geared up for making the most of the opportunities?

Dr Ferrier: We have really excellent scientists. We have some really world-leading plant science organisations here. An example is NIAB in Cambridge, as Daniel Zeichner will know very well. The scientific capability is certainly there. Obviously, it needs funding, and increasingly research funding is seeking to enable impact from research—impact beyond the academic world, but on society and the economy. Based on that, if research funders see that there is a route to market eventually for the science that they are funding, that will increase the investment in research and development. Of course, the statutory instrument passed a few months ago will enable and make easier the R&D for these particular technologies, which is a good first step. Then, if we have a clear route to market, that will be a further incentive to explore those funding streams.

Of course, with funding comes greater capability, because research organisations are then able to recruit the best researchers. When we were doing our consultation of our members on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consultation last year, we had scientists come and talk to our members, including a wheat scientist from the John Innes Centre, who explained the science he was doing and the potential for that to address some of our members’ challenges. We have seen in the food White Paper the reference of protein crops and finding ways to get sources of plant-based protein. Some considerable investment in R&D is required in order for that to become a greater commercial proposition for growers in this country.

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

Q Organic food was mentioned earlier. In shops and supermarkets, organic food tends to attract a higher price than other food. Where would the costings of genetically modified food sit? Would it sit between those two or lower than the current standard food price, if you will?

Dr Ferrier: I guess we are talking about a new, not genetically modified food. I have not done a comparison of current GM foods on the market—the chocolate bars and the oils, for example—so I am not sure where they sit. Organic commands are premium partly because of the greater cost of producing organic. Maybe David could talk about that. On potential products that might come through precision breeding, it depends on the product. I think there is potential, as we have already seen with some conventionally bred products, such as a broccoli with higher antioxidant levels or eggs high in nutrients, for some premium products that have nutritional benefits, but initially there may not be any difference in the final price in shop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

Q Just to be clear, did you say this piece of work will take two to three years to take place?

Professor Henderson: That is our expectation.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Continuing on the animal front, we know that some animals, such as pets, including some of the brachycephalic dogs, are bred to have traits that are not desirable from a health point of view. There is increasing concern about the popularity of pugs, French bulldogs and creatures like that. On the farm animal side, you have poultry that is bred to an immense size and cows where the milk yields are going up year on year—they are bred to produce more than they would naturally.

What do you see as the parameters of that? How will the Bill protect animal welfare? Because of the popularity of those dogs, breeders may make use of the new technology to breed even more extreme examples. Would that be desirable? How can we prevent that from happening? You may have answered that in response to my colleague and said that it needs more time, but how do you see that in terms of the desire for increased yields and increased production on farms? Is there not an argument for not including animals in the Bill while this further research takes place?

Professor Henderson: Scientifically, the application of these technologies to cross to livestock or other animals is identical in terms of the changes it can cause. It can mimic the impact of breeding more efficiently, effectively and rapidly. In the livestock and animal area, this has identified more clearly a problem that was already there and the fact that we know, with respect to animal welfare, there are some negative outcomes that come from traditional breeding processes. If we are able to speed that process up through precision breeding, those negative outcomes may occur more quickly.

The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals. That is not because the science is different but because the existing regulation around animals differs from that needed around crops. That is why the instrument is set up as a secondary instrument, so that there is time to fully consider and deal with the animal welfare processes before that is changed in law.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Professor Henderson. We will end the session there. It has been a difficult session because of the technology. I will consult the Front-Bench spokespeople and we will consider whether to change our programme motion and possibly invite you back, if you would be good enough to return. Thank you for the information you have given us and for your time.

Examination of Witness

Professor Robin May gave evidence.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Second sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Deidre Brock]

Q So a real commitment to transparency and some effort to address the possibilities of unintended consequences on the back of this need to be tightened up in the Bill?

All witnesses indicated assent.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q Going back to what was being said about animals, particularly what Joanna was saying, I want to try to unpick this. It has been mooted that one of the benefits of the Bill is that it could result in the breeding of more disease-resistant animals and in less use of antibiotics in livestock management. The downside is that that could pave the way for more intensive farming, because disease obviously spreads when lots of animals are herded together. That does not necessarily mean that making animals more disease resistant and not having to use antibiotics on them is a bad thing.

Some witnesses who gave evidence this morning said that it is not the Bill that is at fault. There is a completely separate argument, they said, about whether we want to increase the intensification and industrialisation of animal farming. Where do you sit on that argument? They said that the animal welfare codes deal with some of the concerns. I would say, however, that they are not operating in the right way at the moment, because we already allow a degree of intensification and, to my mind, animal welfare standards are not good.

On the separate issue of increasing yields from animals, cows produce an awful lot more milk than they would have done a few decades ago, and certainly a lot more milk than they need to feed their own calves. Where do you sit on the use of this technology for that purpose? Finally, do you think that the Bill’s provision for the Secretary of State to refer things to a welfare advisory body is a sufficient safeguard? Sorry, that was an awful lot of questions, and you do not have much time to answer.

Joanna Lewis: You asked whether you can separate the intention of gene editing to solve animal welfare problems from the broader challenge of facilitating the perpetuation of systems that result in very poor animal welfare. I think it is important that we bring these together—as the public brought them together in the Nuffield Council on Bioethics public dialogue. We know that conventional animal breeding trends have been to prioritise greater yield, litter size and fast growth over the welfare of sentient animals, and we know that the argument for gene editing is partly that it speeds things up and is likely, therefore, to accelerate those trends. The public were saying, through that dialogue, that this is where they want to see governance. They want the Government to come in and say, “This is our vision for the future of animal farming. This is how it is going to become a higher welfare system that also delivers for climate, nature and health. This is the role we want to see gene editing play in that context.”

I know that you will be hearing evidence from Compassion in World Farming on Thursday, and I know that amendments will be proposed to try to make sure that there are additional tests—which could be linked to the Secretary of State’s powers, secondary regulation or the role of the welfare advisory body—on whether these traits are going to focus on yield, litter size and fast growth and cause lasting harm to the welfare of the animal. Also, are they going to perpetuate, facilitate or enable a farming system that is very detrimental to the welfare of animals? Those are the amendments that will be coming through from animal welfare bodies.

Roger Kerr: In terms of the disease-resistance issue, we have to be really careful about how we approach this. What we have seen, albeit through the use of antibiotics, is the reduction of disease. Again, unfortunately, I am referring back to the dairy industry. We have seen farmers driven to reduce cell counts in dairy cows to a point where the cow’s immune system has been suppressed to such a degree that the more virulent diseases come in, because there is not the natural, more benign flora around any more. Therefore, you have cows going down with E. coli and other things, which is killing them. We have seen this continual drive to reduce the immune system and reduce the cell count.

What we have found more recently is that allowing the cow to have a more natural immune system actually allows it to live a longer and healthier life. We have to be really careful when we start talking about disease that we do not start messing with something but then find that we end up with a whole lot of unintended consequences in terms of opening the animal up to other disease implications. Ultimately, we will just end up on the same old wheel of trying to continually firefight because the animal is going down with disease.

On the yield aspect, again, we can keep saying, “Oh, well, we can genetically breed them to produce high yield,” but what we find is that the longevity of the animals is massively impacted. These cows that can produce 12,000 or 15,000 litres of milk do not live very long because, unfortunately, cows are just not designed to do that. We have to be really careful about what we consider to be a farm animal and what it is there for. If we continue to drive it, we are effectively supercharging its physiology, and therefore it will ultimately not be able to live as long.

Using cows as an example, if you go into a collecting yard or a cubicle shed, you will see the cows breathing really quickly, even though they are lying down, because their physiology is going so fast. What we are effectively doing at the moment is turning what was a very low-input, low-output animal into a Formula 1 car. Unsurprisingly, they do not cope with it and they fall over. What we are doing now in terms of genetically editing is stepping that up a whole other gear. We have to be really careful about what it is that we are seeking to achieve here, and I think we have to look, in terms of welfare, not only at disease resistance but at longevity, quality of life and ability to withstand other disease impacts.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Is one of the concerns when it comes to the hormones of an animal—I am talking about animals that are being killed for meat; I know that this came up in the discussion about slaughterhouses —that if the animal is stressed throughout its life, that could affect the meat from a human health point of view?

Roger Kerr: It can affect—

[The Chair]

Order. I just point out that we only have just over two minutes.

Roger Kerr: Sorry. Chris was going to say something.

Christopher Atkinson: Going back to what you said about what sort of tests should be applied to animals by any regulatory committee, the Farm Animal Welfare Committee introduced the concept of a good life for animals. Our view of animal health and welfare is based on positive aspects of an animal’s life. You have referred to the codes of practice; generally, they are based on absences of harm. For a long time in animal welfare science, absence of harm was equated with good welfare. We have moved significantly beyond that, so we would encourage you to look at the good life framework and ensure that those tests for a good life for animals are applied to any traits and outcomes.

Roger Kerr: On your point about slaughterhouses, we talk about a good life, but we also talk about a good death. It is important to recognise that a lot of stress is experienced when animals have to be moved a significant distance, or even away from the farm and environments that they are familiar with. The fundamental issue is how many abattoirs we have and how far animals have to move. To say, “Oh, well actually, what we’ll do is we’ll genetically manipulate their genes so that we can transport them hundreds of miles before we kill them,” seems to be a perverse and illogical approach.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q I was more asking whether stress—you were talking about being able to increase yields, and about cows being put under stress—would affect the animal’s meat in the same way that—

Roger Kerr: I am not sure. We were talking about dairy cows, which, as you know, are not bred to be eaten. Beef animals would be different again. There is an issue around stress with killing an animal, but that is more about the environment that it is in. I think we should look at that in a holistic way in terms of the environment and not necessarily just say, “Let’s tweak something so that we can still treat—”

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that I am going to have to bring the session to an end. Our allocated time is over. I thank you all for another interesting session.

Examination of Witnesses

Dr Richard Harrison and Professor Giles Oldroyd gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Q It is good to see you again, Professor Oldroyd and Dr Harrison. Your last comments have thrown my question in many ways. You said that not much is said about pharmaceuticals and other products in the free market, but that is quite a low bar. I have been involved with the trade-related aspects of intellectual property waiver campaign. A big part of the global south is campaigning to have access to the understanding of how to make anti-covid drugs, and they are struggling.

I do not think that is a model that I would want to apply to food. Some of us would like to see something more robust that did not make the mistakes that we have made on pharmaceuticals, for example. Food supply is critical, especially as we move through the 21st century with the climate crisis and a growing population. When I was asking you questions as a BBC journalist a long time ago, I was always struck by your passion for the science and for communicating the science. As currently constructed, does the Bill provide the protections we need? Outside your laboratories, away from the pure science, there are free-market corporations for which the bottom line is the end game and the main driver. Do you feel that this science is beyond abuse and beyond being used in the same way that perhaps big pharma have cornered those markets?

Lastly, I understand the notion that reducing barriers opens up the market to small and medium-sized companies, but the history of any industry shows us that big players begin to hoover up small players over decades, and you end up back in an oligopoly or monopoly situation. That does not necessarily have to happen, but that is what usually happens with new tech. There is a free-for-all when everyone piles in, but ultimately people sell up and move on, and the big companies hoover up. When you get past the science and it reaches the real world, do you feel that there is the opportunity for abuse? Does the Bill protect us from that?

Professor Oldroyd: With the caveat of clause 3, legislating gene editing as equivalent to conventional breeding is the best way to allow small to medium-sized enterprises to become involved in the technology. If you really want to see a break in major corporate ownership, lowering the barriers to how you get a product from that technology is almost certainly going to facilitate that. As I said earlier, the big problem currently with GM is that it is so costly to release a GM variety that only “the big four” can afford to do that. I think that taking this approach will help that ownership of lines.

Certainly from me, as a researcher, the Bill as it currently stands greatly facilitates me to work directly with plant breeders and move products through the conventional plant breeding mechanism into the market and on to the consumer. Some of that plant breeding is in the big four, but quite a bit of it is not. Those are more the medium-sized enterprises, not necessarily BASF or Bayer, although they do have a role in some of that. I think the current Bill will certainly facilitate that broadening of ownership of the technology and a speeding up of the impact to the consumer.

Dr Harrison: If I could add one small point, our public research institutes in the UK have a pivotal role to play here. We do research funded by the Government in this area and we publish that. We can protect it before or we can just publish it so it is free and able to be used by many.

You could really think strategically about how those research organisations are used to direct change in the way that one would want to see, so that varieties come on to the market either nearly complete, so breeders can take them up, which is often what happens, or even release complete varieties, as happens in many other countries, from public funded research organisations. Again, that allows freedom of choice, so varieties come on to the market that have traits that are desirable and do not suffer from the problem you point out, which is that some small companies may become subsumed into larger companies.

Thinking about it more broadly—this is outside the scope of the Bill—there is an absolute opportunity for the UK to lead on bringing those traits to the point at which they can be taken to market, in a variety of different ways that are not just dependent on the big four.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q You have said that you are funded by the Government for some of your work. To what extent is that related to potentially boosting economic growth by making these crops more profitable for farmers, or to what extent is it about achieving public policy objectives? I am thinking particularly about the drive towards net zero. Is that ever put to you? I am thinking about measures to improve soil quality and, in that way, carbon sequestration. Let us take a potato, which takes an awful lot out of the soil in nutrients and so on. Are you looking at that sort of thing in the broader sense?

Professor Oldroyd: I am probably the best person to answer that, because my research is entirely focused on trying to remove the need for the addition of phosphate and nitrate as inorganic fertilisers for food production. I am absolutely driven by a desire to have sustainable productivity for both rich and poor world farmers. Historically, I got most, if not all, of my money from the British or European Governments, but now, as I said, I get money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and also from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. In that regard, it is absolutely policy driven for sustainable productivity for smallholder farmers.

Dr Harrison: I echo that. For the UKRI-funded research that NIAB delivers there are two key components. One is scientific discovery. When you are working in crops, that is about strategic discoveries of things that are important to the strategic objectives of the research councils. Of course, BBSRC is the primary funder of agricultural research in the UK. It is absolutely in that zone of looking at how crop science and net zero intersect and how we can generate more sustainable farming systems. Much of the research, even if it is discovery and frontier bioscience, always has a strategic element to it.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q The Government have been criticised for not having a net zero strategy for agriculture but you would say that there is a clear direction coming to you that it should be there.

Dr Harrison: There is certainly a clear research strategy.

Professor Oldroyd: Absolutely. In fact, it is more driven by that policy. The drive for sustainability is very much an active area of research in the public sector, probably more so than in the private sector. A lot of the public sector research is pushing towards some of those policy issues, in contrast to the private sector, which is looking principally at productivity.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q When it comes to the new subsidy regime—public money for public goods—is that something that could be quantifiable? If a farmer switched to a gene edited product—this is getting a bit techy—could they be rewarded for looking after soil health under the public money for public goods approach? Do you see a situation where a farmer could make the switch because they know they would rewarded for that? Or is that outside your remit?

Professor Oldroyd: I guess so. The subsidies are changing quickly.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q I suppose I am asking whether it is traceable. Could a product be badged as “This is better for the soil”, and therefore ticks the box when it comes to environmental land management schemes?

Professor Oldroyd: In the case of my research, we hope that what we are testing right now in the field are lines that will be productive at lower levels of treatment of phosphate as a component of fertiliser. By that it is absolutely measurable how much fertiliser you are putting on the field relative to your productivity. The landscape for subsidies for farming is changing rapidly, and I think within that there are great opportunities for incentives for farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and sequester more carbon in the soil. The challenge will be how you measure that, and it is probably going to be by encouraging farming practices that we know on average reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr Harrison: I think you absolutely have to measure it at a farming system level; the genetics alone, in isolation, will not do it. Of course, the system that we have at the moment, the value for cultivatable use, includes some public good traits, for example, disease resistance traits, which are ones that have a clearly measurable environmental benefit, because you are reducing the amount of fungicide sprays and so on. There is absolutely scope to look at that system and ask what additional measures could be put in place to ensure that the varieties, whether conventionally bred or using new breeding technologies, have some level of enhanced environmental service. That is a big opportunity for the UK, because we sit outside the common catalogue, so we can define our own value for cultivatable use and national listing system. Again, we could be progressive in the way that we look at this, and lead the way in making sure that the things that breeders are asked to do to put varieties on the market meet the wider policy objectives of sustainable farming and emissions reductions.

[The Chair]

Minister, you have another point.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Third sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Mr Lewis, we are straying from the topic. I have to stop you because I have three other Members who want to remain on topic—Kerry, Andrew Bowie and Katherine Fletcher. We will move on because we have strayed off the topic. I have been very patient and I did let it go on for a little while.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q On a similar point to Clive’s, I note what Dr Rice said about the virus coming from outside, but from my reading of the syndrome, it spreads by direct contact between animals, as well as by natural breeding, artificial insemination and a variety of other things. There is the concern that the more animals you have in one place, the more likely it is that the disease will spread.

I note that the syndrome was first identified in the States in the late 1980s, and now it has spread worldwide in most swine-producing countries. I would be interested to know your take as to why it has spread to that extent. Is it because there is more intensive farming, in the same way that we saw with things such as bovine TB? I get what you are saying about the farm animal welfare codes, although they are not very well adhered to—there is a separate debate about that. If this would permit more animals to be kept in intensive situations because the virus would not spread, does that not leave the door open to people to argue that that is the path we should be going down?

Dr Lewis: I appreciate the question. We can look at this in a couple of ways. Just as pure history—as I say, it was my pet project with my PhD—the PRRS virus was originally identified in two separate locations at the same time. One was in North America—Minnesota—and one in Lelystad in the Netherlands. It was pretty much simultaneously defined in Europe and the United States. Did the movement of animals globally—breeding stock and so on—facilitate the global spread? I think that is probably fair, but that needs to continue to happen as we move the geneplasm around the world and connect populations.

The number of stock is an interesting question. PRRS is very infectious, so once you have got it into a farm, it does not matter if there are 10 pigs or 100 pigs in the farm; the whole farm is probably going to get it. The way that you look at it is that the barrier to entry into the farm is more important than how many pigs are in the farm. That is why we continue to refine biosecurity practices.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was talking more about proximity than about numbers.

[Jo Churchill]

Professor Hammond might be interesting on this, because he deals with avian flu, and obviously that might broaden it to the wild community.

[The Chair]

If you want to do that, you have less than a moment. It is for all Members to direct the questions to who they would like to hear answer them.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q It is not so much numbers, but if you have a smaller number of pigs, they tend not to be kept in such close proximity.

Dr Lewis: My final point would be that if we look at gene editing, or genome precision breeding on the other extreme, one of the reasons why we keep animals inside is to protect them from disease, whether it is flu or PRRS. One different way of looking at it is that the use of precision breeding technology could facilitate the extensification of agriculture.

Professor Whitelaw: You have to remember that a virus does not choose which animal it is going to infect. It will infect an animal in whichever farming system it is in. This technology, equally, can benefit all farming systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Okay, with two minutes left, is it possible to get Kerry McCarthy and Andrew Bowie in?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q This will possibly have a one-word answer. We have heard quite a few witnesses say that the farm animal welfare codes are sufficient in terms of regulating some of our concerns bout welfare. This question is particularly for Professor Campbell and Mr Stevenson. Do you think they are adequate?

Peter Stevenson: No, the codes do not address breeding issues in any very clear way, other than sometimes through a broad principle to say, “Yes, be careful how you breed in order not to harm animal welfare.” We have a huge amount of legislation in this country, but just one or perhaps two provisions that deal with breeding, and they are so broadly worded that they have never had any impact on the harms done by selective breeding. To go back to Katherine Fletcher’s point, I think it is vital that there is something in this Bill to protect animal welfare, because the current legislation, as I said, has really very little on breeding, which is why we have all these problems. If this Bill is going ahead—I know it is—let us at least have some good, well-crafted animal welfare protections.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Is not the implication of that that you would be telling the scientists what to do?

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th June 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Deidre Brock]

Q I have seen criticism that the Bill is too focused on enabling the commercial opportunities inherent within gene editing, rather than focusing sufficiently on animal welfare, for example. Would you agree with that, looking at the Bill as it is drafted at the moment?

Penny Hawkins: Yes, because even the animal welfare applications are ultimately for human benefit. If you think about the gene edited polled cattle, which are the poster child for the animal welfare applications, clearly polling cattle is extremely painful and distressing for them. A world in which that did not have to happen would certainly be a better world for the cattle, but it is actually possible to keep horned cattle together. It can be done, but it is very expensive. Many farmers would not be able to afford it and many consumers would be unwilling, or probably unable, to pay the prices that would be involved. So, yes, there is a welfare benefit, but it is ultimately an economic benefit.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q Could I just press a little more about the Animal Sentience Committee side of things? We are now in the position where there is the welfare advisory body under this legislation, the Animal Sentience Committee and all the licensing regimes under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Do you think it would be better if this was all merged into one organisation? We also heard about the codes that apply in terms of farm animal welfare, some of which is legislative and some of which is guidance. Is it not all a bit messy?

Penny Hawkins: No, I do not think it is messy. The Animal Welfare Centre of Excellence, which will bring all these committees together, will ensure co-ordination. The purpose of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 is to look at policy across all policy areas and see whether due regard has been paid to the effects on the welfare of animals as sentient beings. The welfare advisory body is something that the Animal Sentience Committee would look at when it was making that assessment. I still think it is really important to have this overarching body that will look at policy right across the board. To me, they are all separate entities that complement one another.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Do you not worry that things would get lost in the mix, and that something might be seen as the responsibility of one body and then be overlooked by another?

Penny Hawkins: No, I do not believe they would. I think there is a suitable framework in place to ensure co-ordination that I think will work.

[The Chair]

Can I thank Dr Hawkins for her time and for the evidence she has given to the Committee, which I am sure we will find very valuable? Thank you very much.

Penny Hawkins: Thank you for the opportunity.

Examination of Witnesses

Lawrence Woodward OBE and Pat Thomas gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katherine Fletcher]

Right. I am very grateful for the exchange.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q May I ask about liability? I hope this is within your remit. What happens if an organic farmer finds that there is contamination? Does the Bill provide any mechanisms or safeguards for people who might want to resist going down this path and are affected by it?

Dr Edenborough: Very minimal safeguards. I think you are talking about the potential release of an edited genome. What happens if it breaks out into the wild and then, for example, goes into the field next door?

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q Contamination was always the concern with GM.

Dr Edenborough: That could be a real mess. To prove it, you would have to have some sort of genetic marker, because you would have to prove causation, but then you would also have to prove damage and it might be difficult to do that.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q But if your organic product has an organic trademark, in terms of the badging—there are rules about importing and exporting organic produce—that could potentially harm their ability to apply for organic certification.

Dr Edenborough: Yes.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q But you are saying that it might be quite difficult to actually assess whether it had affected the product in that way.

Dr Edenborough: It ought to be relatively easy to prove causation, because there ought to be a genetic marker, but damage is nearly always the hurdle in negligence cases. If somebody says, “I’ve lost everything,” the question is how much they have actually lost.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q If you have a field of organic crops that could be contaminated, you would not necessarily know the extent to which the produce had been contaminated. The certification is based on what you have used on the field, how you have farmed and so on, so you would not know if something had affected it. Do you see what I am saying?

Dr Edenborough: Well, there would have to be evidence that there has been contamination, and that evidence would have to be predicated on a sample.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q It might be quite difficult to quantify the extent to which—

Dr Edenborough: It is all worked on probabilities. You would not test every grain of rice; you would test a few thousand and extrapolate. That is the way that all damages cases work.

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

Q I want to take this point about damage and liability a little further. You look alarmed, but actually I want you to simplify it a bit. The way you are describing it to me, I think the onus will really be on the person claiming that they have been damaged to make a claim and go to court. There may then be some difficulty for them. I think you are saying that there would be less difficulty in proving causation, because there would be a marker, but there would be considerable difficulty in proving the extent and the fact of the damage that had occurred. Is that correct?

Dr Edenborough: Yes, on both points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock]

Q Would you accept that, given the importance of Europe to the salmon export trade, it makes sense to wait to see what Europe is doing? I believe there will be some sort of response by next year. I am worried about the impact that moving ahead of Europe will have on salmon in particular.

Ross Houston: There is maybe a double-edged sword there. The trade is not only with the EU, it is also with other countries. We are an international company; we have operations in Iceland and Chile, and we are selling our genetically improved salmon eggs to a very large number of countries. My concern would be that if we do not start having that discussion with some urgency, including in Scotland, then, bearing in mind that Scotland and the UK are at the forefront of R&D in this field, we might fall behind in the innovation landscape. The benefits of that R&D and innovation might impact on elsewhere in the world, while we are taking that cautious approach.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Q I was reading earlier this week about how in Japan they have been using CRISPR to change Japanese sea bream. I think the technicality is that you end up with bream that have 20% more meat, because it knocks out a protein that means muscle growth is supressed. Basically, there is less muscle in the fish and presumably more fatty meat—if that is what you call it on a fish. You mentioned the impact on human health earlier, and you mentioned allergies—that was with CRISPR rather than with gene editing—but to what extent do you see us getting to a situation where the finished product, the fish, is so changed that it is nutritionally a different product? To what extent do you think we would need labelling for that? Allergies are one thing, but I wondered about it from a nutritional point of view. People are often told to eat fish. Should it be marketed as something that is different?

Ross Houston: Good question. I was using CRISPR and gene editing as synonymous—it is a gene edited product in Japan with the red sea bream. Those early examples are interesting, because they are markers that show that the regulatory environment is changing in countries such as Japan and some of the Americas. From our point of view, what we are doing here is running very advanced scientifically based breeding programmes. We are keeping 300 families of Atlantic salmon. With them we are pedigree recording, recording the genotype in each year, and recording lots of measurements relating to growth, disease resistance and fillet quality. We are doing that routinely, all the time. We are monitoring the important traits of our fish.

The R&D we are involved in is targeting gene editing to tackle issues such as resistance to sea lice in the salmon, resistance to a viral disease called infectious salmon anemia, resistance to a viral disease called infectious pancreatic necrosis—those are the targets of our research and development. In the foreseeable future—I could also go further than that—I do not see that we would be doing something similar to what you suggest in our breeding programme. We are able to improve growth and fillet characteristics through the process of routine measurement, family selection and scientifically based breeding programmes. It is quite straightforward to do it that way, and therefore it just would not be a sensible target for the technology in our case. We also see the public acceptance and customer preferences. The use of precision breeding technology to develop traits that have concurrent animal welfare, environment and economic benefits has to be what we are moving towards.

This sort of edit, where you are knocking out a myostatin gene and allowing for faster fillet growth, just is not on our radar. On the specific point about changing fillet characteristics, if you were perhaps trying to use gene editing to modify, for example, the fatty acid profile of the fish, with potential health effects for humans—hopefully it would target positive health effects—there might be an argument for it there. But I do not see the need with the sort of traits we are focused on and targeting; I do not see that the product would be any different, other than having the favourable trait of disease resistance, for example.

[The Chair]

I want to try to get two questions in, very quickly.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

I completely understand the intentions of the hon. Member for Cambridge, but we have welfare legislation in place, and the Bill is intended to work alongside that and to enable responsible innovation. We will ensure that we work alongside all the experts and stakeholders previously mentioned to make sure that we get this right. [Interruption.] He looks slightly sceptical, and I understand that I am asking for his trust, but we are looking to those other stakeholders to help us build the technical details that can give both him and the broader public that reassurance.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister has gone into a lot of detail already as to why she does not support Labour’s amendments. I am not sure that I will be able to change her mind or whether she has another speech put to one side in case I make such a compelling argument—I suspect not—but I will get it on the record anyway.

My starting point is that I was rather concerned about how often she mentioned regulation, further consideration, talking to stakeholders and all those things that are yet to be configured. Actually, we have time to get the Bill right, to get things on the face of it and not to rush into it, rather than having such reliance on secondary legislation. We have made that point already and will, no doubt, continue to do so as we go through the Bill. However, it is a major concern.

I want to say once again for the record that I see that there are positives that could result from gene editing of animals. I am not totally against that. We have talked about improving resistance to disease, resistance to heat and the ability to breed selectively by gender. For example, 29 million male chicks are killed each year in the UK—in the UK it is by gassing, but in other countries it is maceration, which is a pretty horrible process by which they go along a conveyor belt and end up in a grinder that shreds them to bits—so we could avoid that. Interestingly, although people are keen to talk about how we are ahead of the field in animal welfare, parts of Germany have banned culling of male chicks, France has put a bit of money into it, and Germany introduced a ban at the start of the year. It is now all in-ovo testing, so editing the gene might be a quicker and cheaper way of doing it. However, let us not pin all our hopes on this Bill. That is something we could be doing without gene editing. I am surprised that we are not following France and Germany’s lead.

Another advantage we heard about is avoiding the need for dehorning, by preventing the growth of horns. That is all very good stuff, but we also heard about concerns, including the increased yields in particular. That is something that I would be very concerned about. Peter Stevenson from Compassion in World Farming said:

“The science about the detrimental impact of selective breeding on just about every main farm species is utterly clear.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 101, Q163.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, some of the things that I have mentioned in the course of debate I will mention again in a moment.

The National Farmers Union said that the Bill is not the place to consider animal welfare and positive or negative outcomes in that respect, because we have legislation such as the Animal Welfare Act and the farm animal welfare codes. I have already made clear my doubts about the effectiveness of that. Some of the witnesses that we heard from argued very convincingly that the existing animal welfare regime does not offer enough protections. Peter Stevenson also said that

“it is vital that there is something in this Bill to protect animal welfare, because the current legislation…has really very little on breeding, which is why we have all these problems.”—[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 108, Q173.]

I have already mentioned the secondary legislation. Amendment 13 is very important, because if applications are being made for the marketing of gene edited animal products, we need oversight of the related regulations. Otherwise there is a risk of a lax regulatory regime that lets applicants mark their own homework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I am listening hard to the hon. Lady’s speech and I wholeheartedly agree with her about some of the welfare issues she has described. Does she agree, however, that the Bill offers the opportunity to solve some of the problems that she has identified? The problem with natural breeding is that we effectively chuck everything up in the air, and then it comes back together with one part from the mum and one from the dad. That means that when we select for improved production, we cannot also make sure that we are selecting for health and fitness. We are stuck with the selection—for example, we may select for a dog whose face gets smaller and smaller. I understand what the hon. Lady is saying about making sure that we do not use gene editing just to target individual production methods, but does she share my excitement that the Bill offers the opportunity to fix some of the inherent deficits that traditional breeding has imposed on animals—animals that I know many farmers work with every day, and love?

[Kerry McCarthy]

My concern is that that is not spelled out in the Bill, and it goes back to our argument about the public benefit. I would be far more comfortable if the Bill spelled out what the hon. Lady has described and made it clear that that is what it is designed to achieve. The ongoing welfare of the animal should be one of the factors to be taken into account when deciding whether to approve applications. The Bill is not clear about that. Market forces being what they are, some people will want to use the Bill as an opportunity to increase yields.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I understand that the hon. Lady is leery about market consequences, and we should always have a good look at them. Some of the welfare issues that we think of as distressing also have a financial cost attached to them—increased vets’ charges; increased housing requirements; and increased vets’ visits. Would the hon. Lady risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater by being specific about the Bill, because a happy, healthy animal that is productive and fecund is an economic positive for the individuals who seek to farm them?

[Kerry McCarthy]

One might think so, but consider the lifespan of cows and that fact that they become infertile pretty quickly. One would think that logic would suggest that a farmer would want a cow that they did not literally milk for everything, and that lived a longer, healthier and fertile life. That is not what happens on some farms. Some farmers view the economic advantage to them as getting as much out of a cow as possible in its shorter lifespan. We want to encourage best practice, and I am not casting aspersions on farmers who want to do the right thing, but we know that big market forces are at work, particularly in chicken production. In fact, wherever products are sold in bulk and consumed in vast quantities, some players in that market will not have animal welfare in mind.

I am conscious of time, so to conclude, amendment 7 calls for welfare reports to be submitted to the Secretary of State to consider whether yields would be increased and whether that would lead to suffering. That goes to the nub of the issue. I will not repeat what I said earlier, but if the development of gene editing led to the phase out of some of the diseases that affect animal welfare, I would like more reassurances about what that would mean for increased density and animals kept in cramped conditions, and so on. If we have a stronger animal, that might mean that it is thought they can withstand such treatment.

I think the welfare provisions are too weak, and far too much is being left to regulations and consideration at some point in the future. The Bill should have been put on hold while we made more inquiries and gathered more information. That would have meant that we were discussing a fully rounded Bill, and that we knew what we were likely to get from it.

[Jo Churchill]

I am content to note those points.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 5th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner]

Good morning to you, Mr Davies, and to everybody. I think this will be an interesting and, I hope, fruitful discussion. It is a fascinating subject, and it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies.

At the outset, let me start by repeating Labour’s mantra on this Bill. We are pro science, pro innovation and we want Britain’s scientists to succeed and to be at the very forefront of development. We want the investment, but we argue that investment comes from regulatory certainty and clarity. We are concerned that the Government have sadly failed to provide that. As a consequence, the risk is that, far from getting ahead, the UK gets caught in a paralysis, as investors look to see what others are doing and put developments on hold. This legislation really matters.

I hope that the Government will weigh carefully the superficially attractive benefits of moving quickly in search of what they claim to be a Brexit opportunity against the longer-term benefit of getting it right. The genetically edited tortoise versus the selectively bred hare, or vice versa one could perhaps say.

We are particularly concerned about the place of animals in the Bill, so we are starting with what could be described as a veritable blockbuster group of amendments, which would frankly remove animals from the scope of the Bill. We think that that is appropriate for several reasons. We recognise that the Government may not agree with us on this, and in the unlikely possibility of their winning the votes, we have tabled many further amendments to later clauses that we think will strengthen the framework of the genetic editing of animals, which will be discussed later. We have done this, because as I said on Second Reading, we think that the Government have got it the wrong way round on animals.

All the secondary legislation that has preceded the Bill was really about plants, not animals. Likewise in much of the discussion ahead of the Bill, much of the Government’s language again focused on plants. The consultation that was held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs referenced animals, but I would say in passing that at the time that did not seem to be the main focus of attention. It was a surprise to many in the House, as well as to concerned outside stakeholder and advocacy groups, that the Government chose to include animals in the Bill as they have.

When we look at the Bill, there is some evidence of the lack of really concrete provisions in the vague and non-committal timeframes offered by the Government, and the admission that much of the preparation necessary for a regulatory framework for animals has not yet been done. A document that I hope Members have had the opportunity to read is the impact assessment. If we want to know what the Government are really thinking, it is not in the Bill, but in the impact assessment, and I will reference it many times.

A good example of the point that I am making is on page 41 of the impact assessment, right at the top, in paragraph 109:

“Despite the potential benefits accrued by applying changes to the GMO regulations in animals, there is currently high risk of considerable consumer backlash in altering their regulations.”

The Government are well aware of the risks, and we are as well.

The Bill is in effect a framework Bill, with little detail on actual intentions and provisions laid out in law. It delegates a broad set of sweeping powers to Ministers not only to bring in a lot of secondary legislation, but to amend primary legislation with a Henry VIII clause hidden further on, which we will debate later.

The impact assessment lays out some further detail on the powers in the Bill. Again, it explicitly states on the secondary power contained in it that

“an understanding of the impacts of these provisions is not fully developed”—

so, not fully developed—

“A full understanding of the impacts will be developed ahead of any of the provisions being tabled, with impact assessments for each developed for scrutiny.”

That is on page 38, in paragraph 97. In the Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill, they are admitting that a huge amount of work still needs to be done.

The Government also know, as we well know from the many discussions we have had in this very room on secondary legislation, that it is slightly disingenuous of them to suggest that we will have further discussion because, with secondary legislation, we know full well that there is no ability to amend and, frankly, fairly limited opportunity to scrutinise. Given that the issues are big, complicated and of public interest, I do not think that that is good enough.

Those who have looked at our procedures and at the way we operate in this House have said before that, if the Government intend to do that kind of thing, they could have drafted statutory instruments in advance, for example, but none of that has happened. The Bill is in essence a framework Bill, and as others have argued elsewhere, that is not the right way to do legislation. That is important not just in principle, but because the Bill is a significant piece of legislation. It could—will—have wide-ranging impacts on our food system, on the health and welfare of animals in this country and, as I have argued before, on the investment climate.

As has been raised numerous times, both on Second Reading and by many of the witnesses in the evidence sessions—those excellent sessions we had—the public have real concerns about the technology, in particular about its application to animals. Again going back to the impact assessment, paragraph 9 on page 11 states:

“Historically, ethical concerns have dominated the GM space, preventing proper consideration of scientific evidence.”

In itself, that is an interesting sentence, although not one I would recommend: to suggest that ethical concerns should not be considered in the broader debate is not a good starting point. It is a clumsy observation.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I share my hon. Friend’s concern about that point. We heard from several witnesses that we should be talking about animal welfare not in this Bill, but in connection with other legislation, such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or the farm animal welfare codes. That is almost, “Put that to one side; this is just about the science.” Does he share my concern that we are not looking at the Bill in the round and considering those ethical issues?

[Daniel Zeichner]

As ever, my hon. Friend speaks good sense. She is absolutely right. There is huge interest and I think understanding among the public of the potential benefits and of the potential risks. That is why we should have a proper discussion and debate in the round. We will keep coming back to that today and on further days, as we try to discern the Government’s thinking from the Bill. We have to work quite hard to understand the wider framework within which this sits, and the overall impact it will have. We will keep coming back to that, so I very much agree with her.

To go back to the impact assessment, at paragraph 122, again there is recognition that public acceptance remains uncertain, with the document referring to

“public scepticism and non-acceptance of GE products, including those that qualify as PBOs”—

precision bred organisms.

The Government are also clear—as are we—about the potential benefits and the need to weigh them proportionately with the risks. We would argue that to do so, and to ensure public confidence, the Government need to be absolutely transparent and explicit about the changes they are seeking to make. As I have indicated, however, that is not really going on at the moment. It seems that we are being asked to vote for a blank cheque that would give the Government the power to set up any regulatory framework that they desire, without proper discussion about the merits of one particular framework over another.

That was made clear in evidence, particularly that of Professor Gideon Henderson, the chief scientific adviser at DEFRA, who said:

“The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 18, Q26.]

I quite agree. He also said that the process of considering the evidence on animal welfare

“will have to take place before secondary legislation can be enacted. The process for that is laid out in the Bill, and the timescale will be something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2022; c. 17, Q24.]

We know that the Government’s thinking is that that would take some years—possibly two to three; possibly longer—but no such process or timescale is laid out in the Bill. If more time is needed to get the provisions right, why not focus on doing that rather than asking us, essentially, to allow them to pass and to ask questions only afterwards? I do not think that is how we get good legislation, and even more worryingly, that is not how we maintain public confidence. This is quite a big decision, as these matters are a big part of the Bill, but we have reluctantly come to the conclusion that animals should be excluded for now, until DEFRA and the Government have carried out the very large piece of work that they clearly and self-evidently need to do—as they admit—before they are ready to come back to the House with concrete proposals.

Amendment 29 would remove “or a precision bred animal” from the definition of “precision bred organism” in subsection 1(1). That term will itself be subject to further discussion in a few minutes, but I think that the effect of the amendment is clear.

Amendment 30 would remove paragraph 1(7)(b) and is consequential on amendment 29. Should the amendments be successful, there would need to be many further consequential amendments later in the Bill, but rather than putting the Clerks to the task of considerable further drafting work, we thought it might be sensible to test the water first. Consequently, we will not press amendments 29 and 30 to a vote, but we will test the view of the Committee with amendment 28, which can be found the end of the amendment paper and would amend the Bill’s title to remove references to animals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

Amendments 32 and 10 concern the requirements for releasing a precision bred organism. I go back to my mantra—we are pro-science and pro-innovation. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system, while addressing the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has sometimes created.

In our view, the UK has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others would follow and that provides a clear public good. We recognise that the laws need to be updated to match current scientific understanding, as we talked about earlier. We want our scientists to succeed, and we want them to use their skills for good here in the UK.

To get the legislation right, the Government must balance several risks and benefits. Without consumer and business confidence, we fear we will not see that innovation happening here in the UK and we will not see the subsequent improvements to environmental sustainability and better food security that we all seek.

We want the UK to prioritise innovations that provide public benefit and prosperity. There are so many good examples happening across the country, including in my constituency of Cambridge. The Minister has already referred to the many examples presented to us in the evidence sessions last week. I pay tribute to the passion, expertise and dedication that all those people bring to their work.

I was particularly struck by the evidence given by Bill Angus, in which he noted the motivations behind the work he does as a wheat breeder and as vice-chair of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico, and the passions that drive it. Likewise, Professor Giles Oldroyd gave compelling evidence on the work being done at the University of Cambridge, focusing on improving the sustainability of farming systems and, in particular, removing the need for inorganic fertilizers. Those are clearly areas where gene editing could bring significant benefits for environmental sustainability and in reducing food insecurity across the world. Those should be the innovations that are championed.

However—there is always a “however”—we also heard evidence that while gene editing could be used for good, it could be used for ends that to many of us do not seem so desirable. I found the evidence from Peter Stevenson of Compassion in World Farming very persuasive. Here I am thinking of some of the harmful impacts that, sadly, traditional breeding methods have wrought on different animal species, whether that is farm animals that have been bred to produce high yields, which shortens their lifespan, or companion animals such as dogs, which have been bred to have bodies so small that they can barely sustain their internal organs. There is a risk that the Bill could be used to breed animals in a way that meant they would suffer more or be made to tolerate harsher conditions.

There is widespread agreement across the House that we are proud of the animal welfare and environmental standards that we have in the UK, but we know that not all countries around the world share that ethos or those aims, and that they might have different intentions for these new technologies. The question we pose in our amendments is, how can we ensure that the technology is used for good here in the UK, and who decides what that good might be?

The Bill includes some animal welfare tests, which we welcome—we shall discuss them in more detail later—but that is about it. There is a question in my mind: is development of further herbicide-resistant crops allowing more herbicide to be used, not less, what we really want to see? I do not think so. Are there tests in the Bill to stop that? That is where, again, I worry. I am not convinced, although I am happy for the Minister to point those tests out.

Our amendments propose something more explicit. Amendment 32 would create a public benefit test before precision bred organisms could be authorised and released. An organism would have to have been developed for any of the purposes described in the amendment, and I am sure all members of the Committee agree that that is an excellent list. Sharp-eyed Members might think that they have seen the list before. Labour Members are keen recyclers, and Government Members will be delighted to know that those worthy goals have been lifted from the Agriculture Act 2020. The added benefit is that that makes it all much easier for Conservative Members to support all this. What is not to like in the proposal?

The amendment would ensure that we got the most out of the Bill. As Professor Sarah Hartley of the University of Exeter said in evidence:

“The Bill enables science to develop in this area, but it does not enable us to direct the science and technology towards doing any good. That would require a different form of governance.”––[Official Report, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2022; c. 123-24, Q193.]

That is the key point, but there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that will happen. Members might remember the exchange I had with the scientist who is developing the tomato with added vitamin D. I love the enthusiasm of scientists, which is fantastic, but they are great optimists in many ways, and they assume that everyone is, like them, developing positive stuff that will be good for the world. I hate to enlighten them about the fact that there are people out there who do not take exactly the same view.

When making legislation, we have to ensure that, as well as welcoming those who are undoubtedly trying to do good, we guard against those who are not. Amendment 32 would strengthen the Bill, harness the good that can be created through such technologies, and properly encode the Government’s stated aims for the Bill in the text itself.

Amendment 10 concerns the notification requirements for the release of a precision bred organism. The secondary powers in clause 4 are important, as they will specify the information that a notifier is required to disclose before releasing a precision bred organism. That is important not just to ensure that concerned members of the public remain informed, but also for what is termed “co-existence”—the ability of organic growers to maintain the integrity of their product.

We heard evidence from representatives of the organic sector. They made it clear that they cater to a group of people who do not want to see genetically modified or edited organisms in their food. Whatever our wider view of the Bill, I think we can all agree that those people have a right to that choice. With thorough information in release notices, organic farmers can make informed decisions about their crops or animals, take the necessary measures, and track their supply chain. That is an important set of issues, and given the clause’s importance, we believe that any powers created through it should be properly discussed and given proper scrutiny by this House rather than being waved through.

I fear that we will make a number of similar points as we discuss whether legislation should be decided via the negative or the affirmative procedure. It would have been helpful and desirable for the Committee to have had details on the powers, rather than being asked to give the Government a blank cheque to do what they think is best. In the absence of any detail, I think that we should be able to debate and scrutinise the secondary legislation when it is laid before the House. That is what amendment 10 would secure.

Although we will not necessarily press both amendments to a vote, I think amendment 10 is sufficiently significant for us to divide the Committee, but let us see what the Minister says.

[Kerry McCarthy]

In speaking to amendment 32, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge quoted oral evidence. I had a bit of a Twitter conversation with David Rose, professor of sustainable agricultural systems at Cranfield University. He was due to give evidence but could not because of ill health. Professor Rose said that the Government have not considered how the Bill will lead to more sustainable agriculture, and that, although gene editing does have potential, it could, if used badly, make agriculture less sustainable.

Professor Rose posed a number of questions. What is gene editing for? That goes to the very heart of what the Committee is trying to nail. Who benefits? Will it reduce chemical use? Will it facilitate further monoculture? Will it intensify animal protection? The fact that those questions and concerns exist mean that gene editing could be used for good or for bad, so it would be helpful to have a public interest test in the Bill.

The Agriculture Act 2020 contains very clear tests on public money for public good, and establishes quite a clear idea of what is regarded as a public good in food and farming—certainly in how people farm their land, although not so much on the animal side of things. There is concern, however, that the Government are rowing back a little on that agenda as they start to consider how to distribute subsidies to farmers.

As we look at the more technical side of things, it would be good to reiterate that the Government do see that there is a need to promote the public good with regard to this legislation. Sue Pritchard, chief executive of the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission—with whom I am sure the Minister is familiar—agreed with Professor Rose, saying that his comments were “consistent” with the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission consultation response; she also agreed that DEFRA must anticipate good and bad consequences. That is our concern: while we have heard lots about the potential, it is just not clear that the safeguards are there against potential misuse of the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Can the hon. Lady provide the Committee with more evidence for her assertion that we are moving to an American or Australian system of farming? None of my farmers want to deviate from any of their world-class standards, so I am curious about where she gets that idea from.

[Kerry McCarthy]

We have seen planning applications, for example, for huge pig farms where there have been lots of concerns about the impact on the local environment. One of the problems is that although those planning applications can be rejected on the grounds of the environmental impact—slurry leaking into the soil and the water supply, for example—they cannot be objected to on animal welfare grounds. There are quite a lot of examples of that happening. I have also been to chicken farms with high numbers of chickens kept in close confinement and a high turnover, as it takes 28 days to bring a chicken up to market weight. My concern is that if gene editing allows us to accelerate that process even further, the sheer number of animals involved could lead to welfare concerns.

There were also some very good arguments that gene editing could reduce the need for antibiotics. It would allow us to deal with disease at source, so we would not have to worry so much about disease spreading. Obviously, reducing antibiotics use would be very good, given the impact it can have on human health if it leaks into our food supply chain. At the same time, though, if we are less worried about disease spreading among animals because we have managed to breed out that concern, that could open the door in some sense to putting an awful lot more animals in close contact and, perhaps, not being as worried about husbandry.

I think it is very good that, for the most part, British farmers do not want to go down that American route. We had that argument over the Agriculture Act and the Trade Act 2021—about protecting standards and trying to support British farmers who do not want to do that. That is a very good thing. However, given the possibility that British farmers will have to compete with imports that are produced to lower standards, there may be some who do want to go down that route. We see that with some food producers because they want to be able to produce more cheaply.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, scientists want to do the right thing and use gene editing for the right purposes. By and large, farmers in this country also want to do the right thing and farm to good, sustainable standards. However, if market forces are against them, there will always be the temptation to take advantage of being able to put animals in close contact; there will always be some people who choose to do that. I do not see the harm in trying to have safeguards in the Bill to prevent that. That is not to say that everyone will try if the safeguards are not there.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I am struggling to see where the evidence is that, through the passage of the Bill, our animal welfare standards, which are covered by other legislation, would somehow be cancelled out.

[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.

[Jo Churchill]

Amendment 32, as I understand it, would embed public interest into the Bill. We are very much aligned with the intentions behind the amendment, and are already undertaking a range of work across Government that delivers public good. Some of those have been mentioned. We want precision breeding technologies to deliver real benefits. They are a vital part of toolkit to deliver benefits for our food system and the environment. The hon. Member for Bristol East said—rather, implied—that our farmers were not doing the right thing.

[Kerry McCarthy]

indicated dissent.

[Jo Churchill]

Well, if they are doing the right thing and our researchers are, too, there is no need for that reassurance in the Bill. Throughout the Bill there is the PBO assessment via ACRE on both plants and animals; the animal welfare declaration and the animal advisory body; the PVS varieties listing for plants and seeds; the FSA and the food and feed marketing authorisation to check before food comes to market. There are checks and balances throughout the Bill. We are keen to see those things in the Bill that can deliver good—disease resistance, pest resistance and drought resistance.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 7th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Prentis]

The Government certainly believe that there are real environmental benefits to allowing carefully regulated precision breeding that enjoys public trust, and we are keen to realise those benefits. Although I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) is no longer in position, I was pleased to take over the Committee stage of the Bill because, as Farming Minister, I have long taken a close interest in it. I am very excited, for example, by the reduction in pesticide use that may be brought about really quite quickly if we pass the Bill and crack on with appropriate precision breeding. I do not think it is necessary or appropriate for regulations to be made subject to amendments 26 and 27.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Two things concern me. First, we know that the Secretary of State has repeatedly expressed doubt about the precautionary principle, suggesting that it is implemented in too strong a fashion and that he wants to row back from that. Secondly, in 2017 we were promised these environmental principles imminently. Now, in 2022, we have a draft statement. That suggests that the Government are not keen to get these principles into law and to implement them; rather, they are doing everything they can to drag their feet. Does the Minister not realise why I have concerns about that?

[The Chair]

Order. If Members wish to make interventions, they should be brief. If they want to make longer interventions, they should try to catch my eye and make a speech.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Kerry McCarthy Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

My right hon. Friend, as always, speaks good sense. He is absolutely right; with focus and a proper attempt to meet the challenges we face, it is remarkable what can be done. But this needs leadership and, as ever, it is missing.

Let me turn in detail to the public interest test and our amendment 3. The potential benefits of gene edited crops include creating plants resistant to extreme weather conditions and diseases, which could reduce the need for pesticides and create higher yields to address rising food insecurity driven by climate change and other factors. Genetic editing could also be used to improve the nutritional quality of food. For example, giving farmers the tools to beat virus yellows without recourse to neonicotinoids is a prize worth having.

However, we must recognise that any new technology also carries risks: risks of unintended consequences; risks of technology being misused; and risks of commercial pressure being exerted in ways that might not be for the benefit of the wider public. Those are all risks that must be properly recognised and addressed, because unless public and investor confidence is maintained, research will stall and opportunities will be squandered. Unfortunately, the Government’s blind faith in the market means this is a laissez-faire, minimalist Bill, which does not come close to an effective regulatory framework to guide and oversee the work of researchers and developers.

Amendment 3 would therefore require that a gene edited organism has been developed to provide one or more of the public benefit purposes listed, if it is to be released into the environment. The amendment neatly recycles much of the wording in section 1 of the Government’s own Agriculture Act 2020, which lists the public goods that can be funded. We are simply applying the same approach to the development and use of gene editing technologies. We believe they should be used only where that is clearly in the public interest, including, for instance, in protecting a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment; mitigating climate change; improving the health or welfare of animals or plants; and supporting human health and wellbeing.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

During the Bill Committee, we heard that one of the potential benefits of these innovations was a possible reduction in the overuse of antibiotics on farms, because we would be able to breed things that are more resistant to disease. Although I welcome that, does my hon. Friend share my concern about the comments on antibiotics made by the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), when she was briefly Health Secretary? Is he concerned about her seemingly relaxed attitude towards these entering the food chain and the impact on public health?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right; people should not be careless about antibiotics and that was not an approach to be encouraged at all. I share her concerns.

Amendment 3 would strengthen the Bill by harnessing the good that can be created through such technologies and ensuring that they are not developed and used for purposes that would not deliver beneficial outcomes—surely that is an objective we can agree on across the House. We believe that would take the Bill much further forward in establishing the kind of regulatory framework that really would place the UK in a leading position. That sits alongside our new clauses, which would establish a single, robustly independent regulator, along the lines of the very successful and genuinely world-leading Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. That regulator does not just approve an application, but tracks, traces and checks over time. That is an important and very different approach, and one discussed in Committee by expert witnesses.

Our new clauses would ensure that Ministers’ decisions on gene editing are properly guided by the environmental principles set out under the Environment Act 2021, and that there is no regression from the environmental standards agreed in the trade and co-operation agreement, which is pretty important when it comes to trade issues. Our new clauses would build an environment in which the UK really could attract the worldwide talent and investment in gene editing research and development that we all want to see.

On animal health and welfare, I turn to our amendment 4, which I am delighted to see has been endorsed by Compassion in World Farming and 12 other animal protection organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation. The amendment would require a range of animal health and welfare factors to be taken into account by the Secretary of State when deciding whether to issue a marketing authorisation for a gene edited animal. We appreciate that gene editing can be used in the same way as “traditional” selective breeding to produce fast growth, high yields and large litters, which, sadly, we also know are capable of causing suffering in farmed animals.

Clearly, we have existing legislation to protect animal health and welfare, but the concern is that we should be very clear at the outset that we do not want to see gene editing used in ways that make it more possible for animals to endure harm and suffering. As the Nuffield Council on Bioethics put it,

“animals should not be bred merely to enable them to endure conditions of poor welfare more easily or in a way that would diminish their inherent capacities to live a good life.”

Some researchers aim to use gene editing to improve disease resistance in livestock. Of course, that could be hugely beneficial and could help to reduce the serious harm caused by the overuse of antibiotics, for instance. It would be hugely beneficial if we could find ways to tackle porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome in pigs or avian flu. But the public would not want to see gene editing used to allow animals to be kept in poorer, more crowded, stressful conditions by making them resistant to the diseases that would otherwise result.

--- Later in debate ---

Leipzig University has explored the possibility of changing the eggshell colour so that a male egg can be identified much earlier and sentient beings are not hatched and then killed. I think precision breeding techniques could phase out that very bleak practice of killing day-old male chicks, which is a clear part of the laying hen system.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am very pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says, as I have spent quite a lot of time trying to convince people that that does happen to day-old chicks. Is it not the case that some other European countries have introduced legislation on that point, so it is not necessarily linked to genetic technology? I think they have acted to prevent so many chicks being killed.

[George Eustice]

What a number of countries have done—the UK was in the vanguard of this—was to move away from maceration of day-old chicks towards the use of carbon dioxide and argon gas as a means of dispatching them. However, I think we could accelerate the process of identifying the eggs through the use of genetic technology.

Dehorning cattle is another mutilation that we would like to phase out over time. Progress has been made for some breeds on polled cattle—that is, cattle born without horns, so that we do not have to use a hot iron, albeit under anaesthetic, to de-bud them. Again, it is difficult to perfect without precision breeding techniques, but if we had that technology, we could have more polled cattle and reduce the need for conventional dehorning of cattle, or even pave the way for a regulatory change to prevent it.

There is also the prospect of breeding more resistance to diseases. In the dairy herd some selection is already done for natural resistance to bovine tuberculosis. It is limited in its ability, but if we had the technology, we might be able to go further.

At the moment, the Government plan to phase out and remove badger culling is predicated on a lot of confidence that a cattle vaccine will be viable and deployable, but it would be helpful to have additional tools in the box, and resistance to TB could be one of them. Of course, we are about to face another very difficult winter when it comes to avian flu, and this technology might have some application there.

However, my sense when I read amendment 4 was that whoever drafted it had had one sector in particular in mind—the broiler chicken sector. There is a genuine concern that the production speed of broiler chickens, reduced now to around 32 to 33 days, is so fast that they are having all sorts of leg problems, and we might be able to make some changes there. That is a legitimate point, because while we might say it has improved the welfare of a broiler chicken that it is bred to finish within 32 days, we might say it is in its welfare interest to ensure that it does not have leg problems. There is a second question, which is whether it is the ethical and right thing to do to produce a chicken within 32 days rather than, say, 37 days, in which case the welfare problem goes away.

A less obvious and less talked-about situation might be commercial duck production. We know that ducks need and want open water—it is part of their physiology and the way their beaks work. However, many commercial duck producers do not give ducks access to water. I have come across vets who will argue that it is in the interest of ducks not to have access to water, since that can spread disease and that is not in their welfare interest, but that goes to the root of the issue with animal welfare. We can either see animal welfare in the conventional five freedoms sense—freedom from pain, hunger, thirst and so on—or we can see it in the more modern sense of a life worth living.

The amendment does not work, because the more we put into an amendment the more we inadvertently exclude. If we accepted an amendment that proscribed certain things but missed certain things, at a future date a breeder might bring a judicial review and say, “Well, this wasn’t covered by the Bill and everything else was.” Therefore, we would not be future-proofing the importance of animal welfare.

However, that is where guidance could work. After Second Reading of the Bill, I asked our officials to give some thought to the idea of guidance, which might give organisations such as Compassion in World Farming and people such as Peter Stevenson, who is very thoughtful on these matters, the reassurance they need in the absence of a legislative change on the face of the Bill, which is difficult to do. The Minister may find that there is some guidance helpfully drafted—or it may be that it was not drafted, but it is not too late, because the Bill has time in the other House.

Will the Minister consider whether this issue of how the animal welfare body should approach its task and how it should assess the impacts on animal welfare could be dealt with in a non-statutory way through guidance. He and his officials will have to issue terms of reference anyway to the animal welfare body, which is likely to be a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, and it would not take much to set out some parameters for the things we want it to bear in mind when making assessments.