Gene Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill - Amendment to the clause on gene editing in plants and animals

Mr. Zeichner argues that while gene editing holds promise, the current legislation lacks detail and clarity, risking public confidence and hindering scientific progress. He calls for a comprehensive regulatory framework to balance ethical concerns with innovation.

Mr. Bridgen questions whether the public good and commercial advantage must be mutually exclusive, suggesting that scientific advancement can serve both interests.

The regulation of genetically modified foods is a devolved issue. The Bill, although intended for England only, will have significant impacts on devolved areas and was introduced without proper consultation with the Scottish Parliament. This unilateral action by DEFRA shows contempt for Scotland's democratically elected Government. If gene-edited crops are planted in Scotland against its wishes, it would still be prevented from stopping GMO products from being sold in shops under the UK Internal Market Act 2020. The SNP is committed to ensuring Scotland operates to the highest environmental standards and protects Scottish agriculture. It advises following EU approaches and staying aligned with EU regulations, as divergence could further damage trade with Europe.

Argues that gene editing is a precise technique compared to older methods like induced mutation, gamma radiation or chemicals. Highlights that Scotch whisky varieties have been produced using these methods without concern.

Supports gene editing for national and global food security, environmental protection, developing world support, and advancing UK science. Argues against misconceptions about animal welfare concerns raised by opposition.

Critiques the Bill for being flawed due to lack of clarity and strategic vision. Raises concerns over scientific coherence, definitions, transparency, and risks to trade with EU and Northern Ireland.

Supports the Bill and argues that it will allow for technological advancements in breeding, enabling greater crop yields, reduced use of pesticides and fertilisers, improved animal welfare, and human health benefits. He cites South Cambridgeshire's role as a genetic hub and raises concerns about the regulatory framework delaying innovation.

Raises concerns over the potential commercialisation of crops, highlighting the dominance of major seed companies. She also expresses worries about animal welfare and criticises the Bill for focusing on symptoms rather than causes of industrial farming issues such as antibiotic use and intensive breeding practices.

Supports the legislation, which allows for a science-based approach to precision breeding. Argues that this will drive economic growth and innovation in agriculture, particularly in Norfolk where gene editing companies and research institutes are located. Emphasises that precision breeding does not involve adding foreign DNA and is therefore different from genetic modification. Cites expert opinion stating that these techniques pose no greater risk than traditional methods. Highlights benefits such as reduced pesticide use and improved crop resilience to climate change. Expresses concern over potential regulatory hurdles introduced by the FSA that could hinder innovation.

Supports the concept of precision breeding but raises concerns about its implementation. Notes it may be a distraction from farmers' current financial difficulties and suggests a smooth transition between subsidy schemes to support them. Questions how unforeseen environmental consequences will be managed post-release. Expresses concern over animal welfare and the potential watering down of standards through gene editing without corresponding improvements in farming conditions. Urges for clear food labelling to empower consumers with informed choices, maintaining trust in British agricultural products.

Gene editing is different from genetic modification, allowing new varieties to be created similar to traditional breeding processes. Without this legislation, gene-edited products will continue to face stringent EU regulations. The Bill aims for a simpler regulatory system, promoting agricultural development sustainably and potentially increasing investment in UK businesses.

[INTERVENTION] Suggests that the Scottish National party prefers to move at the EU's slower pace on introducing gene editing technology, urging them to align with UK efforts.

Expresses gratitude for previous speakers and sets up a supportive tone towards the debate's topic.

Welcomes pro-science and innovation but criticises the Bill for lacking a strong regulatory framework. The Government needs to balance risks effectively, establish clear guidelines regarding adverse impacts on animal welfare, and ensure transparent labelling for consumers.

Emphasises the importance of supporting precision breeding technologies to enhance sustainability in agriculture. Argues that current animal welfare standards are robust and not affected by the Bill, which aligns with expert opinions from institutions such as James Hutton and Roslin Institutes.

Welcomes the Bill, highlighting its potential to enhance future food security. Invites the Minister to visit the University of Nottingham’s Sutton Bonington campus to see pioneering genetic editing research.