Key Facts

• Professor Robin Lovell-Badge is the principal group leader and head of the laboratory at the Francis Crick Institute, Royal Society.
• Alessandro Coatti is a science policy officer at the Royal Society of Biology.
• The witnesses support an outcome-based approach to genetic technology regulations instead of technique-specific regulations.
• Professor Lovell-Badge discusses the risk of unintended consequences in genome-edited organisms versus random mutations.
• The Bill does not cover micro-organisms, highlighting differences in genomic changes across species.
• There is concern about zoonosis risks where an animal virus can jump to humans due to genetic modifications.
• The Bill includes clause 11 which allows the Secretary of State to request information about health and welfare post-marketing.
• Detailed guidance from DEFRA or ACRE is needed on how to implement post-market monitoring.
• Additional risk assessments can be triggered by the committee when necessary.
• Esther McVey is chairing the Public Bill Committee hearing.
• William Angus is joining via Zoom as an owner of Angus Wheat Consultants Ltd.
• Professor Johnathan Napier is from Rothamsted Research.
• Professor Nigel Halford, also from Rothamsted Research, is present in person.
• Bill Angus started his own wheat breeding and oat activities in 2016, becoming the largest privately owned wheat and oat breeder in the UK.
• Professor Napier ran the first gene edited field trials in the UK in 2018.
• Professor Halford is currently running a gene edited wheat field trial to reduce acrylamide content in wheat products.
• William Angus expresses concern about large organizations potentially restricting access to genetic resources.
• He advocates for maintaining the current freedom to operate without changes to regulations.
• He warns against patenting genes, which could stifle innovation and give control of food supplies to large multinationals.
• Innovation in genetic technology requires collaboration between public and private sectors.
• The cost of regulatory approval is a significant barrier to innovation.
• Regulations should not replicate previous EU regulations that imposed high costs.
• The last GM crop approved for cultivation in Europe was in 2010.
• Gene editing introduces genetic changes similar to those from chemical and radiation mutants, which have been on the market since the 1950s.
• Regulatory approval costs are significant barriers for commercialization.
• Roger Kerr is the chief executive of Organic Farmers & Growers.
• Steven Jacobs is the business development manager for Organic Farmers & Growers.
• Joanna Lewis is the policy and strategy director for the Soil Association.
• Christopher Atkinson is the head of standards at the Soil Association.
• The current system mandates an inspection and certification process based on international norms.
• Producers are required to notify their activity and interaction with independent third-party certifiers.
• There is a prohibition on GMOs in organic production.
• The global organic market is worth around $100 billion.
• In the UK, it is valued at £3 billion.
• Organic land regulation has been in place since the early '90s.
• The Bill does not provide clarity on what genetic editing is defined as.
• Organic consumers purchase products believing they are avoiding GM, which may be at risk of contamination without proper measures.
• There is significant public opposition (85%) to the Bill's provisions.
• Witnesses are concerned about defining non-GE status of livestock when crossed with GE material.
• The Bill should include requirements for full supply chain transparency and labelling.
• Amendments will be proposed to test whether traits prioritise yield over animal welfare.
• Dr Richard Harrison is the director of crop research at NIAB.
• Dr Harrison's work includes plant-microbe interactions in complex trait genetics, particularly in horticultural crops like strawberries and cherries.
• The session with witnesses runs until 16:30.
• Professor Giles Oldroyd is a professor of crop sciences at the University of Cambridge and director of the Crop Science Centre.
• The UK is a world leader in plant sciences, with significant challenges related to food security, climate change, and sustainability over the next 30 years.
• Current regulatory frameworks ensure safety but limit impact from research; the Bill aims to enable more straightforward application of research.
• There is no scientific rationale for additional labelling requirements beyond what is provided by the register.
• Field trials measure environmental impacts of gene-edited organisms compared to wild types.
• Regulatory assessments are part of the process from research to commercial release, ensuring safety and efficacy.
• The market share of seed production in the US or globally is held by four companies.
• Traditional genetic modification technologies are costly, limiting access primarily to large corporations with deep pockets.
• Treating gene-edited crops as equivalent to conventionally bred ones could democratize technology for SMEs.
• Concerns exist about potential monopolization of new technologies over time.
• Professor Oldroyd's research is focused on reducing the need for phosphate and nitrate fertilisers.
• Dr Harrison notes that UKRI-funded research at NIAB has a strategic element aligned with BBSRC’s objectives.
• The Bill aims to lower barriers for small to medium-sized enterprises in gene editing technology.
• Esther McVey thanked Dr Richard Harrison and Professor Giles Oldroyd for their testimony.
• Experts discussed the potential of gene editing to enhance sustainable farming practices both domestically and internationally.
• The EU Court of Justice ruling in 2018 led to 70% of SME members ceasing investment in precision breeding techniques due to expense and political uncertainty.
• A vegetable trait licensing platform is already established, while an agricultural trait licensing platform is being developed.
• Each variety undergoes at least two years of testing before market release under the UK national list process.
• Dr Alan Tinch is vice-president of genetics at the Centre for Aquaculture Technologies.
• The session focuses on the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill's implications for aquaculture.
• Dr Tinch discusses gene editing's role in improving disease resistance and animal welfare.
• Gene editing in aquaculture could be commercialised within five years for short-generation species like shrimp and tilapia.
• For Atlantic salmon, significant numbers of edited fish may not appear until at least four years after implementation, with full commercialisation possibly taking eight years or more.
• Dr Tinch argues against mandatory labelling if gene-edited animals are genetically indistinguishable from naturally occurring ones.
• The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill has been proposed in Norway.
• Dr Alan Tinch suggests that UK should adopt new gene editing technologies to maintain leadership in animal welfare and farming sustainability.
• Further consideration of the bill is adjourned until Thursday, June 30th.