Key Facts

• Penny Hawkins is head of the RSPCA animals in science department.
• The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA) is crucial for ethical review and harm-benefit analysis.
• There are concerns about the lack of mention of ASPA in the draft Bill.
• The Bill applies to genetically altered animals in laboratory settings.
• Licences are required under ASPA for creating genetically altered animals.
• Animals must undergo phenotyping and welfare assessments before breeding licenses can be waived.
• Safeguards for farmed animals may be reduced once they join the national herd or flock.
• Graham Stringer thanks Dr Penny Hawkins for her testimony.
• Pat Thomas is co-founder and co-director of Beyond GM, a journalist, former trustee of the Soil Association, and board member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
• Lawrence Woodward is co-director of Beyond GM and director of Whole Health Agriculture.
• The term 'precision breeding' is not used in any other regulations.
• The Bill's definitions start with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as defined by the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 2002.
• Disruption within the genome is a contested area and impacts risk assessment.
• The Bill assumes there are no environmental impacts from precision breeding technologies.
• Norway's agricultural biotechnology board assesses genome edited products on scientific, ecological, and social bases.
• The Norwegian law includes high percentages of civil society groups and seeks out citizen views.
• GeneWatch UK raised concerns about trade impacts if England proceeds without regulatory alignment.
• The Regulatory Policy Committee identified trade transparency and marketing issues not addressed in the impact statement.
• Lawrence Woodward suggests developing specific analytical tests for GMOs to ensure traceability.
• Professor David Rose withdrew due to COVID.
• Dr Michael Edenborough QC and Professor Sarah Hartley from University of Exeter gave evidence on genetic modification regulation.
• The session will finish at 3:30 pm.
• Clause 1 is described as imprecise with unclear definitions like 'traditional processes' and undefined terms like 'natural transformation'.
• The Bill does not add anything substantial regarding intellectual property rights.
• There are concerns about regulatory divergence from EU regulations under the UK Internal Market Act 2020, affecting cross-border trade.
• The Bill does not change patent law or plant breeders' rights.
• It allows easier acquisition of rights in precision bred organisms.
• There are concerns about regulatory uncertainty and potential exploitation by companies.
• Liability issues are raised regarding potential contamination by precision breeding products.
• Proving damage and causation could be difficult for organic farmers due to lack of clear markers or evidence.
• There is a suggestion that strict liability might offer better protection but it is rare and controversial.
• Ed Barker is head of policy at the Agricultural Industries Confederation.
• The session discusses potential benefits in the feed sector, including reduced import dependency on soya from South America.
• Benefits include having a greater number of crops available to UK growers and reducing emissions through innovative feed additives.
• The Bill aims to provide long-term flexibility over five, 15 or 20 years for growers, farmers, and agri-supply businesses.
• UK has exported about 1 million tonnes of cereal grains to the European Union in the past year.
• Labelling precision bred goods would be extremely difficult and economically unviable without a significant market pull factor.
• The current approval process for plant protection products or GM feed imports from South America is indeterminate and causes uncertainty.
• Precision bred products placed on the market in England can be sold in Scotland or Wales under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, but regulatory compliance remains uncertain.
• There are concerns about cross-border trade within the UK due to differences in approach across constituent parts of the UK.
• Paul Temple is a mixed farmer in east Yorkshire with arable crops and beef suckler cattle.
• He participated in Government’s field-scale evaluation trials many years ago.
• He is currently a director of the Global Farmer Network and has travelled extensively to understand farming practices worldwide.
• Graham Stringer introduces Ross Houston from Benchmark Genetics.
• Ross Houston is a researcher with experience at Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh.
• He discusses family-based breeding programmes for genetic improvement in Atlantic salmon, whiteleg shrimp, and Nile tilapia.
• CRISPR technology can introduce beneficial changes faster than conventional breeding.
• The Bill aims to enable research without stringent regulation early on.
• Sterilising farmed salmon could prevent genetic introgression with wild strains.
• Graham Stringer wants to ensure Scotland does not fall behind in innovation.
• The Scottish Government is funding precision breeding work at the Roslin Institute.
• Talent could be lost if unnecessary restrictions are imposed on research and applications.
• Professor Wendy Harwood is responsible for crop transformation and genome editing at the John Innes Centre.
• Professor Cathie Martin focuses on nutritional improvement of foods through genetic modification and gene editing techniques.
• Nigel Moore heads business development and strategy for KWS Cereals, a German-headquartered company with significant breeding activity in the UK.
• Professor Martin discusses his experience with genetically modified purple tomatoes taking 14 years to get approved for commercialisation.
• The new legislation allows field trials within 20 days of notifying DEFRA for products without foreign DNA, like pro-vitamin D enriched tomatoes.
• Professor Harwood suggests a two-tier approach to regulation based on the nature and potential risks of precision breeding technologies.
• Public confidence is crucial for the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.
• The concept of precision bred organisms aims to align with natural breeding techniques, reducing perceived risk.
• A study showed that over the last 20 years in the UK, breeding development saved 1.8 million hectares from agriculture and delivered about 16 million tonnes fewer CO2 emissions.
• Professor Martin describes a field trial notification process taking two days in the UK compared to two years in Italy.
• The UK DEFRA approval takes 20 days after submission for a field trial application.
• There is a line-by-line scrutiny session scheduled for Tuesday 5 July.