The speech made by Daniel Zeichner, the Labour MP for Cambridge, in the House of Commons on 31 October 2022.
This Bill is now on its third Secretary of State, and I think the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), is the fourth Minister to speak to it.
I welcome back the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who took the Environment Act 2021 through Committee. She will be delighted to know that I will never cease to remind her that the Government’s 25-year environment plan was supposed to be for 25 years, not to take 25 years.
On Friday, we once again saw why the Conservatives cannot be trusted on the environment. They are breaking their own law by failing to come up with critical air, water and biodiversity targets on time. On the same day, the Prime Minister gave up on the UK’s leadership role on climate change by ducking COP27.
When the Government bring forward such a vague, thin Bill, asking the country to trust them to get the secondary legislation right, they can hardly be surprised that people are sceptical, and we are. Their failure fails Britain, and we all deserve better. This is an important Bill that, with the right regulatory safeguards, will reassure the public and provide the right environment for the research and investment we all want to see. Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation, but we also know that good regulation is the key to both innovation and investor confidence.
This Bill concerns our food. After 12 years of Conservative government, people are fighting to keep their head above water against the rising tide of inflation, which is even higher for essentials such as food. It is no exaggeration to say that people are at breaking point, and the fears for this winter are very real. Despite the possible gains that science and innovation might bring, this Bill does not bring urgent relief to families across the country, but it is an important step in enabling scientific advancements with the potential to deliver huge benefits by helping us to produce our food more efficiently and sustainably.
Labour Members are enthusiasts for science and innovation, which can help to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, safety and security of our food system, while addressing the environmental, health, economic and social harms that the modern system has unfortunately caused. These are the challenges that Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy set out to tackle, but the Government have, of course, completely failed to engage with it seriously.
However, alongside the challenges, there are opportunities. The UK has the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others would follow. Even though they rejected them in Committee, there is still time for the Government to accept the improvements that we and many stakeholders believe are necessary to achieve that goal.
Gene editing technologies have the potential to deliver great benefits, as well as healthy hard-earned rewards for those who are skilled in developing them. Let me repeat my thanks to the many serious people from learned societies and institutions who have done the thinking, and have spent time briefing me and my team as we grapple with some very big issues. I am grateful for the serious and engaged contributions from those who are deeply sceptical about this technology; they raise serious points, which should be properly addressed.
Let me particularly cite the work from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Unlike this Bill, which takes the narrowest approach possible, it stood back and asked the bigger questions about our food system, about our treatment of animals, about where traditional selective breeding has brought us to, and about how we might approach novel foods and the great changes that we may see in a very few years. In its recent public dialogue, the results of which were published just a few weeks ago, it demonstrated that the public are quite capable of taking a sensible and considered view, one that sits well with the amendments we tabled in Committee, some of which we raise again today.
Those who took part in that detailed discussion would not be satisfied with the Bill as it stands, and I hope the Government have taken note. They, like us, want animal welfare concerns addressed. They want transparency and a stronger framework, and they want to be sure that the technology is used for the wider good, not just to maximise returns.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive, pro-science approach that he is taking—it is not surprising, given the constituency he represents. Do we not also need to learn from the experience of the vaccine taskforce, which demonstrated how we can achieve results at pace without in any way infringing on safety and while still applying proper regulation? Is that not the challenge for the Government tonight?
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.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When it comes to this genetic technology, the farmers I represent are keen to see this happening in a way that does not harm their animals. They are not out to harm them; they want to protect them. I know that the Minister understands that, as my local farmers and I do. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the farmers do not want to see anything happening that will harm the animals?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but of course there are always economic pressures and this is about making sure we guard against those. The Minister will be familiar with the chlorine-washed chicken debate, where lower welfare standards are disguised and the Government are always at pains to assure us, “We’re not going to tolerate that.” So they must not allow new scientific developments to be the tech equivalent; there must be no backsliding.
Referring to the power of gene editing to reduce the risk of disease, Nuffield’s 2016 ethical review of genome editing highlighted the problem. It said:
“If this risk were reduced or removed altogether then it might be easier to pack more animals together in crowded spaces.”
That is the concern, so let us guard against it. We believe we can create a regime that can do much better than that, but it requires this Bill to be strengthened to make it happen.
On transparency and labelling, the research carried out by the Food Standards Agency and others has clearly found that although consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from genetically modified foods, they overwhelmingly want effective regulation of gene edited products, with transparent information and clear labelling.
The Government are trying to gloss over the issues by inventing the entirely non-scientific term “precision breeding”. I could speak at length about this term; I will not, but there is much dispute about it. It is a term without clear scientific meaning. Frankly, it has been invented by the Government for their convenience and is a misnomer. Telling us in a rather paternalistic tone that we need not worry because there is no difference between gene edited or traditionally bred crops and livestock does not convince. There is a risk that, as worded, the Bill will allow trans-genetic transfer—effectively, GM through the back door. I know the Government deny and dispute that, and we had a lengthy discussion about it in Committee, but I and many others remain unconvinced.
Leaving that matter aside, it is perfectly reasonable for people to want, and to be able to know, how their food has been produced. Clear labelling is the way to deal with another potentially difficult issue: the legitimately held views of different Administrations in the UK. It is fair to say that the devolved Administrations are not happy with the way in which the issue has been handled so far. I suggest that the Government tread carefully. Clear labelling is a sensible way forward.
Labour is also concerned at the number of key elements of the Bill left to secondary legislation, with little or no opportunity for scrutiny or amendment. The Government must spell out the detail to boost confidence for businesses and consumers. The organic sector and those developing cultivated meat have expressed concerns over the lack of clarity in the Bill, which once again risks driving investment and research elsewhere.
It should not be forgotten that the Regulatory Policy Committee made a damning impact assessment of the Bill, giving it a red rating because it failed to take into account the impact of creating a new class of genetically modified organism; failed to assess the impact on businesses, especially SMEs; failed to acknowledge and assess competition, innovation, consumer and environmental impacts; and failed to address the impacts arising from removing labelling and traceability requirements. I hope the Minister will address those points.
In addition to that list of failures, the Bill fails to address the trade implications of the misalignment in regulation of genetically engineered organisms between the UK’s devolved nations and with our EU neighbours. That could have a significant impact on many food businesses that are struggling to rebuild trade with EU countries despite all the self-inflicted red tape, added costs and barriers that the Government have created.
John Spellar
Is not the EU in a slightly difficult position because of a perverse judgment from the European Court of Justice against the views of many EU nations, which would have taken the same rational position as my hon. Friend on gene editing? If we take the lead on this issue and do not wrap ourselves up in endless judicial review and litigation, could we not work with our European neighbours and partners to bring an advance not only in this country, but across Europe?
Daniel Zeichner
My right hon. Friend speaks good sense once again. Of course, that quite legalistic judgment was met with surprise by many. The question is how we go forward. Others in Europe are going forward as well. I suspect that we will end up in similar places at similar times, but it would be sensible to end up in a much more similar place than looks likely if we pursue the Bill as it has been developed so far. The worry is the effects that the changes are already having on sectors such as the organic sector, which used to have exports to the EU worth some £45 million a year, according to Organic Farmers and Growers, which rightly remains concerned about the Bill as it stands.
Much more could be said on a topic that is as fascinating as it is interesting and important, but I will spare the House and direct those Members who are interested to look at the detailed discussion in Committee. Tonight I will end where I started and restate Labour’s commitment: we are pro science and pro innovation. We are in no doubt that gene editing could bring real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. Science and technology used for public good can be a huge boon, but to achieve that—to give investors, researchers and the general public confidence—we need a much stronger regulatory framework.
At the moment, as ever with this Government, the approach is simply to leave it to the market. They think that minimalist regulation is the way forward, whereas we say that good regulation is the way forward—a fundamental divide in this Chamber. I would simply say that, given the evidence from the fundamentalist deregulatory experiment carried out on our country over the last few weeks, one hopes that those on the Treasury Bench might just have learned something.
