Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 8, 2022

Official Report 934KB pdf

---

Gene-editing Technology

The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-05292, in the name of Stephen Kerr, entitled “A Potato With More Vitamin C Than a Lemon”. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.

Motion debated,

That the Parliament believes that gene-editing technology is game-changing for food production; understands that there is a big difference between gene-modification and gene-editing; further understands that gene-editing makes small, specific changes to existing DNA, or removes a section altogether, speeding up a process that could occur through natural breeding; recognises that scientists at the James Hutton Institute in Dundee have reportedly predicted that gene-editing technology could result in potatoes with more vitamin C than lemons being grown, and considers that Scotland could be left behind England in food production due to Scottish legislation prohibiting the use of gene-editing in Scotland.

17:17  

Presiding Officer, here is something that I never thought I would have to say in the Scottish Parliament: contrary to what the Parliament’s Twitter account says, I can confirm that I am not a potato. [Laughter.] For those members who are not on Twitter or who have not seen the tweet, it is really funny.

The motion before us speaks to Scotland’s history, in which we have always been at the forefront of innovation and development; to the Scotland of today, in which our citizens are well positioned to take full advantage of the latest scientific developments in this time of extraordinary and ever-quickening change; and to the Scotland of tomorrow, in which we are at the cutting edge of a technological revolution that we can scarcely begin to imagine.

From James Watt’s improvements to the steam engine to the construction of the Falkirk wheel, Scotland is at its best when its people are being their best creative, innovative and entrepreneurial selves, and when we embrace the modern world and play our full part in its design.

It is in that spirit that I address the motion before us. I strongly believe that Scotland should be at the forefront of gene-editing technology. We have one of the best-educated populations in the world, and we have the soils and the environment that are suitable for growing healthy and fertile crops. We have a farming sector that embraces—and wants to embrace—change in technology, and we are free to pursue our own destiny without the burden of European Union regulation. Scotland can, and must, be at the forefront of that new technology.

The member talks about being free of the burden of EU regulation. Does that mean that he is giving up on Scotland selling seed potatoes to Europe?

We are talking about tatties right now, but not the sort that Jim Fairlie wants to talk about. We are talking about the technology that Scotland wants to embrace and should be embracing.

The climate is changing; at the same time, the world is becoming a less secure and dangerous place. With Putin’s aggression in Ukraine and climate-induced crop failures around the world, security of food production must be further up our agenda. We must be able to produce enough food to feed our people and people beyond our shores, and continuous temperature changes will inevitably change the way in which we farm.

We are lucky to have experienced relatively minor crop failures this year, but we do not fully understand the impact that continuous temperature rises will have on Scottish agriculture and food production. We must be prepared, and the best way to prepare is to embrace science. That is nothing new: we all know the stories of how selective breeding changed the way that food was produced to make crops more palatable and easier to grow in less fertile soils, or to deal with changes in temperature or rainfall. For example, we can look at how our farmers use science and data to ensure productive output of lamb; that is another area in which we need to adopt a new approach.

There is a scientific consensus that gene editing is safe and practical. In 2016, 107 Nobel laureates pleaded for the introduction of golden rice. In India and Australia, the development of heat-resistant and drought-resistant crops is at the forefront of farming development. Scotland should be harnessing that expertise and setting an example to other parts of the world.

As the title of the motion highlights, we can make our food not only more resilient or able to grow in less ideal conditions, but better for us. More nutritious food is better food, and the developers at the famed James Hutton Institute in Dundee have done significant work in that regard. They predict that gene-editing technology will result in the growing of—as in the motion’s title—potatoes with more vitamin C than lemons.

How would the member recommend that we capture the vitamin C from those vitamin-enriched potatoes? Vitamin C is destroyed by heat and light and dissolves in water, so I am wondering how we would capture it. Would we need to drink a whole tattie-pot of water?

I invite Emma Harper to join me on my forthcoming visit to the James Hutton Institute, where we can ask those questions of the people who know the answers.

Combining secure food production with more nutritious food will result in a healthier population and greater food security, in a world where food production is becoming increasingly unstable.

There is an economic imperative as well as a security imperative. The opportunity for Scottish business to be at the forefront of these developments is huge. A monopoly currently exists in the world, whereby the production of gene-edited crops is limited to a small number of large global companies. We can change that by creating the conditions for new innovative disruptor companies to develop, test and deploy those new products in the Scottish sphere.

If crops fail while other countries embrace that technology before we do, we risk losing a great deal, not only financially but in terms of our nation’s self-reliance. We can secure Scotland’s food and drink industry into the future.

The debate about gene-edited food has often attracted a great deal of scaremongering, with cries of “Frankenstein foods” and political opportunists spreading false information. All that is unhelpful. There are, however, legitimate concerns, and I will take such little time as I have left to address those.

First, there is the issue of cross-contamination. That is not unique to gene-edited crops—it is a problem throughout agriculture, and it is why there will need to be a robust and rigorous set of tests before approval is given to any new crops. The evidence from the scientific community is clear: high standards of testing will make gene editing safe.

Another concern is the cost to farmers. As I already outlined, Government needs to challenge monopolistic practices. Four companies own 70 per cent of all the gene-edited seeds, which allows them to set their prices high, so we need competition and innovation as well as better regulation.

The third concern that we should address is just how expensive research is in gene editing. It is a new industry and, as such, the development costs of new products will be high. They will become cheaper as research continues. We always build on that which has come before. More research means cheaper research, and there is a spin-off as lessons learned in agricultural gene editing will likely advance into other areas, such as medicine. An example is the chimeric antigen receptor T-cell—CAR-T—therapy that is being developed for use in treating some forms of cancer.

Those concerns are legitimate but my biggest concern would be if we failed to grasp the great opportunity of gene editing for Scotland. As have seen what can be achieved with enough effort in the development of the Covid vaccines, is it not time for us to put our faith in scientific progress? As we accept the scientific consensus on man-made climate change, is it not time to embrace the consensus on gene editing?

Scotland’s people are innovative. We embrace and accept change. We are cautious when we need to be cautious but brave when we need to be brave. As policy makers, members of the Parliament must send the signal that we are ready to be bold and seize the opportunities of being world leaders on the issue. Scots have always been at the forefront of every global technological revolution and we should let our people be free to be at the forefront of the gene-editing technological revolution. Let us be ambitious, build on our tradition and make Scotland’s name heard globally in the fields of ethical and pragmatic gene editing.

I call Emma Harper. You have around four minutes, Ms Harper.

17:26  

Wow—I wish that I had more than four minutes for this speech.

We need to be more canny about how we proceed with the science and technology. I am passionate about evidence and about progress. Stephen Kerr is obviously passionate about what he speaks about as well. I welcome that.

The use of genetic technologies is a complex and emotive subject. It is abundantly clear that there are issues that need to be addressed if genetic modification, gene editing or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats—CRISPR—are to be used in our food system.

The United Kingdom Government has introduced its controversial Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which aims to enable the expansion of gene-edited crops and livestock across the UK. Although the bill might be intended as England-only legislation, the documentation is clear that it will have a significant impact on areas that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. It will allow gene-edited products into Scotland for sale, aided by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020.

The bill makes it clear that the UK Government is intent on diverging from the UK-wide GM regulatory regimes through the various relevant common frameworks. Any shared Government discussions of that nature should have taken place prior to the bill’s introduction to enable consideration of potential policy divergence. However, that was not the case. Indeed, the UK Government invited the Scottish Government to join discussions on the bill only the day before—aye, the day before—it was introduced to the UK Parliament, despite numerous requests from the Minister for Environment and Land Reform and the Welsh Government to see a draft of the bill and discuss it.

We know the proposed benefits of gene-editing technology: increased crop yields, increased disease resistance, increased nutritional qualities and adapting to the increased temperature as climate change continues. The views of stakeholders in Scotland will be central to decision making on that devolved area of responsibility. They encompass views and evidence from the scientific community, views from across the spectrum of industry interests and, crucially, the views of consumers and the public as a whole.

If the consensus is that we should go forward with the scientific and technological breakthrough that gene editing represents, will Emma Harper support it?

I would support any ways in which we can innovate and move forward. We need a canny approach—we need to ensure that the research is evidence based. That is how we should take things forward.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will, in one wee second.

The UK Government’s own impact assessment on the bill makes it clear that the market for precision-bred products

“ultimately depends on prevailing consumer attitudes to products which contain genetically engineered material”

and that the

“public’s acceptance of GE and similar products remains an area of uncertainty.”

I will take a wee briefie intervention from Edward Mountain.

[Inaudible.]

Oh dear.

Mr Mountain?

I apologise profusely, Presiding Officer.

This is an interesting conversation. Would the member consider allowing gene editing in order to cure human diseases, while not allowing it in order to ensure that humans can be properly fed?

I will give you one more minute, Ms Harper, because you are almost up to your four minutes.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I am really interested in the subject. As a type 1 diabetic, I feel that if a gene could be put into my body to allow my pancreas to produce insulin, that would be worth supporting. I reiterate, however, that it is about undertaking proper, measured research and then taking technology forward. We need to look at everything appropriately.

I am interested to hear the sentiments of many across the United Kingdom, including NFU Scotland and the NFU in England and Wales. The NFU has stated its opposition to the UK Government’s preferred option of not requiring labelling for precision-bred products; the UK Government’s approach would mean that consumers will have absolutely no way of knowing which products are genetically modified, and yet it remains on course to implement that change. Last week, I had a similar discussion with witnesses from Food Standards Scotland during a meeting of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. FSS is interested in looking at how the product will be labelled as all this goes forward.

I am conscious of time, Presiding Officer. We need to ensure that the Scottish Government, and stakeholders in Scotland, are involved. I am interested in the impact assessment that the UK Government has produced, but I do not have time to talk about it today. Gene editing is a really important and emotive issue. If it is pursued, it must be pursued properly, and the UK Government’s Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill must not impact on devolution. We need to use the best science and evidence.

17:32  

I congratulate my good friend and colleague Stephen Kerr on securing this timely debate. I reassure him that he should be proud of his new social media tag of “Mr Potato”. My two children, Rowan and Leo, who are aged two and three, are currently obsessed with a cartoon character called Supertato, so perhaps that is the nickname that Mr Kerr should aspire to achieve.

Scotland is rightly proud of its position as a world leader in agriculture and biotechnical science, boasting internationally renowned centres of excellence such as the Roslin Institute, Moredun, Scotland’s Rural College and the James Hutton Institute, underpinned by a vibrant university sector. We punch well above our weight as a global centre for agricultural research and development. However, if Scotland is to maintain its reputation for scientific leadership, and if our farmers and growers are to have access to the tools that they need to deliver the productive, sustainable and climate-resilient farming systems of the future, the Scottish Government must urgently rethink its hostile and outdated policy towards the use of more precise genetic technologies such as gene editing.

Dr Joanne Russell, a lead researcher at the newly established International Barley Hub in Dundee, recently shared her personal views that her research would benefit enormously from greater access to genetic technologies such as gene editing. Dr Russell explained that there are more than 400,000 different barley accessions in gene banks around the world, and that the solutions to many of the biotic, abiotic and climate challenges for the barley crop lie somewhere in that genetic diversity. Access to technology such as genome sequencing and gene editing will potentially dramatically improve the chances of identifying and exploiting beneficial traits in the barley crop.

Against a background of war, climate change and rising food and energy costs, we must ensure that research in Scotland does not get left behind, but many fear that that might already be happening. In March this year, a simplified regime for experimental field trial research of gene-edited crops was introduced in England, and within months the system was already supporting more field trials than was the case under the previous genetic modification regime. Will the minister consider the introduction of such a scheme to ensure that research that is currently confined to the laboratory can progress to the field, in order to prevent our researchers from being left behind? I hope that she will address that question when summing up.

Scottish ministers have said that their preference is to remain aligned with the EU on the issue, and that they are monitoring EU developments closely, but I wonder how closely they monitored the conclusions of the EU farming ministers meeting in September in Prague, which the Czech Presidency summarised as follows:

“The Ministers agreed that the EU must react as quickly as possible to the development of modern trends and not hinder innovation. It is therefore important to change the outdated legislative framework by which the EU regulates the use of modern plant breeding methods. This framework not only restricts European farmers, but also leads to an outflow of top experts to countries outside the European Union”.

Perhaps Màiri McAllan has also followed the recent EU public consultation, which found that 80 per cent of participants consider existing GM organisms rules as not fit for purpose in regulating plant variety development using techniques such as gene editing. The European Commission has said that genomic techniques can also contribute to a more resilient and sustainable agrifood system by developing crop varieties that are more resistant to pests, disease and the effects of climate change. They require fewer natural resources, fertilisers and pesticides, can improve the nutrient content of food and feed and reduce harmful substances such as toxins and allergens.

In view of those positive statements from EU ministers, is it not the time for Scottish Government ministers to acknowledge the potential of those technologies, as EU ministers are doing, and move on from the tired rhetoric that gene editing threatens the clean, green image of Scotland’s food and drink industries?

Ministers often refer to needing a social licence to move forward, which is a classic kick-it-down-the-road strategy. Ministers should be aware that the Government’s own research has shown that consumers in Scotland are very open to technologies such as gene editing. Ms Harper might also be interested to hear that research published last month by Food Standards Scotland shows that around two in three people consistently say that they would eat a precision-bred product if it had health benefits, was better for the environment, improved animal welfare, was safer for people with allergies, tasted better, was cheaper and more resilient to climate change.

Surely the minister must agree that that is a remarkable thumbs up for a technology that has not yet reached the marketplace and is a good basis for the Scottish Government to embrace the potential of a technology that has so much promise for Scotland’s world-leading scientific, farming and food and drinks sectors.

17:37  

I welcome this opportunity to discuss an issue of critical importance and considerable interest, which I suspect would not ordinarily be debated in the Parliament without an Opposition members’ business debate. Therefore, I thank Mr Kerr for lodging his motion. To be fair, the Scottish Parliament’s Twitter account describes him not just as a potato, but as one

“With More Vitamin C Than a Lemon”.

I am sure that he has been called an awful lot worse. However, Mr Kerr is to be congratulated on bringing forward a serious matter that deserves a serious debate.

When the issue has been raised in Parliament in the past, too often, in responses from ministers, the term “gene editing” has been interchanged with “genetic modification”. As the motion states, gene editing does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species, which is an important distinction. A debate on whether to decouple gene editing and genetic modification is one that we need to have. Labour is unashamedly pro-science and pro-innovation, so we have had a long-standing commitment to having that debate.

However, we also believe in good regulation. That is the key to public safety and the key to public, and indeed investor, confidence. We have heard members talk about the potential benefits that gene-edited crops could bring, including the creation of plants that are resistant to extreme weather conditions and disease. In turn, that could reduce the need for pesticides, create higher yields to address food insecurity driven by climate change and improve the nutritional quality of food. For example, farmers could have the tools to beat virus yellows without recourse to neonicotinoids. That would be a prize worth having.

We need to recognise that any new technology also carries risks: risks of unintended consequences, risks of technology being misused and risks of commercial pressure being exerted, which are not in the public interest. Those risks need to be recognised and addressed, because unless we have public and investor confidence, research will stall and those potential benefits will be lost.

Today’s debate is particularly relevant given that the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill is currently passing through the UK Parliament.

Does the member share the Welsh Government’s concern that the UK Government has ridden the bill through without any consultation with the devolved Parliaments?

Labour is seeking to ensure that that bill goes through the Parliament with a more consistent approach between Scotland and the rest of the UK. At the very least, we want transparent information and clear labelling to be enshrined in the bill, given the implications for Scotland of any changes in England. I agree that better consultation would have been beneficial for the bill. Labour is also seeking to amend the bill because we do not believe that it goes far enough on regulation, safety and, crucially, animal welfare, on which we have particular concerns.

I am in no doubt that gene editing could have real gains for improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. I recognise that laws that were designed decades ago for genetically modified products do not reflect advances in understanding and technology. Many countries are already considering whether gene editing should be treated differently from genetic modification in how they are regulated, which is a debate that Scotland needs to have. One lesson for this Parliament from the current debate in the UK Parliament is that although we need to have the debate, we cannot leave the issue to the market—Scotland’s reputation for high-quality food produce is far too important to do that. Any changes that we make will need a strong regulatory framework that puts safety and the confidence of investors, researchers and, most importantly, the public as its very heart.

17:41  

I congratulate Stephen Kerr on his members’ business debate and the good humour with which he has approached having been what I would call “memed”.

As has been said, gene-edited products currently fall within the definition of genetically modified organisms—GMOs—in the regulatory regimes across the UK and in European legislation. The debate has highlighted significant differences between the original GM techniques and a range of newer techniques, whether we call those “gene editing”, “precision breeding”—as the UK Government’s bill does—or “new genomic techniques”, as the European Commission has described them.

Stephen Kerr is right: technology advances, and I believe that it is right that we continually assess whether regulations are fit for purpose in the light of that. However, that requires meaningful engagement across all parts of society, which means recognising that science and technology—as important as they are—do not exist in a vacuum. They must be assessed for their appropriateness to our society, environment and, indeed, our place in the world, because, although Scotland is an island geographically, we are not an island when it comes to our values or our trade arrangements or aspirations. I believe that the UK Government’s bill fails to recognise that important point. In its haste to find ways to distance itself from the European Union, the UK Government has shown very little concern for the impact of introducing a different regulatory regime for England from those that are enforced across the UK. As my colleague Emma Harper alluded to, our colleagues in the Welsh Government have expressed similar concerns.

The UK Government is rushing through the bill, despite being aware of its impact on devolved decision making through avenues such as the UK-wide national listing process for seeds and plant varieties and the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which this Parliament rejected and which the Scottish Government remains wholly opposed to.

I am grateful to the minister for her response to my debate. Does she accept that the European Commission sees that there is positivity in gene editing and that gene editing crops, for example, might be a means to helping the EU to achieve its sustainability and food security goals?

I have long held the position, which I have shared with Stephen Kerr in the past, that I am watching very closely the developments in the EU on the assessment of the decoupling of gene editing from genetic modification. I will continue to do that as the results of that work unfold.

However, back in the UK, in June, 32 groups including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Soil Association and Nourish Scotland jointly stated that the UK’s Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

“has huge implications for farming, food, animal welfare, the environment, the UK’s internal market and its trading relationship with key global partners.”

They said that it is

“clear that, in its haste to deregulate, the Government has not adequately considered these implications”.

That is before we even consider that the UK Government’s regulatory policy committee reviewed the bill’s impact assessment twice and found it to be not fit for purpose.

Our concern about the UK Government’s haste and failure to recognise devolved competence should not be mistaken for opposition to innovation and technology in the farming sectors. On the contrary, the Scottish Government enthusiastically supports innovation and technology, and we remain key partners with leading institutions such as the James Hutton Institute, which receives significant funding through our strategic research programmes. I am happy to assure Mr Carson—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I apologise to the minister—I appreciate that she is well under way in her speech—but Finlay Carson is trying to intervene through the new system, which does not seem to be working.

I will check that very briefly, Mr Kerr.

We will give this a go. I call Finlay Carson, who was seeking to intervene on the minister. Ah, there you are, Mr Carson.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. My intervention comes slightly later than I would have liked it to have come, but I wonder whether Emma Harper, Jim Fairlie and the minister would, for once, put constitutional grievance aside and concentrate on doing what is best for Scottish farmers, which is to allow the world-leading researchers in Scotland to accelerate the move towards gene-editing methods.

I am happy to confirm to Finlay Carson that my focus, on a day-to-day basis, is on, among other things, supporting Scotland’s farmers. That is evident from a great deal of the Government’s work, not least from the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and Islands’ statement earlier this afternoon.

Prior to Mr Carson’s intervention, I was going to assure him, having mentioned the James Hutton Institute, that Scottish research institutions remain at the forefront of scientific development globally, and it is very important, in my view, that they continue to be so.

The progress that we make must also support trade. The EU, our biggest international trade partner, has consulted on changes to its regulations on gene editing and is expected to propose policy options in the spring. It is only right that I take those into account, because the EU is a beacon of environmental progress and the Scottish Government is committed to EU alignment, when appropriate, and because we want to ensure that our farmers, food producers and businesses can continue to trade with the EU without the risk of additional barriers beyond those that have already been imposed on us from the Tories’ Brexit.

The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill is entering the House of Lords, but there remain many unanswered questions. A particularly important one relates to the views of the public, because, in addition to the practicalities, we must get the principles right. The use of genetic technologies is, as Emma Harper said, complex and emotive, and there are many issues to be addressed if they are to form part of our food system. I firmly believe that we need to take into account the perspective of the public and consumers, alongside that of academics, food producers, farmers and environmental groups. I know that Finlay Carson thinks that issues of public trust and taking the public with us are about kicking the can down the road, but I tend to disagree.

Minister, could you please resume your seat for a second? I see that Mr Carson’s name is appearing on my screen. I do not know whether that is a delayed prompt from his first intervention or whether he is seeking to make a second intervention. Could Mr Carson clarify, please?

I would like to make a second intervention.

Go ahead.

Does the minister agree that Food Standards Scotland research shows that two in three people consistently say that they would eat precision-bred products? She appears to be ignoring that fact.

I acknowledge the recent research by Food Standards Scotland. I also know that 78 per cent—I think that that is the figure—of respondents said that they would wish to know when they were consuming gene-edited products, which the bill does not account for. Forgive me, as Scotland’s environment minister, for wanting to ensure that the detail of the bill is right and scrutinised.

I will briefly mention the ethics of gene editing animals. It is hugely important that we are cautious when the health and welfare of our animals are at stake. The Scottish Government shares concerns expressed by stakeholders on the ability of the bill to protect animals and their welfare from the use of genetic technologies, although I know from discussions with scientists that some uses could be targeted at improving animal health. I also note that EU has said that it considers that the necessary scientific knowledge for the application of new genomic techniques in animals is still limited or lacking, especially on safety aspects, and that is important to me.

Our concerns about the UK Government’s approach to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill and its rushing to change regulations without regard for devolved competence or the impact on food supply chains and consumer choice should never be mistaken for opposition to innovation and technology, particularly in the farming sector. Instead, I urge the UK Government to take the opportunity of ever-changing ministers to review the bill, do so more slowly and engage meaningfully across the UK—importantly, with the public.

For our part, the Scottish Government will continue to strive to make decisions for Scotland’s environment in pursuit of the highest standards, taking the people of Scotland with us as we do.

Meeting closed at 17:52.