My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington, who has so beautifully set out the basis for this amendment. I am sorry that, on this occasion, I part company with a number of Peers whose views I hugely respect and with Greener UK, whose support, on this and other Bills, I have much appreciated. I speak as a career academic scientist whose specialism is ecology and the environment.
I will make three points. First, I will reiterate the scientific difference between gene editing and genetic modification. Gene editing is like traditional breeding, but more targeted. It involves tweaking the genes that are already there in the organism. It is roughly analogous to adjusting one of the ingredients in a recipe to improve the flavour of the dish. On the other hand, traditional genetic modification involves inserting new genes from a different organism. It is a bit like the introduction of a new ingredient into the recipe to change the nature of the dish. For example, one of the major GM crops is Bt maize, with a toxin gene from the bacterium bacillus thuringiensis that confers resistance to corn borer. Gene-edited crops, with their ingredients adjusted, could be safer, more nutritious, more productive and more resistant to climate change, as my noble friend Lord Cameron of Dillington so eloquently explained.
But—this is my second point—the difference between genetic modification and gene editing is not relevant to those who object to gene editing. The objection is not about science but something else. Opposition to modern genetic technology, whether gene editing or GMOs, is often presented as three worries: the food made from GM crops is not safe to eat; the crops are not safe for the environment, for instance because genes could jump into wild plants or because it is part of the intensification of agriculture, which destroys habitats and biodiversity; and genetic technologies favour big agritech companies at the expense of small farmers.
The worriers also invoke the precautionary principle, saying that we should never adopt new technologies until we are 100% sure they are risk free. Ironically, the same individuals often invoke the precautionary principle as a call for new technologies to be used, even when the science is incomplete, for example on reducing pollution levels in the environment. In reality, these arguments are all code for a different vision of the future of agriculture, one that returns to traditional low-intensity methods, such as organic farming. In fact, organic farming and gene editing should not be in opposition. Organic farmers have as much to gain as conventional farmers, if not more, from the genetic improvement of their crops to make them more disease resistant without pesticides, more nutritious, more productive and so on.
My third point is that the amendment calls for public consultation, which is key if we are to avoid the mistakes of the 1990s. Noble Lords will recall that the first GM food on sale in the UK was tomato paste made with Flavr Savr tomatoes. These tomatoes do not go squidgy on ripening, so they produce a sweeter product. The GM tomato paste tasted better, was slightly cheaper
and was clearly labelled. It sold well, until the campaigning groups launched their highly successful “Frankenstein foods” campaign. Before long, the supermarket shelves were cleared of all products involving GM.
8 pm
You might say, “So what? We still have plenty of delicious food on our shelves and we have no need for new technologies.” However, there is a moral dilemma for those who argue against new genetic technologies. We are fortunate in having enough to eat, at least for the moment, but other parts of the world where food is scarce have suffered directly as a result of the campaign against modern genetic technology. For example, in 2002 there was a famine in Zambia and the President of Zambia refused US food aid in case it contained GM material. I was head of the Food Standards Agency at the time and a deputation from Zambia came to see me to find out why, if EU countries rejected GM foods, they should be considered suitable for Zambia. I tried to explain, without success, that there was no human health problem with eating US maize, but the President of Zambia subsequently said:
“Simply because my people are hungry, that is no justification to give them … food that is intrinsically dangerous to their health.”
The truth is that, as novel foods, GM foods and, in future, gene-edited foods, are subject to rigorous scrutiny for safety and environmental risks—although, as I have said, the gene technology debate is not really a debate about the science. Furthermore, in future it is not just going to be the people in sub-Saharan Africa who are short of food who will need new technologies. We in this country will have to be smarter about how we produce food for ourselves—more food with less damage to the environment.
The amendment we are debating would enable the Government to start a public consultation on harnessing the potential of the brilliant UK plant science research community to make our agriculture greener, more productive and more sustainable. It is often claimed that the public are against novel gene technology but the most detailed study of this issue, by Professor Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University, shows that this is simply not true. Nevertheless, it would be wise for us to proceed cautiously by an open and transparent public consultation before we adopt gene editing as part of our armoury for producing food in future.