As members of both Houses of Parliament prepare to debate and vote on the draft regulations needed to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 for plants in England, Baroness Helene Hayman welcomes the sense of cross-party unity behind the legislation, and the support for more enabling, science-based regulation of much-needed genetic innovation in agriculture. What a welcome turnaround from 25 years ago, she writes, recalling her time as an agriculture minister with responsibility for GM issues under the Labour government, at the white heat of a highly polarised and often bitter public debate. The country missed out on a generation of scientific and agricultural progress as a result, she argues. With the new era of precision breeding technologies such as CRISPR gene editing, we must not let that happen again. 

  

I served more than two decades ago as a Minister at the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in the Labour Government. My portfolio included GM issues. At the time there was a highly polarised and often bitter public debate surrounding GM crops, which ultimately resulted in the technology being side-lined in this country.

 

In political terms, the issue of GM crops became divisive not only between different parties, but also within parties, and even among ministerial colleagues in Government.

 

Back then, my ministerial responsibilities brought me into contact with many plant scientists who inspired me with their vision of crops offering potentially transformative benefits, including for farmers in developing countries: crops that could withstand drought and thrive in high salinity soils, that required fewer pesticides and fertilisers, that could improve the nutrition and yield of very basic crops on which people’s lives depended; and that could improve the environment and build resilience to climate change.      

 

Today, drought tolerant wheat and maize, blight resistant potatoes, Omega-3 enriched oilseeds, insect resistant cowpea, cotton, maize and eggplant are among the GM crops delivering on those predicted benefits around the world, in both developed and developing countries. Indeed, some of those innovations were developed by plant scientists here, funded by British taxpayers.    

 

My concern is that the politicisation of the GM debate has meant that our nation missed out on a generation of scientific and agricultural progress. 

 

With the new era of precision breeding technologies such as CRISPR gene editing, we must not let that happen again. 

 

That is why, during the passage of the Agriculture Act a little under five years ago, I joined the Lord Cameron of Dillington, Lord Krebs and Lord Rooker to sponsor a cross-party amendment proposed by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture, calling for post-Brexit regulatory divergence from the EU’s overly-restrictive rules on gene editing to open up the promise of these technologies for the benefit of our farmers, consumers and the environment.   

 

For procedural reasons, our proposed amendment was not accepted as part of the Agriculture Act, but it did unlock a commitment from the Government of the day to consult on the issue, with a view to bringing forward new primary legislation.

 

Ministers recognised that this would mirror developments in other countries such as Canada, Japan, Argentina, Australia and the USA, and reflected the weight of scientific evidence that the products of precision breeding techniques such as gene editing pose no greater risks to humans, animals or the environment than their conventionally bred counterparts.

 

So, I have watched the progress of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 with great interest, and a with a sense of pride at having played a small part in its inception.

 

We might have hoped to be further ahead with the development and implementation of the legislation after five years, but in political terms this may turn out to be a blessing. The primary legislation was initiated by a Conservative Government, and its implementation – through draft secondary regulations currently before Parliament – will be overseen by a Labour administration.

 

As such, the Precision Breeding Act signals a strong affirmation of cross-party unity and support for enabling, science-based regulation of genetic innovation.

 

What a welcome turnaround from 25 years ago!

 

I attended a recent APPG briefing session on the draft secondary legislation, alongside two others of the original ‘gang-of-four’ who tabled the original amendment, John Krebs and Ewen Cameron.    

 

At the meeting, we heard perspectives from international developers with experience of dealing with similar regulations around the world. They described the Precision Breeding Act as one of the most progressive and science-based approval processes for gene edited crops anywhere in the world.

      

Progressive, because it provides a coherent, joined-up approach to securing marketing approval for gene edited crops within a single piece of legislation, whereas other countries, such the United States, can involve dealing with a number of different agencies and regulations.

 

Science-based, because the implementing rules genuinely reflect the underpinning rationale of the Act - and the weight of scientific evidence from expert bodies around the world - that precision bred crops could equally have been produced through conventional breeding, and therefore pose no new or additional risks.

        

The planned implementation of the Act recognises that our established agricultural and horticultural crops and their use as food and feed are familiar and proven over many years to be safe. This is a proportionate, risk-based approach, which reflects conventional plant breeding’s impeccable track record of safety and due diligence stretching back decades.

 

But when discussing the Precision Breeding Act and its implications, it is important to emphasise that this is not an alternative to conventional breeding. Precision breeding must be viewed as another tool in the breeder’s toolbox which allows one or more beneficial characteristics to be introduced alongside all the other components that new varieties need to succeed in the market.

 

What singles gene editing out as such a powerful new tool is the ability to introduce those desirable new traits much more quickly and efficiently, without the need for lengthy backcrossing and selection to remove unwanted characters. It allows plant breeders to achieve the same outcomes in a quarter of the time.

   

At the APPG briefing we heard examples of how precision breeding is being used not only to increase marketable yields, but also to help reduce food waste, for example by increasing the shelf-life of highly perishable crops such as strawberries and bananas, by extending growing seasons, by introducing non-browning traits in potatoes, mushrooms and apples, and by reducing losses to pests and diseases.  

 

Fighting food waste is a big deal. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), more than one-third of food produced globally is never consumed due to its limited shelf-life – that’s enough to feed two billion people. Food waste also contributes to climate change, accounting for about 8% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

 

We also heard evidence of how the adoption of more proportionate, science-based regulations can help to democratise the process of scientific research and innovation, making these technologies more accessible to smaller companies and start-ups, and not the exclusive preserve of large multinational companies.

 

This is certainly the experience of Argentina, where a 2020 study by Martin Lema et al showed that regulating gene edited crops in a similar way to conventionally bred varieties, rather than as GMOs, has boosted investment and R&D activity, involving a more diverse range of organisations in both public and private sector, and across a much broader range of crops and traits.     

 

A similar pattern appears to be emerging here. Since a simplified process for notifying field trials of precision bred plants was introduced in England in March 2022, some 23 trials have been notified, virtually all involving public sector institutes, start-up companies and SMEs, across six different crops, and covering a wide range of applications, from improved crop performance and ease of harvest to enhanced food safety and nutrition, and reduced climate and environmental impact.     

 

Indeed, the opportunities to transform the productivity and sustainability of our farming systems, while improving health, nutrition and food safety for consumers, are virtually limitless.

 

The strength of cross-party support for the Precision Breeding Act marks a positive and refreshing change from the divisive GMO debates of the past.

 

It’s time to move on.

   

A former Labour MP from 1974-79, Baroness Helene Hayman became a Life Peer in 1996. After the Labour Party won the 1997 general election, she served as a junior minister in the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Health, before being appointed as Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in July 1999. She became a member of the Privy Council in 2001, and in 2006 was elected the first ever Lord Speaker in the House of Lords, a position she held until 2011. She sits as a cross-bench member of the House of Lords.