UK: The Genetic Technology Act – does change begin right now?

The timing of the recent general election gave us a rare window of opportunity to put the issue of genetically engineered food in the UK food system in front of would-be-MPs and demand that they take action.

Before the election was called, the government was in the process of introducing new regulations to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act that would make it fully operational. That process was put on hold for the election. The question now is whether the new Labour government will pick up where the Tories left off or will it pause, review and rethink – as it indicated it would do when in opposition.

Officials in Defra will no doubt be telling Steve Reed, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Daniel Zeichner, Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that they can – and should – just sign off on the already prepared draft regulations. But this would be a mistake.

The new government has the power to review the Genetic Technology Act and to alter the proposed regulations in a way that can reflect what citizens in this country have repeatedly said they want: for genetically modified precision-bred crops and foods (PBOs) to be labelled and fully traceable through the food system so that they can exercise their consumer right to know what they are eating.

Recently, a joint action between ourselves, GMWatch and GM Freeze generated thousands of letters to candidates from concerned citizens who want to see that power exercised.

Whatever your view about genetically engineered crops and foods, there is no credible denying of the fact that The Genetic Technology Act is a shoddy piece of legislation. It was, from the beginning, ill-conceived and the speed with which it was pushed through Parliament was a Tory tick-box, vanity exercise with the aim of claiming a Brexit ‘win’ at all costs.

Hype first, think later

From the beginning it was clear that the government’s entire proposal around deregulating GMOs could best be summed up as ‘hype first and think later’. It began with a desperate and disorganised 2020 attempt in the House of Lords to redefine, and thereby deregulate, GMOs in the then draft Agriculture Bill. As we noted at the time, support for the amendment “came exclusively from the Conservative peers, many of whom have interests in agribusinesses”.

From that moment, the entire deregulation process consisted of writing press releases that made misleading statements and overblown promises (many of which found their way into the prejudicial and misleading 2021 public consultation) and then trying to figure out how to make policy and regulation fit the lies and promises retroactively.

Since that time, supposedly independent authorities such as the Food Standards Agency have joined in the hype, ignoring their responsibilities in order to help government push through new regulations that preclude labelling, safety assessments and meaningful enforcement measures, and joining in with the divisive group-think that dismisses the views of civil society groups as, essentially, anti-GMO ‘vested interests’.

This is not the way to legislate and certainly, when it comes to food and farming, we need policy and regulation that puts food at its centre rather than pushing it to the fringes of a poorly-defined, narrowly-focused innovation agenda.

As our Director Pat Thomas noted when the Bill became law: “The Genetic Technology Act has a single beneficiary – the biotech industry. I think it’s absolutely right to question the motives and the consequences of any piece of legislation that allows a large and well-funded industry to fly so far below the regulatory radar.”

Serious criticisms from Labour and others

The draft Genetic Technology Bill was pushed through Parliament, not on its merits but on a large Conservative majority. It drew serious criticisms from government watchdog committees, including:

* The Regulatory Policy Committee, which concluded that the impact assessment for the draft legislation had been “drawn from interested parties, or based on scientific trials, that do not replicate real-world conditions” and that the resulting legislation was “not fit for purpose”.

* The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, which both concluded that the legislation, as written, raises serious constitutional issues and fails to provide “adequate justification” for the sweeping delegated – so called Henry VIII – powers within it, which allow the Defra Secretary of State to amend the law without reference to Parliament. Indeed, the draft Bill contained 28 delegated powers in just 48 clauses, which Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle described as “Henry VIII on steroids with rockets strapped to his boots and placed in a catapult”.

Crucially, during the debates around the Bill, the Labour Party and others raised important objections and made suggestions for sensible amendments which were capriciously and disrespectfully swept aside by the government.

During robust debates in the House of Lords, Peers trying to amend the wholly inadequate Bill described government putting a “protective carapace” around it and being told that amendments “could be seen as being too burdensome a requirement for industry”.

Even a cursory look at the amendments tabled by Labour and comments by Labour MPs and Peers in the debates reveals a strong case for the new Labour government to put the whole Act on hold pending significant revision. These concerns included:

* Insufficient regulatory oversight: Kerry McCarthy criticised the bill’s reliance on self-regulation by applicants, which she felt placed them in a position of “marking their own homework”.

* Environmental safeguards and non-regression: Labour proposed amendments to ensure that no regulations could be made under the Bill until a policy statement on environmental principles, as required by the Environment Act 2021, was laid before Parliament. This was intended to ensure that new regulations would not erode current environmental standards​.

* Better scrutiny of sustainability claims: Jim McMahon and other Labour MPs proposed an amendment to require gene-edited organisms to be developed for, or in connection with, one or more of several criteria, such as: producing food in a way that protects or enhances the natural environment and supports the sustainable use of resources; growing and managing plants or animals in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change; conserving the genetic resources of native animals and those of plants and their wild relatives; protecting or improving the quality of soil; and supporting or improving human health and well-being. This was a recognition of the need for genetically modified PBOs to be considered as part of a whole system – something we have been advocating for a long time and which is central to our 2024 Manifesto asks.

* The need for a Genetic Technology Authority: Labour led on an amendment, supported by the Greens, and tabled in the Commons, which would require a wide range of perspectives to provide comprehensive oversight and policy recommendations​. This proposal was very much in line with our own briefings on the establishment of an Agricultural Genetic Technologies Advisory and Review Board and was further supported by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Greens) and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat) in “an amendment to the amendment” to clarify the range of expertise that needed to be considered including “environment, sustainability, ethics, social science, consumer protection, civil society, social justice, and organic and non-organic farming and food growing.”

* Lack of robust animal welfare protections: Daniel Zeichner and several Peers, including Baroness Hayman of Ullock, argued that the Bill did not adequately ensure that precision-bred animals would not suffer harm. Amendments were proposed to prevent the issuance of marketing authorisations for precision-bred animals if scientific evidence indicated any likely adverse effects on their health or welfare.​

* Devolved nations and inter-governmental consistency: Daniel Zeichner criticised the UK government’s late consultation with the Welsh and Scottish governments, noting that both governments had raised concerns “that the mutual recognition principle of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 will mean that it will be possible to legally place precision bred food on the Welsh and Scottish markets even if the Welsh and Scottish governments choose not to adopt the changes contained in the Bill”.

* Public engagement and labelling Labour MPs and Peers emphasised that the public should have the right to know and make informed choices about the food they consume and early on introduced amendments to ensure labelling of so-called PBOs. Baroness Jones of Whitchurch supported a cross party amendment to mandate the labelling of products derived from precision-bred organisms.​ The Greens and the SNP introduced further amendments for labelling and in support of these Daniel Zeichner reiterated the Regulatory Policy Committee’s concerns about the removal of labelling and noted: “Clear labelling is the way to deal with another potentially difficult issue: the legitimately held views of different Administrations in the UK… Clear labelling is a sensible way forward”.

Change begins right here?

During the House of Commons Third Reading of the Bill, then Shadow Defra Minister Daniel Zeichner noted:

“There is significant opportunity for good here, but there are also risks – risks we may not fully understand. It is also worth bearing in mind that one mistake could tarnish the entire technology. As so often, the government have gone for the short-term quick fix – the sticking plaster. How much better it would have been to have set up the robust long-term framework that could have established the UK as the setter of the standard that others will follow. That is unfinished business, and it is for another day.”

That day has come. Daniel Zeichner is now the Minister in charge and it’s time for the new Labour government to begin work on that unfinished business and set up a robust, transparent and citizen-responsive framework for the regulation of agricultural genetic technologies.

If Labour stands by its multiple criticisms of the legislation, and if it truly intends to “govern for the whole country”, then the views of the vast majority – 8 in 10 citizens – must be taken into account.

The government won’t be unsupported in this. During the debates on the Bill, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats were equally vociferous in their criticism of the proposed new legislation. Both parties put issues of ethics and safety, substantially weakened environmental protections, animal welfare concerns, lack of oversight, transparency and citizen engagement on the public record.

Amongst the responses to our write-to-your-candidates action that were shared with us, it was interesting to note that only Tory candidates stood by the Act – invariably by cutting and pasting old press release text into their responses. Candidates in other parties, including Labour, expressed everything from unease to outrage at the way the legislation had been bullied through Parliament.

An opportunity to begin again

In a perfect world the Act, which is still not fully operational, would now be scrapped and a comprehensive process of creating a better one – which takes into consideration the wide-ranging concerns raised by MPs and Peers, government oversight committees, stakeholders and citizens, ignored by the outgoing government – would begin.

Failing this, the government could, and certainly should, pause the introduction of the statutory instrument package prepared by Defra with a view to revising proposed secondary legislation in order to plug the leaks and close the loopholes in the existing legislation.

Beyond GM has written to Steve Reed, Daniel Zeichner, Peter Kyle (Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology) asking them to do this. We have also urged them to ensure that the context in which agricultural genetic technologies are considered and regulated is part of a coherent approach to food policy that considers health, climate, nature, affordability, animal welfare, consumer choice and the challenges faced by the whole of the farming industry, including organic, regenerative, smaller scale and artisanal producers.

We have reaffirmed our willingness to work with the government and all its agencies to ensure this is the context through which genetic engineering in food and farming, in England and the rest of the UK, is assessed and regulated.

The bellwether question is: Will the new government work with citizen and civil society organisations like ours or will it stick to the old, narrow-minded, wilfully ignorant and biased Tory reliance on vested interest ‘experts’ and corporate-capture ‘stakeholders’?


This article was first published by Beyond GM. It is reproduced here by kind permission.

__________________________________________________________