Questions surrounding labelling, animal welfare and the impact on devolved nations have been raised regarding the Government鈥檚 Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which had its third reading in Parliament this week.
According to Ministers, the Bill is designed to 鈥榰nlock new technologies to boost food production and support farmers to grow more productive crops鈥�, while paving the way for 鈥楤ritain to become the best place in the world to invest in agri-food research and innovation鈥�.
However, Labour Shadow Farming Minister Daniel Zeichner, branded it 鈥榓 vague, thin Bill鈥� which 鈥榣acked effective regulatory framework鈥�.
Mr Zeichner pointed to public concerns about animal welfare, insisting safeguards should be put in place to ensure gene editing would not mean animals were 鈥榢ept in poorer, more crowded, stressful conditions鈥�.
He also said studies by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) had made it clear consumers 鈥榦verwhelmingly want effective regulation of gene-edited products, with transparent information and clear labelling鈥�.
He said: 鈥淭he Government are trying to gloss over the issues by inventing the entirely non-scientific term 鈥榩recision breeding鈥�. Frankly, it has been invented by the Government for their convenience and is a misnomer.
鈥淭here is a risk that, as worded, the Bill will allow trans-genetic transfer - effectively, genetic modification through the back door. I know the Government deny and dispute that, but I and many others remain unconvinced.鈥�
Mr Zeichner鈥檚 claims were dismissed by Farming Minister Mark Spencer, who insisted a new FSA authorisation process would ensure products only go on sale if they present no risk to health and do not mislead consumers.
