Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle:

Moved by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle

61: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—“Labelling of food or feed produced from precision bred organisms(1) Food or feed produced from a precision bred organism or its progeny that is placed on the market must be labelled to inform prospective purchasers that it has been produced from a precision bred organism or its progeny.(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) must be in easily visible and clearly legible type and, where packaging is used, it must be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging.(3) Regulations must lay down the labelling terms to be used to meet the requirements of subsection (1).(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—(a) consult representatives of—(i) consumers,(ii) citizens and civil society,(iii) food producers,(iv) suppliers,(v) retailers,(vi) growers and farmers,(vii) the organic sector,(viii) other persons likely to be affected by the regulations, and (ix) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and(b) seek the advice of the Food Standards Agency on the information to be required to be provided on labelling.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member's explanatory statementThis new Clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about the labelling of precision bred organisms and food and feed products made from them and to consult with named stakeholders before doing so.

My Lords, Amendment 61 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter. I thank them for their support. Both the amendments in this group take on the issue of labelling. Traceability and labelling very much fit together. I will quote one sentence from the Soil Association’s briefing on the Bill, which makes a really important point:

“The objectives of the Bill could be achieved with the inclusion of labelling and traceability.”

It is crucial to say that these are amendments that, much as I might not like it, accept many other parts of the Bill but say that the public and industries have to be able to see what is going on.

I already referred to the FSA’s study of July 2021. To quote another of its findings:

“Most consumers felt labelling should always inform the consumer of the presence GE ingredients”.

I also note that the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, BBSRC and Sciencewise’s Public Dialogue on Genome Editing in Farmed Animals found that consumers

“wanted products from genome edited animals to be labelled as such.”

We have before us two amendments that are similar but slightly different; the second one, Amendment 62, being in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Bakewell. Either amendment would very much do the job. My Amendment 61 aims to be really clear and simple. It would give consumers information at the point of purchase, and although I fully understand the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, to add further information about nutritional content, allergens and environmental impact, I suspect that we should be seeing that kind of labelling on all food, rather than specifically precision-bred food.

We can imagine what a so-called precision-breeding label might look like: a sticker that says “PB” in large writing with a little explanation underneath. Keeping that separate from the nutrition and environmental impact labelling in the interests of simplicity is an argument. Plus, saying that this should be added specifically to precision-bred food items but not to others does not quite add up, as far as I can see. However, I am not hugely wedded to that position, and I will interested to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has to say in this regard.

If we were to do a survey on the public’s concerns about this Bill, labelling is probably the issue about which we would find the most concern, as is backed up by the research I have already quoted. It is very clear and understandable, and people just want to know what they are eating. That has always been true and is increasingly true, given, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, some of the many scandals, problems and issues we have had with our food supply over the years. I beg to move.

My Lords, I think it would be helpful for me to introduce my Amendment 62 at this point. We know that the Bill is going to create a new type of food product on supermarket shelves, the precision-bred organism, and is also clear that there is a trend among consumers to want more information about their food, what it contains, where it comes from and its environmental impact. All these things are important, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about traceability as well, so it is important that we have a discussion about how we achieve this, what we label, how it needs to be labelled and the impact of precision-bred organisms on future labelling.

Our Amendment 62—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support—would require the Government to introduce regulations to ensure that precision-bred food and feed is labelled to provide sufficient information in certain areas. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has already said, that includes nutritional content, the potential presence of allergens and the environmental impact of the product, but it would also require the Secretary of State to consult stakeholder groups before pursuing that and to seek the advice of the Food Standards Agency. The Government have already said that they support nutritional labelling to inform consumers of any allergens or if the nutritional content of the food has been changed from its natural state. This is something we need to address in the Bill.

We are aware of the issues of coexistence with other production systems, supply chain tracing and how the legislation might have an impact on the organic sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has talked about the organic sector, and I am not sure we have had sufficient discussion in Committee so far about the potential impacts on that sector.

We also believe it important to consult on this issue, so that whatever labelling regime the Government decide to introduce allows for different types of food production to coexist. In the impact assessment the Government state that they oppose labelling in this instance, based particularly, I think, on the costs it would incur for businesses. I am sure the Minister can confirm those points. The impact assessment has not calculated the costs or benefits of labelling, so it would be helpful if the Minister could let your Lordships know how that judgment was reached.

I would like to draw attention to a couple of points in the impact assessment. In paragraph 114, the Government note that

“maintaining a labelling and tracing system could also have wider benefits, most notably, improved consumer confidence in food products potentially adding value across the food supply chain.”

We spoke at Second Reading and earlier in Committee about the importance of consumer confidence. The impact assessment also states:

“Given uncertainties … we have not monetised the estimated annual cost of a labelling and tracing system to business.”

This was also identified by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which stated in its report:

“The traceability and labelling costs, the primary benefit for the preferred option and which differentiates the two regulatory options considered, is not quantified. As this is the main difference between the two regulatory options, the Department needs to provide some quantification of the scale of the potential impact from this change.”

I would be very grateful if the Minister could comment on this assessment. Further to that, in its written evidence to the committee, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics noted that the Government’s present stance on labelling

“runs contrary to the findings of many public engagement initiatives that have broached this question ... in this context, not labelling amounts to the withholding of information about consumer preferences”.

The question I would ask the Minister and the Committee more broadly is: where do we go with this? How do we best provide the information consumers want in order to produce confidence in the system? It is not an easy question; there are no easy answers. But I do think we need to make progress.

My Lords, after much thought, I am afraid I am a reluctant opposer of these amendments. I understand the need for transparency with the consumer—and the answer to the noble Baroness’s last question is very important—but I feel labelling will not work in this case.

Everybody supports the proposal to have a register of PBOs, and no one is trying to hide anything. If anyone really wants to know, they can find out, but not necessarily in 20 seconds—which, I gather, is the time it takes an average shopper to decide on a product. Secondly, we do not currently require people to label that a crop has been produced using an F1 hybrid technique or bombarded with radiation, or that it has undergone polyploidy induction or somatic hybridisation, or that a chemical such as colchicine has been involved. But if you asked people in the street whether they wanted such techniques to be labelled, they would almost certainly say yes, which is why they answered “yes” to the labelling of gene-edited products. Of course they did. But we need to be led by the science on whether these products are actually different if we are going to put a statutory labelling requirement in place, and the product is the same as in traditional breeding.

For instance, if I devised and produced a particular potato by editing its genes, and someone else, because they had been working on it for 20 years or so, produced a similar potato by traditional means, what would be the difference? It would be scientifically impossible to tell the two apart. ACRE would grant them both a licence and the FSA would pass them both as perfectly safe to eat. So, a label that distinguishes one from the other could be misleading and would not do our labelling system any favours. Incidentally, that view is shared internationally. Canada, the US and Japan do not require labelling for precision-bred products.

I believe it is the product that matters, not the technology used to produce it, provided that all the safeguards and breeding processes are strictly adhered to—and we are obviously going through these regulations very carefully, covering the breeding process for both crops and animals. They are already amazingly strict. As someone said in the Commons, do we label or license everything produced by 3D printing, just because someone could make an unlicensed gun with it? No—let us license the gun and not the 3D printing process.

It might be helpful to have some breeding details here—and I apologise as I am slightly retreading ground that I touched on on Monday. The point is that any wheat used to make bread is going to be several generations away from any gene editing, and obviously, ACRE and FSA get involved long before a seed reaches the marketplace. But, as I said on Monday, if a company edited a wheat to improve its milling quality, it would then have in-house testing for off-target characteristics, which would take about three or four generations—three or four years. Then, there would be a further two generations—two years—of statutory testing. Then, the variety gets recommended listing, and there would probably be another one or two years of multiplying up the seed for the farmers’ marketplace. It is a very long process, and I am not sure that the final crop of wheat could be called genetically edited as such. It is six or seven generations down the line.

Very few flour producers, especially the smaller ones who make for specialist local bakers, will have the capacity to separate this new variety. So what about your local high-quality village baker, who probably does not even have a wrapping for their bread and puts it straight onto a shelf? You can tell I am talking about my own local baker here, because that is exactly what she does. She will probably have to put up a general notice above the door of her shop, saying that the products sold in that shop may contain flour that is remotely descended from a gene-edited plant.

Incidentally, on Monday, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned Jabal, which is a new drought-resistant durum wheat which has just been produced by ICARDA, one of the UN CGIAR centres. She rightly indicated that it had been produced by scientists and farmers, and had been developed between 2017 and 2021. It is true that it was produced by ICARDA—with INRA, incidentally, which is the Moroccan agricultural research organisation—in 2017, and that between 2017 and 2021 it, and four or five other varieties which were produced at the same time, were tested with local farmers. The scientists, I may say, did not actually favour Jabal. They favoured another one which had better drought resistance, but it was a short-strawed variety and the farmers preferred the long-strawed variety because that is what they feed to their animals. For once, the scientists listened to the farmers: it does not always happen, I may say.

Anyway, the farmers chose Jabal and soon, I gather, in two or three years’ time, when it has undergone all its public tests, it will be released for farmers to grow; in other words, some six or seven years after they first started trialling it. But the time we should really be focusing on in connection with this Bill, of course, is the pre-2017 period, when the various seeds were actually being developed. I do not know whether your Lordships have ever been to a plant breeding centre. A few years back I went to the James Hutton Institute in Dundee, where they breed barley, which is very important for the Scottish economy—for whisky. They have 700 varieties of barley, all lined up, in their greenhouse, and maintain those 700 different varieties each and every year, because they do not want to lose any of them. Then they hybridise each of them. I am not a statistician, but I cannot quite imagine the number of crosses you can make from 700 different varieties of barley: it is going to be huge, probably in the millions. But they do this. Say you are looking for a particular characteristic, such as drought resistance: you hybridise it and look at it, breed more hybrids with another hybrid and so on, and go on through the procedure, and then, probably some 10 to 15 years later, you will find you arrive at something that is a leap forward. Then, of course, you have to go through all the tests.

So ICARDA has been working for maybe up to 15 years to produce this Jabal wheat and its four or five contemporaries before you get to 2017. If there are 700 barleys, there are over a thousand wheats. But the whole point of the Bill is that the advantage of gene editing is that you can do that process in possibly two or three years, not the 10 to 15 years it would normally take. It is complicated, and not actually very easy. Do not forget that the wheat genome is actually much bigger than the human genome. I believe the human genome contains 3 billion DNA letters, while bread wheat has 16 billion. That is a big difference. But—and this is the key point—whether it is gene edited or not, they all have to go through the testing period of five or six years and five or six generations before they can be released.

When it comes to animals, as I explained on Monday, with the intergenerational gap of, say, two years and nine months with a cow, or four years with a salmon, even if you have some miracle breed on the stocks ready to go the moment this Bill becomes an Act, it is still, with all the necessary testing, going to be the mid-2030s before such a product turns up in a shop. Breeding improvements in a species is a very long-term process, even with gene editing.

On the traceability front, I can do no better than to quote the evidence given to the House of Commons committee by Professor Whitelaw, who works for Roslin. He said:

“When it comes to traceability … genome-editing technology generates the equivalent of what is naturally found. Every animal born carries 40 de novo mutations— that was a new one on me—

“and genome editing adds another one to that list. Without having an audit trail of individual animals, you will not be able to identify one genetic change from another. It is impossible to categorically say, ‘That is caused by genome-editing technology rather than a natural mutation.’ Therefore, the audit trail of an animal or product will not be based on the molecular analysis of that animal; it must be based on something else.”

Another witness, Dr Craig Lewis, told the committee that

“if we look at the pig industry in the UK, it is more done on a … lot basis. For example, normal practice … is to use pulled semen at a commercial level for a terminal sire, so— and this is an important point—

“even within a litter, you might have three … sires represented … so individual animal traceability in the UK pig industry … does not really exist.”

How can one label a sausage produced in one of those litters as gene edited with any degree of confidence? I do not think one can and, as I say, we could be bringing the whole labelling system into disrepute. I completely understand the desire for transparency, and it is only after much thought and research that I have arrived at my conclusions. I just do not think labelling would be valid or, for that matter, achievable with any degree of certainty. Furthermore, I do not actually believe it is necessary. I support the view taken, as I say, by Canada, the US and Japan to not require labelling for precision-bred products.

My Lords, I can assure noble Lords that this is not some sort of Cross-Bench conspiracy, but I am afraid to say that, although I can see the arguments, I too do not support the idea of labelling precision-bred products.

I have three principal arguments, some of which have been touched on, but I will nevertheless repeat them. The first is to do with enforceability. As we have heard, and indeed my noble friend Lord Cameron said a few moments ago, there is no chemical test that can distinguish between a precision-bred organism, whether it is a plant or an animal, and one that is produced by conventional breeding. So trading standards officers or public analysts would not be able to do what they would normally expect to do: take a product off the shelf and subject it to a chemical test to justify or assess its authenticity.

We have heard quite a bit about traceability and my noble friend Lord Cameron pointed to some of the difficulties with traceability in the livestock industry. But also, it is important to remember that in the food industry traceability works on a one up, one down principle. That is to say, you are buying a raw material to put in a product and you check that the person who is selling you the raw material claims that it is what it is on the tin. But that chain can often be very long. You are buying grain that has been produced in Argentina and there is a long supply chain from the farmer to the transport to the dock to the transport in the ship to Liverpool; the cargo is unloaded in Liverpool and then it is transferred through many stages before it finally ends up in the Warburtons bread factory. The one up, one down system is by no means fool-proof—which is why to really check what something is, you need to have an analytical test to back it up. A regulation that is unenforceable is a bad regulation.

Secondly, what are consumers supposed to do with the information? Of course, if you ask consumers whether they want to have precision breeding on the label, they will say yes. I know from my time at the Food Standards Agency that almost whatever you ask people about they will say “Yes, we’d love to have it on the label”. But you also have to remember that other surveys show that only between one-quarter and one-third of consumers ever read the label. So many people who say they want it on the label do not actually look at it. If it is supposed to allow people who are worried about technology to avoid PBOs, as my noble friend Lord Cameron has said, why not label products which have been produced as a result of mutagenesis with ionising radiation or chemical toxins?

I can, however—and perhaps this speaks to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock raised—have reason to label the effects of a PBO. For example, if precision-breeding were used to create tomatoes with more lycopene, if no fungicides were used in growing potatoes, or broccoli had more omega-3, there would be a reason to label those, because it would affect the way in which the consumer might wish to use the product. But those benefits do not need mandatory labelling because producers and retailers will do it anyway. You can buy eggs in the supermarket labelled as containing enhanced omega-3. Similarly, standards such as organic foods, Freedom Foods and Rainforest Alliance foods are labelled without the need for regulation because there is a marketing advantage.

Labels are already overcomplex. Although, as I say, people will always ask for more, cluttering up labels with more information will make it more difficult for those who have to read the labels for crucial information —for example, to avoid allergens. If you add extra labelling, you are just making it more difficult for people to read the crucial things.

The US Food and Drug Administration has the principle that information should be mandatory on a label only when it affects how the consumer wants to use the product. Since labelling a PBO, as my noble friend Lord Cameron said, does not affect the nature of the final product, it is hard to see how it can affect the way in which the consumer uses it.

My third and final point is about the practicality of labelling unpackaged fruit and vegetables. If the label has to be on the package, how would one label potatoes sold loose? To take another example from the plant side, equivalent to that referred to by my noble friend Lord Cameron, let us say a tomato sauce is made from raw materials from many sources; what does the label say? Some of the sources may be precision-bred tomatoes, but the majority may not. Is it another case of “may contain”, which is not a very helpful label?

So, although I can see the arguments, I am afraid I do not support these amendments and I do not think they are practical—and, incidentally, I do not think the Food Standards Agency supports them either.

I do not want this to become one side versus the other, but I am happy to follow the two noble Lords, because I disagree with their position. There is a very strong case, with practical arguments that I hope to make, in support of labelling. I am not going to repeat the well-made arguments about why the public want it, and it is not just because everyone will say they agree with a survey. By the way, if you say the FSA is such a great organisation that it can come up with the prosect of a register, you cannot then say that it cannot come up with a decent questionnaire to which the public do not know the answer. Noble Lords must accept that, if the FSA can do a register, it can do a decent questionnaire.

So, on this occasion, I have trust in the FSA, but, more broadly, I have trust in the public. We know the public want labelling on animal welfare issues. I started my life at the RSPCA and was responsible, with others, for the creation of the Freedom Food label. I have known all my life that people want more information about these sorts of issues. The evidence is out there, not just from this one survey last year but from the direction of travel over decades. You do not need me, or the FSA or the RSPCA, to say that. Just look at what Governments are doing. Our Government, to their credit, are looking next year at a new, broader labelling scheme for food products that will include carbon emissions. It is not easy, but they are looking at doing it because they know that is the direction of travel for the public.

This is not just in the UK. Both noble Lords mentioned the USA, which is not labelling gene-edited products at the moment. That is correct. However, what they did this year in America, for the first time, was introduce a new federal law on labelling GMOs. All GMO products have to be labelled “bioengineered” or “made by bioengineering”. They have made a massive shift. They may not be labelling gene editing at the moment, but the country that is the most open to GMOs in the whole world is now labelling all GMOs, by federal law. The direction of travel, the traceability issues and the claims from organic farmers all mean that products must have labels on—very simple labels, with “made by bioengineering” or “bioengineered”. This is not rocket science; it is the direction of travel for Governments.

My second point has not been addressed by the arguments of the two noble Lords opposite. If you do not label, even if you are prepared to put to one side arguments about the public, how do you address the issue that Europe may not go down the same route as us on gene editing? The EU is not going down the route of gene editing for animals at all; it is not even in the consultation. The Minister might shake his head, but it is not in the consultation. We all know how slowly the EU operates and the consultation in the EU is only on plants.

If we do not label products, how will our exporters be able to export without extra regulations, paperwork and cost—unless they can, on the pack, say it is okay because it is labelled as such? That will affect not only those who are gene editing but those who are not gene editing; they will all be stuffed up with extra regulations and legislation because of Brexit, because we are not putting labels on packets.

Then there is the point made earlier, to which I referred, about Scotland and Wales, both of which are opposing this legislation. The Government say that they are talking with the Scottish Government, but I hope that they are listening as well. Surely, one thing that the Scottish Government would say is, “Well, if you were prepared to label, we could then make an informed choice on what comes over our border. We could say, ‘We don’t want that, but we’ll take that’—we don’t need to worry”.

It is very rare for me to dare to disagree with not just one but two leading Cross-Benchers in this field. I hear their arguments—but on the grounds of the impacts on trade and my experience, such as it is, and understanding of what the public want on labelling, this is an area where the Government have to make some concessions.

I will speak very briefly. I have added my name to Amendment 62 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lady Parminter has spoken to Amendment 61. Both noble Baronesses have made very powerful points.

Both amendments deal with labelling, a critical component of ensuring the acceptance of precision-engineered food by the public. It is the public at the end of the day that will make the decision about this. The Food Standards Agency in its recent briefing felt that labelling was not necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has said, as the food produced by natural processes would be completely indistinguishable from that which has been precision engineered, and the labelling would be cumbersome and the labels too cluttered. Obviously, I disagree with that.

The consumer has become used to reading labels to see what the allergen content is, what the calories are and how much salt and fat are contained in the product—so why not whether the product contains precision-bred ingredients? We heard earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that the FSA is under pressure and underfunded. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, set out her amendment clearly, and it is obvious what the rationale is. At some stage, the Government will carry out a review of how the actions permitted in this Bill are progressing, and what the advantages and disadvantages have been. I hope that it will all be positive. However, if there is no clear labelling, the process of review will be deeply flawed, if not impossible to carry out.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to loose potatoes being labelled and that being very difficult—and I have to say that it will be exactly the same as they are at the moment. In the shops, it will say, perhaps, “Arran Pilot” or “Estima”, and underneath it may say, “Contains genetically modified organisms”. It is not difficult for loose produce to be labelled. All precision-bred organisms and food and feed, and the progeny from those organisms, should be labelled from the start of the process, not at some later date in future.

My Lords, I know that labelling was raised as a concern at Second Reading, and I would like to address those points and discuss our approach to transparency within the Bill.

As I have said before, the Bill is being led by the science. As the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Krebs, highlighted, there is currently no method that can categorically determine whether genetic changes to an organism of the kind covered by this Bill have arisen conventionally, or through the application of a precision-breeding method such as genome editing. Precision breeding is another method in our breeding toolbox. To be clear, products from precision-bred plants or animals will contain only genetic changes that could also occur through traditional breeding or naturally. We do not currently label for other breeding methods such as chemical mutagenesis, and we do not label novel foods as novel. If I went out into the street now and asked people whether they would like food that was created by chemical mutagenesis, as noble Lords have said, they would probably say yes—but we have to be absolutely clear what we are talking about here.

The FSA is establishing a separate authorisation process for food and feed derived from precision-bred plants and animals. Through this process the FSA will ensure that all products placed on the market for consumption will be safe. We are not alone in taking this approach on labelling, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, so eloquently said, we are aligning with many of our partners across the world, such as Canada, Japan, Argentina and others, that do not require precision-bred organisms, or food and feed derived from them, to be labelled as such.

For these reasons, we do not think it would be appropriate to require labelling to indicate the use of precision breeding. We understand the importance of transparency and, as I have mentioned, the Bill enables regulations to establish public registers. This will ensure that information about precision-bred plants and animals, and the food and feed produced from them, which can be marketed in England, is in the public domain and can be accessed freely by consumers and food businesses. The intention is that the development of the register of food and feed from precision-bred organisms, and associated information requirements, will be subject to consultation, so there will be further opportunity for stakeholders to feed into this work.

The industry also recognises the importance of transparency. The British Society of Plant Breeders has recently committed to maintaining a public register of all registered plant varieties that have been developed through precision breeding; the society’s registers provide the basis for traceability of agricultural crops.

The issue of allergens was mentioned earlier and was also raised at Second Reading. I understand that consumers will want to know of any compositional changes that may affect them. I want to reassure your Lordships that regulation on the provision of food information to consumers already adequately covers both nutritional and allergen labelling for food products, thus ensuring that consumers have access to the information they need about these matters.

Existing requirements of food law mean that food business operators must have systems and procedures in place to identify businesses they have supplied. This ensures that food can be traced, and any unsafe products recalled. There are also provisions in the Bill that would enable more specific requirements on traceability to be made in relation to food and feed produced from precision-bred organisms through secondary legislation.

Through the Bill we want to create a more proportionate and science-based regulatory regime to encourage greater innovation and industry investment in precision-breeding technologies. I understand the different opinions that may exist on this, but if we are being honest with the public, we have to listen to what the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Krebs, said about what we are saying on any label. It would be impossible to differentiate between two food stuffs—one that was produced by traditional means and one that had been produced as a PBO. I hope this has reassured noble Lords on these points.

Contrary to the implication that I made at Second Reading, I am with the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Cameron, here. If you cannot check it, you cannot label it.

There is a fundamental point here—and I quoted the late Professor Burke. I know from experience the very reason the FSA was set up, and the Minister needs to send an edict round his colleagues: we do not want any Minister to ever claim that gene-edited food is safe, because the public will not believe them. That is the reason the FSA is there. It is a pity, because we have some Members of this House who have personal experience of this. They could destroy the food industry. The public will believe the scientists and the officials from the regulatory authorities; there is abundant evidence for that over the last 20 years.

If the Minister wanted to wreck gene editing and the food industry, he would give the nod to Ministers to say, “We’ve got this new policy—it will go down well with the public, and there are a few votes in it. You get down there and tell your local people”. It is fine for Ministers to do what the Minister is doing now—legislating—but they should have no role whatever in promoting and explaining. Legally they have no role, because legally the responsibility is with the Food Standards Agency, but you have to spell that out to Health Ministers—you had to spell it out even to Labour Health Ministers that they had no role. They do not like it, because there are no levers to pull, but it is just one of those things.

However, in terms of confidence for the food industry, which has been restored in the past 20 years after some rocky incidents, it is fundamental that the Minister gets across to his colleagues that Ministers should not pontificate on safety and the other aspects of food. They are going to have to pay for this, by the way, because resources are needed for both the FSA and the other regulators, including the scientific committees, to explain things to the public and defend the situation in a way that the public will believe. They will not believe Ministers; I can tell you that from my own experience. I kept out of it in the horsemeat scandal. I left it to the officials and the scientists. No one was going to believe a hack politician who was previously a Minister. It is true that it was a very difficult situation, but the public will not believe Ministers. It is as simple as that.

I can assure noble Lords that I always trust experts over politicians. I was in Defra at the time of the horsemeat scandal; I entirely endorse what the noble Lord says. As on so many occasions, if you get people who are real experts in their field, they are often able to convey the opinion much more effectively than Ministers. With due humility, I accept the noble Lord’s advice.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all the noble Lords who have contributed to this absolutely crucial debate—in particular, the noble Lords opposite who put so much into it. Given the hour, I will park the debate about Jabal wheat for the moment; perhaps we can have that debate over the Long Table sometime and continue the discussion.

I want to say something very serious and, I must say, concerning. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, both said that it is impossible to identify whether something has been gene edited. I have no doubt that the Minister is operating on the advice that he has received, but I am afraid that that is simply untrue. It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is not in his place; I will attempt to channel him because he would undoubtedly say this better than I am going to.

As an example, I refer to a 2020 article in Theoretical and Applied Genetics by Biswas, Rong et al. Its title is “Effective identification of CRISPR/Cas9-induced and naturally occurred mutations in rice using a multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification-based method”. Let me translate that into English. This article shows how you can identify both the intended and unintended impacts of the use of CRISPR-Cas9, as well as any other mutations that occur independently of the use of CRISPR—in rice, for example.

That is just one example from 2020. Let us look at another example: a commercial practice called the real-time PCR method. I think we have all become familiar with PCR tests during Covid. I have no reason to disbelieve it so I cite what the commercial company says: that this method detects

“what is probably the most challenging class of gene edits—a modification of just a single letter in the genetic blueprint”.

This is the simplest change possible and it is detectable through a PCR test—something with which we are all highly familiar.

Does the company claim that it can tell whether that single base pair change was produced by genome editing or by mutation? If so, how?

I am sorry; I cannot speak for that company. What I can refer to, because I was just talking about it, is the rice article to which I referred. As I said, the article refers to—we need the noble Lord, Lord Winston—the multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification-based method. I would be happy to provide a reference to both the noble Lord and the Minister. The article says that this method can definitely determine whether the impacts of CRISPR-Cas9 are intentional or unintentional, or whether it is something that has happened independently but at the same time. So there is at least one method here, in a respected peer-reviewed journal, that sets out how this can be identified.

Further, I point out that the US Government this year announced a collaboration to develop

“an initial set of computational tools that assists trained analysts to identify genetic engineering in a next generation sequencing data set. It makes it possible for scientists to detect engineered DNA at scale”.

That is a US Government project happening this year. Any claim that this is all impossibly difficult and cannot be done simply does not stack up. If the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was here, I am sure he could cite many more cases, but the evidence, I think, is clearly there.

I want to pick up some of the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Cameron of Dillington. First, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said that we cannot have extra labelling: there is not enough space, and it is too confusing. If we pick up an average packet of something in the supermarket—say, a packet of pasta—it will have some very large branding on it and a small space dedicated to nutrition and other information. Possibly, we need less space for the branding. Very little packaging has insufficient space for extra information of the kind that consumers want.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, made some points about random mutagenesis techniques and other techniques that he used, and said that they are not labelled. There may be an argument that they should be labelled, but putting that to one side, the fact is that comparing genome editing to those kinds of techniques is comparing apples and pears. Basically, gene editing can access and amend parts of the genome that are protected from naturally occurring or induced mutations. This is something that perhaps we have not brought out in previous debates, and we might want to explore it further on Report. There is a difference between the parts of the genome that can be accessed by these different techniques.

I have dealt with a lot and am aware of the hour. It is clear there is a strong demand from many sides of the House for this labelling and a strong demand from the public. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I have little doubt that we will return to this on Report.

Amendment 61 withdrawn.

Amendment 62 not moved.

Clause 27: Food and feed marketing authorisations: register

Amendment 63 not moved.

Clause 27 agreed.

Clause 28 agreed.

Clause 29: Meaning of “Part 3 obligation”