New precision breeding tech raises debate at Scottish Crop Innovation Centre

The event saw the ‘great and the good’ gathered to celebrate the opening – and, perhaps, witness the novelty of Scottish and UK Ministers collaborating to pull the curtains on the wee plaque marking the two major funders of the new facilities.

But while there was every sign of a happy co-operation between the UK Government’s Scottish Secretary, Ian Murray and Scotland’s First Minister, John Swinney when they met with so many eminent scientists, I couldn’t help but feel that there was a carefully avoided elephant in the room or, more correctly, the laboratory.

New breeding technologies

And this was in the lumbering shape of the current divergence in approaches north and south of the border towards the commercial harnessing of new precision breeding technologies such as gene editing.

Now it’s many years since the big back-lash against the early – and at that time untested – technology of Genetic Modification (or GM as it became known) which scientists were using to insert genes from one species into the genome of another.

Heavily pushed by big US corporates who had developed the science with a view to selling more of their own pesticides, this approach didn’t go down well in the UK, Europe or, indeed, many other areas of the world.

Fears were raised about the possible dangers and unintended consequences of this transgenic approach, with dramatic red-top headlines claiming that scientists were playing God while developing Frankfoods which could hold untold horrors for consumers and the environment.

This resistance led to the introduction of stringent regulations across Europe which effectively stymied the widespread adoption of GM crops in many areas of the world – including the UK.

MORE NEWS | CropTech event to host arable leaders and innovators

MORE NEWS | Group four wheat sees success for Haddington grower

Quicker and more efficient

However, that was back in the 1990’s – and, as we all know, over the past thirty years the science has become much more subtle and targeted as well as proven. And today’s advanced breeding techniques are totally different and are more akin to using a surgical scalpel to switch genes which are, crucially, already present in the genome, on or off.

This approach effectively creates a far quicker and more efficient way to develop new varieties which could have been created by many years and many wasteful failures using traditional breeding and selection methods.

And as we face up to the fact that the world will have to feed more mouths while, at the same time, we face a more extreme set of climates conditions, many countries have recognised that the opportunity to breed crop varieties with better resistance to drought, pests and diseases offers a more sustainable route to feeding an ever-increasing population simply has to be grasped.

Over the past few months many countries around the world have therefore decided to take a more flexible attitude to the new, less risky breeding technologies – and Australia, New Zealand as well as the UK Government south of the border have moved to differentiate between the newer and older style technologies – making it easier to adopt and grow crops bred using technologies and techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing.

Denied the right

The EU is also slowly moving in this direction too – but, as we know, the Scottish Government has remained strong in its opposition to growing such crops. And while scientists might still be able to use the technologies in the laboratory, without a change of heart from ScotGov, Scottish farmers would be denied the right to grow the crops and harness the benefits offered by new varieties which will be widely available to farmers in England and elsewhere.

And, just a week or two ago, the grain trade and farming bodies called on ScotGov to set up an independent expert working group to review its current stance with a view to allowing the adoption of varieties which will be widely available elsewhere.

So, grabbing the opportunity, I asked the First Minister at the opening if a rethink on the current position was on the cards. The answer was a master-piece of consummate political-speak, involving a dialogues with all stakeholders, etc – but when pushed he admitted that no consultation was currently on the cards.

Complicated subject

Obviously it’s a pretty complicated subject, so I subsequently contacted the agriculture department for further confirmation on its stance.

However Scottish Agriculture Minister Jim Fairlie’s response didn’t raise my hopes:

“Our position is clear,” he told me, “we are opposed to the cultivation of genetically modified crops in Scotland. The (UK Government’s) Precision Breeding Act created a distinction between genetic modification and gene editing in England, which is not recognised in Scotland.”

And, while the difficulty which this will also definitely create with cross-border trade between Scotland and England was recognised, he said:

“Regulation of genetic modification is an area of devolved responsibility and I expect full cooperation in matters where any legislation relating to genetic modification will impact upon the interests of Scottish businesses and consumers.

And he added:

“I plan to raise the issue of labelling with the UK Government following their announcement that they will proceed with secondary legislation on precision breeding.”

Looks like that particular elephant will continue to lurk in the laboratory…

Emerged from undergrowth

Not the only pachyderm around though – and some more of the rogue variety emerged from the undergrowth of last week’s budget even after the initial shock-waves of the elephantine changes to Agricultural Property Relief and inheritance tax, the uncertainty over how much of the frozen farm budget would make its way to Scotland’s farmers and the huge increase in costs for anyone employing labour.

And while you might have thought that jeopardising the industry’s future might have been enough, there was also an outright attack on our current lifestyle – with the revelation that there had been a sudden 360° handbrake turn on tax classification’s on double cab pick-ups. For, as has no doubt been highlighted elsewhere, these trucks will soon be treated as family cars and treated for tax accordingly, reversing a previous u-turn which had seen such a decision overturned almost as soon as it was announced.

Anyhoo, all bad enough but there was a further rampant runaway hidden in the budget which poses a particular threat to the arable sector. And that was the proposal to move ahead at full speed with the UK’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (otherwise known under the catchy acronym of CBAM) which is to be introduced on certain products with the aim of imposing a levy or import tax where “dirty” production methods which don’t control emissions are used.

Firmly in the Firing line

The details are still a bit sketchy on this one but it looks like amongst a number of industrial products imported nitrogen fertiliser is likely to be fairly hard hit. And, given the fact that the UK no longer has any facilities for producing our own N fertilisers, the vast majority of our fertilisers will be hit by this new tax.

Estimates have varied on the likely costs, but most seem to believe that an additional cost at around the £50 to £75 a tonne will be added to fertiliser prices when the mechanism kicks in on Ne’erday, 2027.

And while the EU is set to introduce its own version of CBAM, there’s going to be one key difference.

For, while it’s going to be brought in at the full rate on day one by the UK, in Europe it’s to be gradually phased in, being applied at only 5% of the full figure in 2027 and then gradually rising to the full rate by 2034.

All of which leaves me thinking that if the Labour Party still believes it’s supporting family farms, then the only elephants they’re seeing must be pink ones.