AN SNP minister has accused a Scottish Tory MSP of “trying to patronise and belittle” her after the two clashed on genetic modification.
The exchange came after Stephen Kerr, the Scots Conservatives’ chief whip, claimed that Màiri McAllan, the SNP’s environment minister, was “confused” about the difference between gene editing and genetic modification (GM).
McAllan had previously been asked a question by Tory MSP Russell Findlay about gene editing, and mentioned “GM” in her response.
Under EU and Scottish law, gene editing (GE) is considered a form of GM.
READ MORE: Scotland may be 'forced' to sell GM food as England looks to post-Brexit law change
After suggesting McAllan was “confused”, Kerr said: “Will the minister please take the time to understand the difference between GMOs and gene editing.
“Scotland’s farmers can see potential benefits in gene editing, why can’t the Scottish Government?”
McAllan hit back, accusing the Tory MSP of attempting to “patronise and belittle” her.
It’s a privilege being an MSP and government Minister.
— Màiri McAllan (@MairiMcAllan) March 24, 2022
But sadly, being a young woman means I have to put up with older men trying to patronise and belittle me.
They needn’t bother 💪 pic.twitter.com/ujGsCtOtWc
“The member needn’t try to patronise, or belittle, or outsmart me because he will not succeed.”
This was greeted with applause.
She went on: “I am following very closely both scientific and judicial reasoning about the decoupling of GM and gene editing.”
The current rules in Scotland align with the EU law, which classifies gene editing as a form of genetic modification. Neither are allowed.
READ MORE: Tories 'governing by diktat' aim to drop laws around genetically modified plants
However, since Brexit, the UK Government has sought to decouple the two and legalise gene editing. The Tories claim that gene-edited foods are things “which could have occurred naturally or been produced by traditional breeding” – but campaigners have called this a “mythical subset” with no clearly defined boundaries.
If the UK Government were to legalise such organisms, only farmers in England would be able to use the technology on their crops and animals.
However, the non-discrimination clause in the Internal Market Act means that devolved governments would be powerless to block the genetically edited foodstuffs from being sold in their jurisdictions.
There are also fears on the continent that, through a backdoor in Northern Ireland, such genetically edited foods could enter the European market.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel