Kiwi scientists say GM food is now safe
Scientists say it’s time for a ‘serious chat’ on genetic engineering, which has moved on since the days of major protests. But opponents are preparing to dig in again, writes Pat Deavoll.
Fifteen years ago, a nationwide protest attracting 15,000 marchers in Auckland alone brought the issue of genetically modified organisms to the forefront of the Kiwi psyche.
The protesters armed themselves with the slogan ‘‘Keep Your Hands Off Our Genes’’, and the most hardcore tramped from Northland to Parliament in a ‘‘GE-free hikoi’’ to drop off 92,000 signatures of dissent.
The protests were sparked by journalist Nicky Hager’s book
Seeds of Distrust which told of an accidental release of genetically modified (GM) corn seed sown into paddocks; illegal under New Zealand law.
The upshot was the formation of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification to establish a way forward on the issue.
Since then, all genetic experiments have been confined to labs and all applications to release genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have needed the approval of the Environmental Protection Authority. There have been only three approvals since 1998 – a vaccine for equine flu, and two cancer therapies for a clinical trial. Nothing for agriculture.
The act was reviewed in 2015, but nothing new came of this.
It’s time for a shake-up of the issue, say the country’s science and agri- industry leaders.
In a recent RNZ podcast, the Government’s outgoing science adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, said: ‘‘We’re long overdue for a serious chat about genetic engineering. The issue needs readdressing because there have been significant developments over the past 15 years’’.
Genetic modification means taking a gene from one plant and inserting it into another. After 30 years of use, the evidence of the safety of GM is clear, he says.
‘‘These are crude tools compared to what can be done with gene editing, such as the Crispr technique which can regulate a switch on the gene to turn it on or off. Nature does this all the time so it’s a small modification,’’ Gluckman says.
Jon Carapiet, the national spokesman for GE-Free New Zealand, stands by the opposite point of view.
‘‘It’s not about for or against. There is no ban on GMOs in New Zealand. There are controls and regulations and these have been fought over long and hard for two decades by people responding to the push to have deregulated genetic engineering,’’ Carapiet says.
‘‘You have to have oversights, you have to look at what you have done and whether any unintentional changes may have happened.’’
The people who are pushing for GMOs to be deregulated are benefiting from a situation where there is a socialised risk,
not strict liability. Industries where there is liability moderate their risk taking. It forces them to be a bit more imaginative with the alternatives, Carapiet says.
‘‘A lot of the claim around genetic engineering as a solution is partly driven by the desire to patent organisms which can be licensed. It is also driven by deliberate ignorance to practical proven alternatives such as climate-smart agri-ecology. A systems approach to issues around agriculture rather than a magic bullet.’’
Pure Hawke’s Bay, which was instrumental in the move to make the Hastings District Council adopt a 10-year moratorium on genetically modified crops, says business would suffer if any changes were allowed and they argue that not enough is known about the GM technologies and their effects.
Its chairman, Bruno Chambers, says there are other options to investigate in order to lower emissions, which will not require GM.
‘‘We’re not anti-science and if something came along that was genetically modified that was really going to offer huge benefits to a number of farms, then we’d be looking at it with an open mind, but it always comes back to the markets.’’
Chambers believes there would be an impact on the market if New Zealand crops
were no longer GMfree. ‘‘People are just starting to realise how important it is for the New Zealand brand, it’s a critical part of our selling position.’’
Andrew Allan, professor of plant biology at Auckland University, says ignorance of the facts of GM poses an economic risk to New Zealand.
‘‘Public outrage and political pressure have so far kept New Zealand safe from transgenics (plants and animals with added DNA). Our clean, green image is worth a lot of money but wellpublished research has shown it likely won’t be affected by growing GM crops,’’ Allan says.
‘‘And it’s hard to measure the cost of a lost opportunity. Around the world, transgenics are now 15 per cent of agricultural value. In New Zealand, such high-value plants may have to compete with cows for land use. These may have been good for the environment – we will never know. There hasn’t been a choice.’’
And consumers don’t have the choice, even if the new product proves to be more nutritious, he says.
‘‘Without the ability to use gene-editing, New Zealand will be prevented from growing food that is better for the environment and our industries will fall behind our trading partners and competitors.’’
AgResearch has developed a ryegrass that promises a leap in productivity. The catch is, it’s genetically modified.
The ryegrass has been shown in AgResearch’s laboratories to grow up to 50 per cent faster than conventional ryegrass, to be able to store more energy for better animal growth, to be more resistant to drought, and to