Strict GMO laws are anti-science
If our coalition government is serious about tackling climate change and leaving future generations a prosperous planet, GMO law reform must be considered. A poignant aspect of making a difference to New Zealand’s carbon emissions is discontinuing ‘business as usual’, meaning the lifestyles we have founded and the way our society operates needs to change. It’s not sustainable, and doesn’t promise the 170,000 people who took to the streets on September 27 or their children a habitable future.
We need to be exploring new methods, changing the way we think, and reevaluating ideas we have while taking into consideration the increasingly rapid development of science. We need to reform the law about genetically modified organisms.
While most people who hear the term ‘genetic engineering’ think of designer babies, the reality is much different. In no way should New Zealand be considering deregulating laws around geneticallymodified zygotes, but it should be considering the possibility within crop development and agriculture.
New Zealand’s archaic GMO laws heavily regulate the research and release of genetically engineered organisms. Those wanting to test on and release their creations must jump through a series of hoops and fulfil requirements. Sure, these laws are argued to protect New Zealand’s valuable biodiversity, but they could be doing more harm than good in the long term. We need to be taking ambitious steps forward if we want to preserve any of our unique environment and are serious about reducing our carbon emissions.
In 2001, the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification reported: ‘‘It would be unwise to turn our back on the potential advantages on offer’’ provided by genetic engineering. It’s been 18 years, and New Zealand has still only taken baby steps towards more liberal regulations. Genetic engineering must be reconsidered as a viable option for the protection of our environment.
At Lincoln, scientists from AgResearch are engineering a strain of ryegrass which, when fed to cows, has the potential to reduce methane emissions by 23 per cent. It contains a High Metabolise Energy (HME) system, which promotes the production of lipids in the leaf. Higher levels of lipids, provided they don’t biohydrogenate, result in less material for the rumen to release as methane and more sustenance for the animal so they do not have to ingest as much grass as they regularly would. This ryegrass could not only reduce methane emissions, but also cost farmers less due to its high feed conversion efficiency.
Additionally, modelling has shown a reduction in nitrate leaching. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires a new way of thinking, and if we’re serious about assisting farmers in their emission reductions we need to be considering less regulation of genetic engineering.
Farmers are reported to be ‘‘agitated’’ that this grass – which could reduce their negative environmental impact and increase their profit – is ‘‘trapped in the laboratory’’.
New Zealand’s strict GMO laws have seen AgResearch moving its research to the United States in order to complete testing. How embarrassing. Progressive, NZ-born science having to move away in order to develop. These current regulations can only be described as antiscience.
Our prime minister has claimed she wants to ‘‘demonstrate how [food producing] can be done sustainably’’ to the rest of the world. If she’s serious, we need action in the form of allowing crops with forward-thinking genetic engineering to be used in New Zealand.