GM or GE? Learn the difference
Ido get a bit frustrated with deliberate misinformation that is presented in such a way, so to invoke emotional views on topics that lambaste my fellow farmer peers.
One very recent editorial in a main daily tabloid, clearly demonstrated the lack of science by the writer in my opinion on the difference between genetic modification (GM) and genetically engineered (GE). We have been genetically modifying our livestock and food in a safe and managed long process to achieve efficient productivity and economic outcomes both for consumer and grower. Open a packet of frozen peas – they will be consistently the same size and nutritional value. We have a national bovine dairy herd genetically superior now than in say the 1970’s by simply picking the best aspects of bovine progeny, and distributing the best genetic advantage by Artificial Breeding (AB). We also have crossed bred friesian and jersey genetics for initial hybrid vigour, which then became wellknown as the Kiwi Cross cow.
I could go on and on with fruit, vegetables and meat and milk production safely genetically modified for best outcomes to provide food for our growing world population. Now genetic engineering (GE) is another issue that I believe does require a more ethical circumspect management in the laboratory. Because genetic material from different species are moulded together to see if a theoretical outcome can produce a practical one. It was common knowledge two totally different common meat producing animals had genetic material exchanged so to produce an acknowledged diabetic insulin more superior to what was currently available at that time.
But back to my gripe, taking advantage of many people’s understanding between genetically modified and genetically engineered products in the food chain, for an emotional response against my farmers is unacceptable to me. A serious issue highlighted by Te Aroha District Federated Farmers’ chairman Andrew McGiven. What ever happened to property rights? Once upon a time, a long time ago, I used to believe that once I had bought my own farm, I would have secured my very own piece of New Zealand and would be free to live how I wished away from bureaucrats and other busy bodies. The reality is strikingly different. It appears a man’s home is his castle only if you live in town, because out in the country it seems everyone from State Owned Enterprises (SOE) through to tramping clubs should be allowed access to farmers’ land. Commonly recognised property rights include the right to exclude others from the property, the right to use and enjoy it, the right to mortgage it – but it seems to me that most of these rights have been hijacked by legislation, more often than not legislation that has been pushed by some minority lobby group. Who remembers Helen Clark’s walking track access bill that had the potential for any member of the public to wander unrestricted through farmland. It irks me how the Regional Council has more power than the police when searching properties. At least the police have to have reasonable cause, and must have the search warrant signed by a JP or judge. Council officers don’t seem to need any of these prerequisites and sometimes almost act above the law with their demands for access. Where is the communication with the landowners? Surely it is only common courtesy to negotiate an appropriate meeting time with the landowner, and if this is not done then surely the landowner has the right to eject council staff from the property. Another example is how Transpower, Telecom and other SOEs always quote that the structures and cables, etc they install on properties are for the ‘‘national interest’’ and expect farmers and other rural landowners to just suck it up and work around any new restrictions that may be imposed. Look I’m sorry, although I realise that the Crown has the right of ‘‘eminent domain’’ over privately owned land, these powers are usually only exercised in times of national emergency. If these SOE’s are quoting ‘‘national interest’’, then ‘‘national interest’’ can afford to pay a rental or compensation to the affected land holders. Anything less is property right theft.