GMworth a go for climate’s sake
The Frankenfoods we once feared might be the solution we need. Gerhard Uys reports.
Research into genetic modification (GM) technologies that could deliver environmental benefits needs to be reconsidered by regulators, the farming sector and consumers, the Productivity Commission says.
A recent report from the commission, titled Reaching for the Frontier, said research on GM technologies offered opportunities to respond to climate risks and biosecurity threats and could also boost farm productivity.
‘‘Gene-editing technologies can be used to improve plant traits such as drought tolerance, disease resistance, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in grazed animals, and animal traits such as increased disease resistance,’’ the report said.
Report, industry on same page
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and GM technologies are regulated by New Zealand’s Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.
The report notes the act defines GMOs as those derived from genetic material that has been modified in a test tube or petri dish.
It says the problem with this is that the GMOs are defined by how they were developed and not the attributes of the products.
Approval to develop, trial or commercialise GMOs had to be given by the Environmental Protection Authority. However, regulations were last reviewed in 2001 and technologies had since moved on.
Federated Farmers national president Andrew Hoggard echoed the report, which stated that modern geneediting techniques enabled changes to be made in vivo (directly inside an organism) – a technique that was not envisaged at the time the regulations were made. These techniques could also produce changes that did not involve inserting foreign DNA.
‘‘This was in stark contrast to earlier techniques, which sparked consumer fears of Frankenfoods created from mixed genetic sources. The precision of gene editing means these changes can be indistinguishable from naturally occurring organisms,’’ the report said.
Hoggard said there were no immediate GM solutions for the livestock sector, but there were technologies that could relieve the climate impact of farming within the next few years.
Genetically modified rye grass that when eaten by livestock did not produce as much GHG emissions as nonGM grasses used in New Zealand for grazing had already been extensively trialled overseas, Hoggard said, and it could be ready for uptake in the next decade or less if it was accepted locally.
However, such solutions did not immediately solve climate problems, he said. Growers would first have to plant these grasses, then harvest seeds, and could only then begin selling it.
Consumer behaviour
Dr Sommer Kapitan, a behavioural scientist at AUT University, says beef and lamb producers are fighting a rising tide of concerns linked to animal impacts on the planet, as well as global health trends that moved away from meat consumption.
The more the meat industry could innovate, the more it could retain consumers who did not want to give up meat, she said.
Products such as meat raised on genetically modified rye grass that curbed GHG emissions would have to be introduced slowly to consumers.
‘‘Otherwise you freak people out. You would not replace previous products – you just increase the availability of a new one,’’ Kapitan said.
Farmers need solutions
Waikato dairy farmer Pete Morgan said the industry needed to consider any evidence-based solution for the climate challenges that the world faced.
‘‘The longer we wait to develop solutions, the more proactive we have to be. No solutions should be off the table,’’ he said.
‘‘It is clear that GM technologies could have the same impact that previous agriculture revolutions had.’’
Morgan said it was ironic that there had been historic resistance to many agriculture technologies by the public, who had put gene editing into the same camp as, for example, the overuse of chemicals. Gene editing could now provide solutions to many problems the public previously feared, he said.