GE decision set to rearrange life as we know it

The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification reports on Monday. COLIN JAMES on who will win the argument.

It is undoubtedly a sign of the times that submissions to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification contained extensive modifications of their own. American spellings infected a number of submissions, including some of the most sober and responsible.

On Monday, when the commission finally releases its findings, both the sober and the strident will discover who has won the battle over one of the most emotional issues of the past few years.

The report comes just two days before the Knowledge Wave conference, which will emphasise the importance of cutting-edge research, including in bioscience, and of business investment to exploit it.

Much hangs on the royal commission's words, not least a Government that has made the "knowledge society" the centrepiece of its "economic transformation" ambitions but also wants this country to be a world leader in environmental activism.

The interest is not only local. The commission has attracted worldwide attention, from scientists, anti-genetic engineering activists and the media. It is a world-first comprehensive public examination of GE.

The Government is staying tight-lipped. Research, Science and Technology Minister Pete Hodgson has studied the submissions and the transcripts but not tried to second-guess the result, to ensure that ministers cannot be accused of having influenced the result.

In any event, the Government is likely to keep its initial response to a promise to consider the report earnestly and give its response later.

Any recommendation to loosen or qualify controls on GMOs (genetically modified organisms) outside the laboratory will rouse fierce opposition from the Greens and their lobby-group allies, who oppose even controlled field trials.

If the Government tried to legislate a loosening, the Greens would be highly likely to vote to put the Coalition out of office. A GE-free country is core Green policy. But if ministers ignore such a recommendation, business is likely to distance itself anew from the Government, just when progress is being made on that relationship on other fronts.

So Monday's report may set in motion high drama. It is a clash between ethics and beliefs on the one hand and business' eagerness for new opportunities on the other. And not just the biological and pharmaceutical businesses.

Simon Carlaw, head of the business lobby group Business NZ, believes GE is "the single most critical key to extracting greater innovation out of the land-based industries, especially GlobalCo".

The world-leading capability in stainless steel fabrication that has spun out of the dairy industry is just one example of how GE is crucial to the economy, he argues.

"If GlobalCo does well, it has the capacity to spin off all sorts of things. If it is cut off at the knees, we are not going to have anybody making widgets off GlobalCo's innovations."

David Parker of the A2 Corporation told the royal commission that GE studies were the sort of leading research which "is the lifeblood of our universities".

High on the list of business' critical issues is the wording and the administration of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO, usually called "Hasno").

Anti-GE groups say it is too loose to ensure potentially dangerous organisms do not get through its net.

Pro-GE groups say it is too negatively weighted, too restrictive, highly bureaucratic and adds so much in compliance costs and delays that it discourages scientists and business investment.

Its architect, former Environment Minister Simon Upton, has said it has a "powerfully risk-averse bias" in that the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma), which administers it, may not allow conditional entry or development of a new organism - it will only allow it or ban it.

Business submissions to the royal commission complained that even for low-risk organisms, researchers must comply with intrusive bureaucratic oversight for every slight modification, even if destroyed at the end of a working day. The Dairy Board called for approval on a project or institution basis and other organisations sought similar broad approval mechanisms.

The crucial point is how far development should go. Almost all those against GE allowed the possibility of research to the laboratory stage, at least for medical purposes.

The Greens argued against field trials. Against that, the Life Sciences Network of influential industry groups argued that Erma should be able to allow conditional releases into the general environment.

Some business submissions suggested an intermediate stage between field trials and general release. Others wanted to be able to develop research findings commercially.

There were two complicating points in deciding how far and on what basis GE should go beyond the "contained" stage.

One is a central issue of the GE debate: science versus ethics, culture or general fears of damage to humans or the environment from unknown and unknowable flow-on effects. Anti-GE submitters presented anecdotal evidence of such occurrences.

Pro-GE submissions argued that the place for ethical, cultural and Treaty of Waitangi issues was in policy, not in deciding detailed cases where they are now often litigated - or should be subject to a national policy framework, with a new national body to advise on such issues.

Some pro-GE submissions conceded that the treaty could be argued in respect of indigenous flora and fauna but otherwise should be dealt with at the policy level, not for individual applications. Some pro-GE submissions said ethical considerations should apply only to "transgenic" GE - transplanting genes across species, not within species - and stem cell research.

Pro-GE submissions also argued that the royal commission, and authorities, could reach conclusions only on the basis of expert science. In detailed closing submissions the Life Sciences Network argued that the only scientific evidence that should be relied on is of scientists active in the particular field. Some scientists of other disciplines not expert in GE who were called by anti-GE groups fared poorly at the hearings.

The pro-GE lobby argued, on the evidence of scientists expert in GE, that, in the words of the Life Sciences Network, "there is no scientifically valid evidence to indicate that continued research into the use of GM techniques, GMOs and GM products is unsafe for human health or safety or for the environment, provided that a cautious approach is taken and that all activities involving GMOs are assessed on a case-by-case basis."

This argument reduces in essence to a demand that the anti-GE lobbies produce hard evidence in advance of potential dangers - something that cannot by definition be provided until measurable damage is done, by which time irreversible damage may have been done.

This argument of theirs in turn reduces in essence to fear of the unknown - "Frankenstein" monsters lurking in irresponsible scientists' laboratories that could seriously harm humans or the environment. Such fears, widely shared in the population, underlie the successful demands of anti-GE lobbies for labelling of food containing GE ingredients and influenced the Government to set up the royal commission in the first place.

One counter to such fears argued by pro-GE lobbies was that GE would promote economic growth - or at least avoid economic decline.

They argued that blocking GE organisms might be seen as contravening World Trade Organisation and other international agreements and provoke retaliatory non-tariff barriers to our exports. Failure to develop New Zealand-owned GE technologies might also reduce NZ companies' ability to license and use technologies developed by others.

Six scenarios modelled by Adolf Stroombergen of Infometrics for Life Sciences Network showed that, compared with "business as usual", adoption of GE could, by 2010, add up to 1.4 per cent to GDP. It could add $1000 more spending power per household and 19,000 more jobs, while outright rejection could cost up to 10 per cent of GDP and 118,000 jobs.

But Mr Stroombergen also modelled an organic farming future which he said could add about $600 in spending power a household.

Anti-GE lobbies argued that this country's clean-green image adds an important premium - a point agreed by the vegetable and fruit federations, which nevertheless also argued for producers' and consumers' freedom to develop, produce, sell and consume GE food.

Moreover, the Council of Trade Unions, arguing for continued research but not commercialisation - at least "until the extent of the negative consumer attitude [to GE foods] can be seen" - drew on modelling by Lincoln University which concluded that "the greatest positive impact [on the economy] is the GE-free strategy".

There is a separate debate over medicines. Most of those against GE accept the value of GE medicines, especially to combat diseases such as diabetes and cystic fibrosis. The issue is how this is to be used: hardline anti-GE forces are against live vaccines.

Some submissions, by the Researched Medicines Industry lobby group, for example, argued that GE medicines should be treated differently from food and should not be subject to the HSNO law. Genesis Research and Development Corporation argued that the Medicines Act was adequate to deal with drugs, vaccines and diagnostic tests.

Pro-GE lobbies also took the fight on to anti-GE ground: GE might actually enhance the environment by finding solutions to pests such as the possum, and might even aid in the fight against climate change.

How - or if - the royal commission has resolved all these arguments will be known on Monday.

Some close observers expect the decisions mostly to go in the pro-GE lobbies' favour. If so, the Greens, who pushed for the royal commission and in that sense "own" its findings, will be embarrassed. If not, business faces a testing time.

www.nzherald.co.nz/ge

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary