Look abroad for mature attitude to GE debate

By JOHN PALMER*

The European Consumers Union is not opposed to GMOs." This is a quote from an address by Willemien Bax of the European Consumers Organisation to a conference I attended in Holland last month.

It will surprise most New Zealanders, given the half-truths and fears promoted by the Greens and others in the current debate over genetically modified organisms.

It is misleading for critics to claim our trade and markets will be imperilled if we lift the present moratorium in October next year.

I have spent a lot of time over the past 13 years looking at market trends and issues relating to food, food safety, consumer issues and organics in Europe and North America.

The market reality in Europe is quite at odds with the picture painted by the Greens and the new Sustainability Council.

The poor knowledge and vested interests of many of these people suggest they are either naive or being deliberately misleading. For the Sustainability Council to pathetically claim that it does not want to be part of the political process suggests naivety in the extreme.

The reality of retail food markets, and current consumer issues in Europe, is quite different from the emotional picture painted here.

There is widespread concern over food safety and agricultural sustainability, and these are major issues for New Zealand producers.

But I sense a significant change in mood over the past two years in Europe to the GM issue, which is well illustrated by the position taken by the European Consumers Organisation.

They are not actively supporting GM release, but by not opposing it I'm sure they recognise the considerable consumer benefits that can flow from the careful development of science in this area.

Major advances in medical treatment are the most obvious, but there are many others.

There are other signs pointing to this trend, which the Greens and others choose to ignore.

The maturing of the public debate in Europe is a consequence of greater exposure of the Greens there, over a longer period.

This maturing debate coincides with growing electoral disenchantment with the political Greens as demonstrated by their electoral hiding in the French Assembly a few weeks ago.

I recently visited Denmark as well, where considerable comment was made about the last change in government, which was influenced by, and overturned, the crazy idea of turning Denmark into a totally organic farming country.

Maybe the experience of having greenish governments in power has influenced their movement away from the kind of hysteria we see in New Zealand.

Neither the Greens nor the Sustainability Council will be keen to acknowledge these trends. But the quote above is a fact. The observations are my opinions, but they are based on close observation of what happens in the supermarket, and by talking directly with the supermarket operators.

For thinking New Zealanders who are not prepared to be browbeaten by wild exaggeration, it is clear that the spectrum of possibility, and risk, in GM development is quite narrow.

The sensible conclusions of the royal commission's report removed all the high-risk possibilities and outcomes from the debate. Given the unlimited possibilities of the technology, that is sensible.

The current debate, therefore, is whether we should proceed very cautiously in a very low-risk way, or whether we should say a blanket no to commercial release.

Both are low-risk, but neither are zero-risk options. It is quite dishonest to claim that a blanket no, for three or five years or whatever term, is reducing risk. It probably lowers some biological risks (although that isn't certain), but certainly raises economic and social risks.

In weighing up those risks, the Greens have fired up an emotional bandwagon that ignores some simple truths. GMOs are already in the food chain in New Zealand. GMOs are widely distributed globally.

If we are really concerned about the sustainability of agriculture, and indeed the planet, then careful GM developments offer one of the most promising and safest means of progress.

In plant breeding, there is a continual need to improve food and forage crops, both to feed a hungry world and ensure it is done in a biologically safer way.

Of the six billion global population, a significant percentage already live in poverty.

By 2025, the world population will have grown to eight billion, and we will either have helped to meet that growing food gap, or face the geo-political consequences of living smugly in the South Pacific.

This challenge also provides economic opportunities for science, research and production in a range of products.

My own company, Wrightson, has an interest and investment in these areas.

The frustration with the current argument is not just with its emotional blackmail, but with the opportunities it will deny to New Zealand.

The prospect of breeding plants better able to tolerate drought or cold or high salt levels or highly toxic areas creates truly exciting possibilities in dealing with past pollution problems, and with sustainability.

Perhaps that's why the European Consumers Organisation has the view it does.

Maybe it has recognised that there are so many potential benefits it is unwise to prevent cautious introduction of GMOs.

No sensible person is advocating that New Zealand should take risks with its environment, its reputation, or its trade.

My fear is that the current emotion around the debate will lead to poor decisions that, over time, will worsen the economic and biological environment, and potentially damage our trading competitiveness.

It's easy for the well-meaning people on the Sustainability Council to take positions when their own livelihoods are not threatened. For New Zealand, we must take a wider and longer view.

Sam Neill is an iconic New Zealander who made his name as the star of wonderful fantasies. Let's not be taken in by this one.

* John Palmer is a farmer from Brightwater, near Nelson. He is chairman of Wrightson, and has an extensive background in the horticultural industry, including as a past chairman of the New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board, and Zespri International. He is a Nuffield Scholar and a recipient of Lincoln University's Bledisloe Medal.

Dialogue on business

nzherald.co.nz/ge

GE links

GE glossary