Scholar warns of lobby influence in GE debate

By PHILIPPA STEVENSON agricultural editor

New Zealand has an opportunity for informed debate on genetic engineering that is all but gone in many countries, says Nuffield Scholar Juliet Maclean.

On a study trip this year the Waikato dairy farmer went to the United States, Canada, Europe, Malaysia and Thailand to research the threats and opportunities that agricultural biotechnology held for New Zealand.

Though proponents and opponents alike believed the technology was as significant as advances such as the steam train or the computer, the level of debate varied greatly between countries. In some it was marked by secrecy, woeful ignorance and emotion; in others it was more open, informative and rational, she said.

There were legitimate concerns over food safety, biodiversity and environmental consequences but Britons and Europeans in particular were often at the mercy of manipulative lobbyists. Past food scares such as mad cow disease had created a climate of suspicion.

In the United States, where the technology had been more readily adopted, there was greater trust in government departments such as the Environmental Protection Agency.



Ms Maclean said communication would have a big impact on the debate, and powerful lobbies were at work. This brought a risk to freedom of choice for consumers and farmers.

"I have just as much problem with the greenies saying organic farming has to take over from conventional farming as I do with the arrogance of pro-biotech people who say theirs is the only way.

"Farmers have the right to choose, and the consumer has the right to choose."

Overseas experience suggested New Zealand's current Royal Commission on Genetic Modification was a prudent process because it met people's desire to have their views heard, she said.

"Where communication has not been open, honest, clear and easily accessible, things have turned against [proponents] down the track."

Surveys which showed that the level of awareness of genetic engineering was rising, but the level of concern was not, supported her theory that "knowledge actually removes some of the fear."

Ms Maclean and partner Ben Dingle milk 350 cows on a leased farm at Ohaupo, south of Hamilton. The couple, both Massey University Bachelor of Agriculture graduates, also own a farm in Northland run by a sharemilker, and are equity partners in a large Canterbury farm converting to dairying.

Her interest in biotechnology was sparked by its potential to make fast progress on farming problems she encounters daily - facial eczema, bloat, drought and the ryegrass pest Argentine stem weevil. The science appeared to have the potential to reduce farmers' costs and produce novel products.

"For me it was a simple added-value strategy that I believed could be sustainable in our farming systems," Ms Maclean said.

"That [interest] was spurred on by the figures that showed we were losing our competitive edge in the global dairy industry, and that we would struggle to remain competitive with our conventional systems.

"We need some king-hits now to maintain our advantage."

Her study canvassed a wide range of opinion, ranging from consumers to organic farmers, supermarkets and scientists in biotech companies such as Monsanto.



Some people compared biotechnology with historical scientific events that had gone wrong, without considering that general scientific knowledge and ability was now much more advanced, Ms Maclean said.

"Our ability to monitor and predict is more accurate than in the past, and our risk is lower because our knowledge is so much greater."

She said some common foods would never pass today's safety tests if introduced now. These included peanuts, which can cause life-threatening allergic reactions. Coffee, too, could be deemed a health risk.

She favours a robust, independent, accountable and transparent regulatory process to oversee biotechnology research. But it must not hinder New Zealand's global competitiveness.

"If we have a regulatory system that is much more stringent than the rest of the world's, that could discourage investment in New Zealand, and if people here are forced to function under rules that are much stricter than anyone else, then it is highly likely we will not be competitive on a cost-profit basis with the rest of the world.

"That, for a farmer, is a concern. If we are functioning on an even less level playing field, then that is not going to favour sustainability."

Ms Maclean urged dairy farmers, particularly, to take responsibility for understanding the issue. They were already investing in the technology through the Dairy Board's five-year, $150 million investment in biotech subsidiary Via Lactia.

"If we don't do this work now we simply won't have the option [later on]. I think we are well behind the ball, and if we have an environment where this work cannot continue we will lose our good scientists - we have already.

"If we are talking 'knowledge economy' we need to keep those people.

"We need the option to commercialise these technologies or risk being disadvantaged on a global basis."

Ms Maclean said that as someone who worked in an exporting industry, she was concerned about the marketability of products in a world divided over biotechnology.

However, her study had made her optimistic.

"I believe the technology will become acceptable [but] no one knows over what timeframe."

Ms Maclean plans to make a submission to the commission on Wednesday.

Herald Online feature: the GE debate

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary