Scientists' big fears vanish but investment doubts stay

By BUSINESS HERALD STAFF

The Government decision on genetic modification has allayed the worst fears of business and science organisations.

But some still worry about its effect on investment in biotechnology.

Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday lifted the moratorium on GM field trials but banned the commercial release of genetically modified organisms for at least two years.

The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act will be amended to increase monitoring regimes and controls on research.

Research, Science and Technology Minister Pete Hodgson said the Government's "forward with caution" approach would allow New Zealand to keep its competitive edge in high-quality biological research.

Major crown research institute AgResearch welcomed the decision but was disappointed at the failure to loosen the stringent regulatory framework.

Chief executive Dr Keith Steele said it had already cost AgResearch an overseas investment potentially worth $1 billion a year.

A few months ago a US venture capital firm was seeking New Zealanders to make a human protein from cows' milk to treat human disease.

"They took their investment elsewhere because they were not prepared to deal with the uncertainties, time delays and costs of the Erma process," he said.

The Environmental Risk Authority, or Erma, handles the regulatory process.

For commercial reasons Dr Steele would not identify the disease, but he said the Americans came to New Zealand because we are a world leader in some GM areas.

New Zealand already had the most stringent GM regulations in the world, and was out of step, he said.

AgResearch's last application - to produce transgenic cattle to make a protein for possible multiple sclerosis treatment - took 18 months to pass through the Erma process and a further year tied up in court appeals.

Colin Harvey, chairman of the technology firm network Agritech, said the decision was better than a total ban but was likely to hamper research into grasses and forestry, two areas in which New Zealand led the world.

The decision was not restrictive enough to force scientists out of the country but would definitely reduce competitiveness, particularly in new forage crops.

"We still end up back talking about genetically modified foods, but the big strategic interests for New Zealand are not the modification of foods - it's the modification of forage crops, trees, and animals for the production of specialised pharmaceuticals."

Umbrella biotech group the Life Sciences Network hailed the decision as a victory for common sense.

Chairman Dr William Rolleston said none of the conditions in the announcement were new or outside the range of conditions previously considered by Erma.

"We would expect Erma to continue to base its decisions on science - rather than irrational emotion."

However, there was a long way to go before researchers and developers had certainty about the future.

The network was pleased the Government had clearly signalled allowing commercialisation once the two-year legislative ban was up. The big uncertainty would be the outcome of the next election, he said.

The Association of Crown Research Institutes expressed relief that the major thrust of the Royal Commission was incorporated.

The nine CRIs earned $482.6 million in the year to June 30, and made a total net profit of $22.8 millon.

President Dr John Hay said all CRIs, which together employ 4000 people, recognised biotechnology's potential to create health, wealth and environmental benefits.

"We now know the parameters within which we have to work for the next couple of years."

He said it would be prudent to use that time to develop processes to avoid uncertainty over commercialising GM products.

But he warned that the GM debate was not over.

Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern) said the decision showed the Government recognised the importance of biosciences to New Zealand's future.

Chief executive Alasdair Thompson said that by trivialising the debate and being sparing with the truth, many "so-called Green supporters" had discredited their own cause.

"Wearing T-shirts with human heads painted on sheep bodies is emotional nonsense. Some submissions to the Royal Commission were completely false.

"New Zealanders have to realise our regulatory regime, under which GM trials are undertaken, is the most rigorous in the world."

Mr Thompson called the decision a victory for common sense that would allow scientists and investors in biosciences to get on with work critical to developing a knowledge-based economy.

Dr Christian Walter, genetic engineering group leader at Forest Research, said the decision looked pretty positive. "I am delighted to see our Government has shown some very strong leadership in a very difficult situation."

Much of the research into GM radiata pines looked at how they would work in the environment.

Dr Walter said the controls on GM field trials announced by the Government did not appear to be any stricter than those already imposed by Erma.

"It's no surprise to us. Everything the Government has decided today has already been in our controls."

One of the few concerns was an indication that Erma would have stronger means to control compliance with management procedures. This would mean higher costs for researchers, who have to pay for Erma's activities.

NZ King Salmon Co chief executive Paul Steere said he was pleased with the Government's approach.

The company's genetic modification programme attracted unwelcome attention in 1999 when it produced salmon with lumpy heads.

The "transgenic research", which involved introducing a growth hormone into the fish, was abandoned in February last year after the first stage.

Mr Steere said the company had no plans to resurrect the programme, despite yesterday's decision.

The next stage would be to commercialise the product, he said, and it would not work unless the man in the street accepted it.

Meat NZ chief executive Neil Taylor was relieved GM field trials could now go ahead. "At last the meat industry has reasonable certainty to attract investment into genome research for sheep, beef, and forage crops."

However, Erma's process must not be turned into a gag for innovation, he said.

Mr Taylor said Meat NZ was financing research on marker-assisted selection for forage and animals.

"It's a way to find animals with genes for resistance to parasites or facial eczema for example, and breed from them. Desirable genes are passed to progeny through natural breeding methods.

"We can use the same process for forage crops to select ones that are more drought and cold tolerant and deliver balanced carbohydrates and protein to sheep and beef cattle."

Until there was high consumer acceptance, Meat NZ's policy was that no genetically modified organisms entered the food chain from meat.

"We may, in future, do research that involves direct genetic manipulation, but in the end the meat industry - like all food industries - needs to be driven by what consumers want."

nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary