'Distrust and polarisation' in GE debate

By ANNE BESTON

The battle lines have been drawn in the gene debate, creating a climate of "distrust and polarisation," New Zealand's environmental watchdog says.

The comments, from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Morgan Williams, come as the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification winds up and prepares to write its report.

Dr Williams told the commission this week there was a perception that "expert arrogance" on one side and "interest-group pressure" on the other had hardened attitudes in the debate.

"There must be far greater transparency and constructive dialogue than has been the case thus far," he said.

Over the past six months the four commissioners, charged by the Government to investigate where New Zealand should stand on the GE issue, have heard 47 days of sometimes mind-bogglingly complicated scientific evidence, along with pleas from animal rights and religious groups for consideration of moral and ethical issues.

Before the commission are 11,000 public submissions, evidence from more than 300 experts, and comments from hundreds of people who attended 15 public meetings and 10 regional hui.

Meanwhile, the pro- and anti-GE lobbies have gone head-to-head.

Broadly, Greenpeace, the Green Party, organic farmers, religious organisations and Maori have pleaded for caution.

They argue that there are too many unknowns to allow genetically engineered organisms - anything from modified pine trees to calves injected with a human gene - to be released into the environment.

They want strict containment until safety guarantees can be given.

But some of New Zealand's top scientists, along with industry groups, have argued that their work is too important to be curtailed by red tape.

Some called for a relaxation of the rules on importing genetically engineered organisms, and university medical researchers in particular outlined the potential medical and agricultural benefits their work will bring.

Life Sciences Network, a pro-GE umbrella group representing scientists and industry groups, painstakingly cross-examined anti-GE groups through the formal hearings.

Executive director Francis Wevers says there is a chasm between the two groups.

"We believe it's necessary to move forward and continue to do the work. Opponents believe we should stop doing it to reduce the risk, and those two views are polar opposites."

But he said the group felt that both sides got a fair hearing.

"There's been a lot of light shed on what has been a very complex and difficult issue for people to grapple with."

Greenpeace spokeswoman Annette Cotter believed that the arguments put before the commission favoured a precautionary approach - in line with what Greenpeace wants.

Commission chairman Sir Thomas Eichelbaum believes that public awareness of GE is low, despite constant publicity over the past year. "There are a lot of people who are very committed and passionately involved in the debate, but there are hundreds of thousands of others who ... have no idea what we are on about."

As the commission prepares to retire, its chairman, at least, is looking forward to the task ahead. "We've got a huge amount of information to sort through but it's been a very interesting and challenging exercise. I'm very glad to have been a part of it."

Herald Online feature: the GE debate

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary