Dialogue: If we're not sure about GM, we shouldn't do it

Resistance to genetic modification is based on the risks involved and scientific uncertainty, not a lack of reasoning, writes ANNETTE COTTER*.

Why is there such overwhelming resistance to genetic modification? Many suggest scaremongering by GM-free groups, fear and lack of reasoned assessment. I would argue the opposite.

Genetic modification is fundamentally different from anything ever done before. We are changing the nature of nature through the insertion of foreign genes into a closed DNA sequence.

What is created is an inherently unpredictable organism. And it's not just for now, it's changing the genetic make-up of organisms for all time.

Resistance to this affront is widespread and growing, which is why many companies are removing GM from their foods - because it's here that the public have all the power.

No one will grow GM crops if there's no demand for their produce. Indeed, global consumer rejection has stymied the flow of GM crop plantings overseas.

In the midst of the genetic modification controversy, many claims and counterclaims have been bandied regarding the motivation of those in favour of, and those opposed to, GM in the environment.

With the notable exception of tangata whenua, who are opposed to all genetic manipulation, most groups and individuals draw the line at the laboratory door. Keep it in the lab and out of the food and fields.

The argument that the "agitators" are not interested in scientific debate is erroneous.

During the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, a great deal of information was presented to the commissioners about the scientific concerns with genetic engineering.

Some of these concerns were incorporated in the body of the report but failed to see light of day in the recommendations.

For instance, chapter six states that "there are some significant gaps in knowledge on which to base risk assessments for field trials or release of genetically modified organisms".



Isn't risk assessment the whole premise for release into our environment? If there isn't enough information available, there is absolutely no justification for allowing field trials or release to occur.

Again in chapter 6: "Little is yet known about the environmental impacts of genetically modified organisms and, in particular in New Zealand, 'on the potential adverse effects, or risks of such effects, on the indigenous biota'."

The report goes on to outline that any damage may take time to manifest itself and the costs will be socialised. This sounds loud alarm bells for our environment and for the food chain.

It's these concerns, as well as the human health implications, that have contributed to the rejection of GM organisms here and abroad.

The impact of GM on human health is a great concern and the fact that issues of the safety of the technology could not be ignored was acknowledged by the commission.

The Food and Drug Administration in the United States has released a report looking at the allergenicity of an unapproved corn variety, Starlink, in the food chain in that country.

The panel expressed concern about the production of new proteins through genetic modification.

It concluded that "the science we have before us now indicates that it's not possible to establish a tolerance or maximum safe level for Starlink".

It also stated that there was a need for the issues of allergenicity to be more fully developed in the context of GM crops and foods.

All this scientific uncertainty and concern necessitates the enactment of the precautionary principle. This is a principle embodied in the Biosafety Protocol, an international agreement by which New Zealand is bound.

If it is scientifically uncertain whether GM might harm the environment or human health, that uncertainty must not stop decisions minimising or avoiding those potential effects.

In other words, if you aren't sure what the effects are, don't do it.

This is a clear message - no release of GM into the environment. There is too much uncertainty, the risks are too great and the outcome is for all time.

Let's not leave the consequences of a vast genetic experiment for future generations to deal with.

New Zealanders are not rejecting GM because they are ignorant, misinformed or have irrational fears.

They are doing so because the available information, scientific uncertainty and caution demands it.

* Annette Cotter is a member of Greenpeace Aotearoa.

www.nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary