Dialogue: Our future depends on genetic technology

In considering the issue of genetic modification, the Government must follow the findings of the royal commission, writes DICK BELLAMY*.

This month the Government will make perhaps the most important decision it has faced - more important than the decision on the Army and the Air Force, more important than the fate of Air New Zealand, maybe more important than the decisions that accompanied the economic reforms of the 1980s.

The Government's response to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification will either set the future economic course for the country and provide a firm foundation upon which our future welfare and prosperity can be secured, or it will leave us struggling to defend our traditional markets against the challenge of superior products from other countries.

New Zealand remains overwhelmingly economically dependent on products from agriculture, horticulture and forestry. Huge advances will be made in these areas in the coming years through the application of GM technology.

If New Zealand is unable to participate in this process, our economic prosperity will suffer irretrievably. Employment will also suffer.

Anyone who reads the commission's report objectively can see that Sir Thomas Eichelbaum and his fellow commissioners have done a commendable job.

Thousands of hours and millions of dollars have gone into the exercise, and much wisdom has gone into their deliberations and findings. The Government should accept the findings and allow science to proceed, the economy to benefit and jobs to be created.

But there are now very real concerns that the Government, in response to a campaign of misinformation by a vociferous anti-GM minority lobby, plans to continue the current moratorium on field trials as part of its GM policy to be announced on October 31.

This would effectively sideline GM research in New Zealand because, while one can theorise in the laboratory, without field trials you cannot produce patentable and marketable products.

And without the means to produce products for the market, scientists, researchers and investors would see no point in establishing research facilities in New Zealand. The skills, knowledge and investment would go elsewhere.

When the moment of realisation finally came and New Zealand lifted its moratorium, it would be too late because other countries already close to establishing a lead in GM technology would be too far ahead for us to catch up.

Our diabetic children already receive GM insulin and GM hepatitis B vaccine. More than 60 medical GM products are in use in human therapy and many more will follow.

Despite extraordinary scaremongering by the anti-lobby, GM is not plunging us into a world of sterile seed, half-human sheep and dead butterflies.

Extensive international independent research has established that GM-derived organisms do not inherently present any more serious environmental concerns or unintended toxic properties than those already presented by conventional breeding practices, which have an impressive safety record.

We also have an excellent regulatory framework to ensure that this record of safety continues.

The royal commission was satisfied that our basic regulatory framework is appropriate.

It found that the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Australia New Zealand Food Authority carry out their functions conscientiously and soundly.

Those who care about New Zealand's future and seek reassurance should read the report.

Why is it so important for the Government not to be swayed by the highly sensationalised and distorted arguments of the GM-free New Zealand advocates?

It is very clear that:

* If New Zealand wants to remain a developed country and continue to receive first-world benefits such as health and education, infrastructure and services, it needs strong export earnings.

* Land-based products will continue to be our major earners. Manufacturing has yet to demonstrate an ability to perform anywhere near as well, and problems with our national airline and events in the United States highlight the uncertainties of tourism as a major revenue source.

* Without access to GM research and field trials, our agricultural products will be unable to keep pace with the significant advances that GM technology will inevitably bring to our competitors.

* As the recent Knowledge Wave conference established, we need to encourage the development of numerous medium-sized startup companies to fuel innovation, wealth creation and employment. Biotechnology is a key component of this revolution and we need to control its impact wisely, but take advantage of the many opportunities it presents.

* To do this, we need to retain the best and brightest of our biological and biomedical scientists. But the uncertainty generated by those opposed to GM technology has already triggered a wave of talent departure that will turn into a torrent if the Government makes the wrong decision.

* And in the absence of access to field trials there would be little incentive to start new technology companies in New Zealand. Overseas investment would have no reason to come here and local companies would have every reason to move their operations overseas, taking more jobs and prosperity with them.

Those opposed to GM technology have marched in the streets, run disturbing newspaper advertisements depicting human faces on sheep and inundated the royal commission with submissions.

But the Government should be wary of assuming that this high-profile campaign reflects the views of most New Zealanders.

When an extensive public survey asked a cross section of New Zealanders to nominate important issues, only 2 per cent mentioned GM concerns.

Commissioner Jean Fleming, quoted in the leading scientific publicationNature, found that her fellow commissioners were influenced in the end by the greater weight of scientific evidence over the assertions made about risk.

She perceived that there were few entrenched anti-scientists among participants, as all sides called for more research on areas of doubt.

But she was saddened by the fact that the submissions of several scientists, on whose evidence those opposing GM were basing their case of unacceptable risk, fell apart under cross-examination.

At the recent Business Hall of Fame function to mark the induction of six outstanding business leaders, Prime Minister Helen Clark quoted our own Sir Ernest Rutherford as saying: "We haven't the money, so we've got to think."

New Zealanders who may still have residual concerns about GM, yet care about the future of our country, would do well to follow that advice.

The report of the royal commission is a wise and reassuring document.

It provides a guide to the sustainable yet controlled use of GM in rebuilding our national economy.

* Professor Dick Bellamy, a molecular biologist and virologist with an interest in child health, is Dean of Science at the University of Auckland.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary