Editorial: And now we can proceed with caution

In too many cases, the recommendations of royal commissions are ignored by the Government that asked for them. The more unpalatable and unpopular the findings, the more likely it is they will be shelved and forgotten, a waste of time and money. There was good cause for thinking the same fate awaited the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. A groundswell of disappointment in its findings, and the fervent opposition of the Greens, meant its implementation would need a show of resolve from the Government. Reassuringly, that has happened. Most of the commission's 49 suggestions have been systematically adopted.

The focus of opposition became the moratorium on commercial release of GM organisms, which expired overnight. In the language of the likes of Mothers Against Genetic Engineering, the end of the moratorium ban was to be the portent for uncontrolled research and the arrival of "frankenfood". Far from it. In fact, the end of the moratorium foreshadows a regime that will require searching and pragmatic analysis of applications for GM release by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. ERMA's oversight can cut no corners if it is to reflect the commission's recommendation that New Zealand should "proceed with caution" to capture the potential advantages of GM.

The commission's credo, and the widespread public disquiet, means the authority must be rigorous in ensuring that applicants meet minimum health, safety and environment standards. Where necessary, it must also use the new category of conditional release, which allows it to impose case-by-case controls on new approvals. More than anything else, it will be the authority's handling of individual applications that holds the key to quelling the widespread unease.

That job will not be easy. The Greens, having not got what they expected from the royal commission and having failed to change the Government's mind, appear intent on making matters as difficult as possible. Their tactic, and that of the Mothers Against Genetic Engineering, will be to inundate the authority with submissions opposing any release application.

That strategy is sanctioned by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, no matter how much the opponents of GM claim the law is stacked against them. It threatens to prolong hearings and even deter applicants, who could face lengthy, and costly, research delays. In the national interest the risk management authority must devise an approach that short-circuits filibustering while ensuring that all reasonable representations are heard.

Many people are clearly alarmed by the language and images thrown up by those who opposed the lifting of the moratorium. The consequences of a thoroughly unenlightening debate was illustrated by a Herald-DigiPoll survey which found that almost 69 per cent of those surveyed wanted to extend the moratorium. Yet that same 69 per cent can hardly fail to recognise the countless examples of potentially harmful substances already in widespread use - and the sensible and workable controls in force around them.

Likewise, there can be few who are opposed to GM's huge potential in medicine or, indeed, its ability to achieve breakthroughs in agricultural productivity and to provide enormous economic benefit. Clearly, however, the risk management authority needs to provide reassurance that it has a firm handle on safety, health and environmental standards. If that is provided, any public backing for obstructive, or destructive, tactics will surely prove short-lived. Then the path will be clear to proceed with caution - just as the royal commission intended.