Editorial: GM report straight down the middle

When ideological discord reaches fever pitch, it can be extremely difficult to pilot a path to a tenable middle ground. Thus it is with gene technology and thus it is that the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification deserves considerable credit for a set of sane and sensible recommendations. Its conclusions are undoubtedly a blow to the opponents of genetic engineering, the very group which pressed for an exhaustive inquiry.

But nor, on the other hand, do they promote the headlong plunge into uncontrolled genetic research which that group so fears. What they provide is a way for New Zealand to capture the rewards of such research while also offering protection against the risks.

Crucially, the commission places no ban on genetic field trials or releases. That, of course, flies in the face of Green Party policy, which stipulates that research should be confined to the laboratory. Effectively, however, the Greens' policy both blindfolds and kneecaps scientists. It might have a smidgeon of logic if New Zealand could forge a future as a GM-free sanctuary specialising in organic food. But that, according to the commission, is not economically viable. Even if it were practicable, the Greens' policy involves other dangerous assumptions.

It implies, for example, that the many successful economies which have embraced biotechnology are wrong. Such countries include the likes of Denmark, a normally cautious society. It recognises that genetic research will bring huge benefits to its farm industries, not to speak of the potential for medical breakthroughs and for feeding the world's poverty-stricken regions.

Banning the use of genetic engineering in controlled field trials would also have signalled that New Zealand was content to squander its expertise in agricultural research. This is one of the few areas in which we have consistently been a world leader. That position is slipping as other countries lavish money on genetic research. The commission has correctly gauged that it is an upper hand worth preserving.

The advantage could still have been wasted if the safeguards proposed by the commission had been so bureaucratic and restrictive as to obstruct research. Fortunately, in at least one regard, the commission actually proposes more flexibility. At present, the Environmental Risk Management Authority can only approve or ban releases of GM organisms, including crops and livestock. The commission proposes allowing the conditional entry or development of a new organism.

If, as opponents claim, that implies a greater risk, other recommendations offset the danger: the provision, for example, for ministerial intervention on any application for the first release of a crop. Likewise, it seems sensible to bar GM crops from areas where they might harm an economically important crop, such as an organic fruit. And the creation of a Bioethics Council and a Parliamentary Commissioner on Biotechnology would bring a welcome overview and scrutiny.

When ideologies clash, the outcome inevitably lies in the hands of politicians. The commission's findings should be manna to a Government urging economic transformation through a knowledge society. It must, however, face the wrath of the Greens, who hold the balance of power in Parliament. Some Greens have questioned whether they could continue to support Labour if genetic engineering were allowed.

The Government must face down such threats. In no way must the commission's recommendations be diluted. The issue is simply too important for New Zealand's future economic prosperity for it to become hostage to political expediency. The commission cost $6.2 million, sat for 14 months and has presented an utterly comprehensive 1273-page report. If the Greens seek to use their parliamentary clout to undermine its findings, they will surely face the ultimate ballot-box punishment.

The commission emphasises the need to tread carefully in the use of gene technology, and for options to be kept open. But it really cuts to the chase in talking of this as the "biotechnology century." Other countries have already concluded that genetic research will not only create new opportunities but will transform the way we live.

We must, as the commission concludes, proceed cautiously, especially in field testing. But there must be no unnecessary delays. Other countries have already stolen a march. It is up to the Government to accept the wisdom of these recommendations, and to implement them as quickly as possible. A knowledge society demands as much.

www.nzherald.co.nz/ge

Full report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary