Editorial: Moratorium on GM just fence-sitting

The decision the Government will announce today has been rightly touted as probably the most important it will make. Genetic modification is fast becoming the currency of scientific advances in agriculture, horticulture and medicine. Biotechnology is now well established in research laboratories in New Zealand and other countries that need a competitive edge in the production of food or pharmaceuticals. The Government's decision today could determine whether New Zealand remains a competitor.

On a commercial reckoning, however, the question is not clear-cut. In Europe, one of this country's principal markets, genetic modification has been tainted somehow by the BSE and foot and mouth outbreaks, although it had nothing directly to do with those. Consumer attitudes, no matter how ill-informed, are a legitimate commercial consideration. Even our newly constituted dairy exporter, Fonterra, an enthusiastic advocate of GM research at home, prefers to promote its old-fashioned ways to Europe.

Like Fonterra, the Government seems to be seeking the best of both worlds. All indications of late suggest it will lift the moratorium on field trials - allowing science to proceed with closely regulated experiments - but ban all commercial "releases" for another two years. Thus it hopes perhaps to reassure consumers that our food will be GM-free for the foreseeable future. Two years sounds like the maximum foreseeable future for any science developing as rapidly as this one.

Genetic modification will not win public approval until it produces advances in food that are as compelling as those it has brought in medicine. Even the Green Party does not dare oppose pharmaceutical applications of genetic research, such as the improvement of insulin. A GM-free zone would be bad news for diabetics.

In farming and horticulture the applications of biotechnology have so far produced benefits that are apparent only to producers - disease-resistant plants, better crop yields and the like. But it is probably only a matter of time before genetic modification produces a line of food sufficiently appealing to consumers to outweigh their concerns about the process. New Zealand, with a continuing moratorium on commercial release, might not be there at the breakthrough.

A decision in favour of field trials would be welcome as far as it goes. But the whole point of field trials is to test potential commercial products. Without the right to release a commercial discovery, genetic experiments might as well be confined to the laboratory. Field testing is expensive. Will research institutes go to the expense if they have to wait two years before they might recoup the cost? That is a question the Government will have considered carefully.

But it should also consider the larger message it would send to genetic research with a two-year moratorium. If that is to be the extent of the delay, scientists and their sponsors might proceed to field trials of promising crops and animals. But who is to say that the moratorium would be lifted after two years? The Government would have simply put the decision safely beyond next year's election. If it is re-elected, would it be more courageous in a second term?

The moratorium would also enable the Greens to go to the election with a promise to make an extension of the moratorium a condition of supporting Labour for a second term. And all the polls suggest Labour is going to need the Greens after the election.

In the meantime the Government will hope that field trials can dispel the contention that modified genes, travelling in pollen or soil bacteria, might produce genetic modifications in other organisms. Genetic researchers acknowledge the possibility, as they do all of the uncertainties in their field. Nobody is suggesting GM research should proceed without careful monitoring and reasonable regulations.

But a moratorium goes too far. It suspends the commercial impetus to test the safety and viability of modified plants in the field. It simply ducks the hard decision for two more years.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary