Editorial: Science must win the GM argument

Concerns are mounting in some quarters of the country that the Government is going to over-ride the recommendations of its own royal commission and continue a moratorium on the conditional release of genetically modified organisms. When the commission produced its report in July, suggesting releases should be allowed to "proceed with caution", the Prime Minister hailed the report as "thorough, balanced and measured." The Government gave itself three months to decide what to do.

Though the deadline, October 31, is still more than a month away, the Government is coming under pressure to maintain the moratorium indefinitely, a step which would deal a serious blow to agricultural research. Indeed, the newly established dairy conglomerate, Fonterra, has warned that it may take its research investment overseas if the moratorium is prolonged.

The Greens, on whom the coalition depends for its survival, have never accepted the conclusions of the royal commission they demanded. But Labour is now also coming under pressure from its normally compliant coalition partner, the Alliance. In a speech last week, Deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton said the Alliance wanted a further moratorium on non-contained genetically modified organisms "until the technology is proven to be safe".

And in the Prime Minister's Mt Albert electorate, the Labour Party branch has urged her to allow field trials only for contained organisms, not for release into the environment.

The pressure is considerable. By October 31, the next election will be little more than a year away. The Labour Party is still polling comfortably well, but the Greens and the Alliance will be starting to look anxiously at their own prospects.

By the end of next month, the Government may decide there would no great harm in continuing the testing moratorium until it is safely through the election. But genetics is a fast developing science. The recent Knowledge Wave conference should have convinced all concerned that New Zealand can not afford to dither. Warnings such as that from Fonterra should not be ignored. The agricultural and horticultural research on which much of the economy depends, stands to lose valuable scientists if their work here is held up indefinitely.

It is bad enough that the Government is taking three months to respond to the findings of its own royal commission. What was the point of a $6.5 million investigation by the Government's chosen panel, if its findings can not be taken at face value.

This was not a panel predisposed to give a particular point of view. In fact, when the appointees were announced there were some misgivings among those keen to see New Zealand in the vanguard of the science.

But the commissioners went about their task conscientiously, holding hearings around the country and carefully checking all arguments put before them. Their conclusions were, as Helen Clark said, thorough, balanced and measured. They believe the conditional release of organisms from field test can be permitted with careful scrutiny.

Their findings will not satisfy those who want all risk removed. Few things in life are entirely free of risk, though with sensible precautions they can be made tolerably safe. So it is with genetic field trials.

When Jim Anderton says the Alliance wants the technology to be proven safe, he knows he sets science an impossible task. Views are divided within the Labour caucus. The signs are becoming ominous that politics, not science, will prevail.