Keeping the gene genie locked up

Yesterday, the Herald looked at the overall impact of the GM report. Today, ANNE BESTON examines the ways in which we can protect ourselves against mishaps.

Maybe it was toad genes in potatoes that really kicked off the genetic modification debate in New Zealand. Or perhaps people took notice only when they heard about GM salmon with strange bumps on their heads.

But despite the newspaper headlines and visions of "Frankenfish", for most New Zealanders genetic science remains a mystery, something the scientists are up to which we're not at all sure will be good for us.

Now that the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification has recommended a "proceed with caution" approach, New Zealand may give a cautious approval to biotechnology.

The debate on GM has probably shifted - for good.

That means anti-GM groups, including the Green Party, may find it tougher to convince New Zealanders - and the Government - that this new branch of science should be confined to the laboratory.

Wasn't it always too late to have a GM-free New Zealand?

That fresh chicken you bought at the supermarket last night might have pecked its way through genetically modified soya feed while it was alive. But we haven't got genetically modified kiwifruit ready for export yet.

No GM food crops are officially being grown here except in strict containment, so it was not too late for Green groups to argue to keep it that way.

They say markets for GM food are shrinking, countries are becoming increasingly nervous about biotechnology and we cannot be sure where the most profitable future lies for our food exports.

But GM proponents say the potential of gene science to improve the crops we grow - everything from gala apples to grass - far outweighs the risks.

As an example, scientists at crown research institute Crop and Food Research conducted a contained experiment in 1999 to see if they could grow genetically modified peas that would resist a disease called alfalfa mosaic virus. The virus causes peas to be stunted, with reduced yields, poor seed size and poor seed quality.

The scientists genetically modified the peas by taking a sequence of the virus and inserting it into the plant - much like inoculating humans against measles.

The trial crop was separated from other pea crops by 200m and sprayed with insecticide to prevent aphids spreading the virus from the genetically modified plants.

The crop was also surrounded by three buffer rows of non-GM pea plants and covered in a bird net to stop GM seed spreading.

The trial is in its second year and has been successful, says research leader Dr Gail Madeleine Timmerman-Vaughan, a plant molecular biologist at Crop, Food Research.

Dr Timmerman-Vaughan acknowledged that there were some risks in using GM technology, but said they were worth taking.

She called on the commission to allow such "moderate" field trials, which are now prohibited by the 1996 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Contained field trials was one of the commission's key recommendations.

What's the big deal about GM when humans have always changed and modified plants?


From the home gardener breeding roses to the high-tech effort to make kiwifruit a top export earner, New Zealand has not lagged behind in scientifically improving a huge range of plants.

But opponents of GM argue that the new technology happens at a far more rapid pace than traditional plant modification and there are too many unknowns.

And the commission itself sounded a clear warning on GM crops.

Evidence by video link from Lavern Affleck, a cropping farmer from Canada, "raised concerns", the commission said.

Mr Affleck told the commission his canola crop had been contaminated by nearby fields of genetically modified Roundup Ready canola. These crop varieties are resistant to the herbicide Roundup, meaning farmers can spray for weeds without killing the food crop.

But Mr Affleck said there were now varieties of canola that were resistant to three herbicides.

He told the commission that some degree of genetically modified crop contamination was probably present across the entire Canadian prairie.

What can New Zealand do to make sure we don't cross-contaminate non-GM crops with the GM variety?

The commission comes up with a number of suggestions:

* Bans on plants identified as being most likely to cross-pollinate - for instance, rye grass - allowing only less risky crops to be grown.

* "Spatial barriers". That simply means growing GM and non-GM plants far enough apart to stop cross-pollination.

* "Temporal barriers". Planting crops which flower at different times of the year.

* "Biological barriers". Preventing fertilisation or seed development.

* Buffer zones. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry told the commission there were few international rules on how big buffer zones would need to be to prevent contamination of crops.

A British report set thresholds for contamination from 100m for ryegrass to 700m for kale, a variety of which is grown in New Zealand for animal feed.

* Sterilising. This allows for harvesting of a crop but not reproduction.

While the commission said technology to prevent cross-contamination should continue to be investigated, MAF gave a fairly blunt assessment of the problem for organic farmers in a GM future.

"If organics standards allow the possibility of accidental contamination, then coexistence is possible," it said. "If standards demand zero tolerance for accidental GM contamination, then coexistence may not be possible".

Haven't there been controversial contamination incidents overseas, and was the commission swayed by them?

The simple answer is, not really. For instance, many anti-GM campaigners mentioned the case of Starlink corn.

In 1998, the most important environmental agency in the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency, approved GM corn for animal feed.

It was marketed as Starlink, and because the EPA could not be certain the corn would not cause allergic reaction in humans, it was not approved for human consumption.

Late last year, environmental and food safety groups in America said fragments of the protein with which the corn was genetically modified had been found in taco shells sold to American consumers.

Corn-derived food products were whipped off supermarket shelves and food companies began testing their products for contamination from Starlink.

But the commission said only that cases of accidental contamination did not "cast doubt on the safety of all genetically modified food." But they did "raise issues about the need for vigilance on the part of regulatory agencies".

What happens if something goes wrong in all of this? And who pays?

The commission acknowledged the difficulty of establishing whose fault it would be if things went wrong.

Under the 1996 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, which is the key piece of legislation that will deal with GM issues, people can be prosecuted for:

* Illegally developing a genetically modified organism - for example, developing a genetically modified apple and then planting it in an ordinary orchard without approval from the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).

* Not complying with the terms the authority has set up to control what can and cannot be done with a genetically modified organism.

* Failing to comply with an order from ERMA.

* Knowingly importing or releasing a genetically modified organism without permission or approval.

* Knowingly, recklessly or negligently possessing or disposing of an illegal genetically modified organism.

Under hazardous substances and new organisms legislation, these offences carry maximum penalties of three months' imprisonment or a fine of $500,000, plus $50,000 a day for continuing offences.

But that covers only damage to the environment.

For advice on personal injury, property damage or financial or economic loss, the commission sought an opinion from Stephen Todd, professor of law at Canterbury University.

In the event of personal injury, the Accident Compensation Act would probably come into play, the commission concluded. That means it would not be possible for injured parties to bring a claim for damages for personal injuries or death caused by another person.

For personal injury not covered by ACC, a claimant could bring an action based on negligence, the commission said.

It likened the situation to people bringing claims against tobacco companies in lung cancer actions or making claims for asbestosis.

In both, establishing a link between cause and effect was difficult, the commission said, and that would probably apply to claims made because of GM.

The commission also acknowledged the difficulty of an organic farmer making a claim for financial compensation because his food crop has been contaminated, but said a new category of liability would not fix the problem.

And it noted the insurance industry's reluctance to grapple with the problem of GM.

Overseas insurers are saying they cannot assess the level of risk caused by GM and are likely to begin inserting clauses in policies exempting them from liability.

What happens next?

For the next three months, the Government and the Greens are likely to go head-to-head on the GM issue.

Labour and the Alliance have given themselves that long to consider their response to the commission's report and what changes, if any, might come of it.

Whether the Greens can steer Labour to a more anti-GM position than the commissioners recommended, or whether Labour will adopt the commission's recommendations as one of the paths to the knowledge economy, remains to be seen.

The Green Party, Greenpeace and other anti-GM groups believe this is just another battle against GM.

But many scientists and researchers will be confident that the commission's findings mean they have already won the war.

www.nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary