Margins are blurring best way to view GM

By DICK WILKINS*

Sadly the whole genetic modification debate is becoming horribly polarised, and a very good royal commission report is being stranded in the middle.

All we had in the way of protestations a few months ago was the extreme end of the Green movement, intent on making a whole raft of fanciful anti-GM statements that few scientists or intelligent lay people could take seriously.

But since then, a groundswell of opinion seems to have emerged that is somewhat greenish, reasonably happy with GM experiments that are limited to the laboratory, not very happy about eating GM food, and certainly very concerned about GM experimentation in the field.

Middle New Zealand would probably accept most of what the royal commission recommends. But because it has some real concerns, it is not going to object violently if the Government, nettled by the realpolitik of the Green Party, extends the GM moratorium for several years.

Now we have the reaction of the various pro-GM lobby groups, notably the Life Sciences Network in its various guises, Crown Research Institutes, a gabble of science deans (including, I note with surprise, one from my own university), and various editorial writers.

All seem to be predicting gloom and doom for medicine, agriculture, research, science, scientists and investors if we cannot have field trials now.

All this is patent nonsense. As a molecular biologist, I am getting a little sick of being lobbied by various pressure groups who expect me to throw in my lot with the more extreme of the pro-GM movement and add my name to letters and lobby MPs.

Let us inject some commonsense into the debate and look at a few facts:

* Many New Zealanders have real concerns over GM, especially in the field, and no amount of scientific bullying will alter their views.

* The advantages of GM crops in New Zealand remain unproven. It is silly to suggest at this stage that the advances will be huge.

* If GM crops are ultimately introduced here, it is likely most will come from multinationals.

* GM crops that incorporate a resistance gene, especially for insects, will always need to be farmed with the greatest care. The royal commission recognises this.

* Even if the commission's recommendations were accepted, current GM farm animal work would need to be changed radically to utilise non-food chain animals.

* No important medical research in New Zealand is being impeded because field trials cannot be carried out.

* Most of the medical advances using GM techniques will be made in the laboratory and will not depend on field trials.

* Claims that New Zealand has missed out on a billion dollar contract because of our restrictive GM legislation have yet to be substantiated.

* I do not know of any New Zealand scientist who has left for overseas because of restrictive GM regulations (I know several who have left because of disgust with the research infrastructure!).

* At least 95 per cent of the scientists I know in New Zealand who carried out GM research would not be the slightest bit affected by a moratorium on field release work that extended over, say, the next two years.

* There is an urgent need for much more credible economic analyses of the projected benefits of a GM versus a non-GM New Zealand, especially with respect to organic versus green versus non-green marketing.

In other words, we should proceed with caution, and if the Green Party has put us in a position that makes the process a little more cautious than some would like, so be it.

Is it not more important that we use some time to work through the issues of the royal commission, learn from overseas experiences, spend some time working out more acceptable GM scenarios, and give the public time to come to grips with a complex scientific issue?

Absolutely no purpose at all will be served by ramming some kind of promise of a GM El Dorado down our throats, nor will committing us forever to a Taleban-style state of prohibition be any more acceptable.

The Greens have certainly politicised the debate, but they have the excuse of being a political party.

It is a pity that scientists have been tempted down the same pathway and, in the process, traded the respect afforded to a profession for that afforded to politicians.

* Dick Wilkins is a molecular biologist at the Department of Biological Sciences, University of Waikato.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary