The GM debate: Four guiding principles

RICHARD RANDERSON*, a member of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, explores the principles and concerns in the GM debate.

To oppose genetic modification on principle raises the question what principle? In the public debate, as well as in submissions made to the royal commission, four principles stand out: Spiritual-religious, safety of health and environment, economic advantage and freedom of choice.

1 Spiritual-religious viewpoints were presented to the commission by Maori, church groups, eco-spiritualists and others of various philosophical beliefs. Views expressed were that the Earth was sacred, or a gift from God, or that each species had its own mauri (spirit). Therefore, we should have infinite respect for nature and the environment and their long-term sustainability.

At the same time, most of these groups allowed for a judicious use of the Earth's resources and the development of new technologies, provided these were for human or other benefit and did not compromise the sustainability of the environment. There was only one witness who said she would not use GM in principle, even if that was the only way to save one of her children from death. It was not clear what the principle was.

2 Protection of health and the environment is the second key principle - and the subject of fierce debate. The Green Party made it clear that it supported appropriate medical uses of GM in diagnosis and therapy, and that its concern was over the open release of GM crops into the field.

One of the issues here is whether there can be confidence in the regulatory body, the Environmental Risk Management Authority, which operates under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996. The lifting of the moratorium does not mean that GM crops will flood the fields. Any release has to be approved by Erma on a crop-by-crop basis.

But can Erma be trusted? In assessing any application to release a new organism (GM or non-GM), the authority is required to consider a range of criteria set out in the act. These include safeguarding air, water and soil, the well-being of people now and in the future, sustaining native flora and fauna, the Treaty of Waitangi and economic and related benefits. All four principles named are included in the HSNO criteria.

Erma is also charged to take a precautionary approach in managing adverse effects where there is uncertainty. The commission identified several areas of uncertainty, such as the risk of horizontal gene transfer, and further research would be required before Erma approval could be obtained. This, and other research, would take some time, well beyond the period of the moratorium in many cases.

The question of irreversibility is often raised among environmental concerns. Irreversibility is not a generic feature, but is species-specific. Nor does it relate only to GM. Many would regard possums, for example, as irreversible in the environment, along with gorse. Some GM species might prove irreversible in the same sense, but many would not.

Would possums, or gorse, have got past Erma? They would fail several of today's criteria, as would various GM species. The authority made a submission to the commission and was extensively cross-examined. The commission formed the view that the regulatory regime is robust, but recommended further strengthening.

Submissions to the commission outlined potential environmental benefits from GM. Modified crops and pasture grasses, for example, could significantly reduce the amount of chemicals applied in fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides, reducing toxic runoffs and pollution of waterways. Immunocontraception could help in reducing possum numbers. It would also replace the use of 1080 poison, of which New Zealand uses 90 per cent of the world's supply.

3 The third principle, economic advantage for the nation, hinges on assessment of market trends. It is a popular and compelling argument that if consumer resistance to GM food continues, and New Zealand remains one of the few countries that are GM-free, our global economic future is assured.

A clean, green image would be a significant marketing advantage. Dramatic increases in the sale of organic foods, albeit from a low base, indicate a growing consumer desire for GM-free product.

The other viewpoint expressed was that resistance to GM might well be only a temporary phenomenon. If research showed various GM products to be safe, and initial consumer anxiety faded, New Zealand could have fallen behind other countries in the development of GM.

Economic advantages arising from fewer inputs and more outputs in basic commodities such as dairy and meat products would be lost, and export trade would suffer. The potential loss of scientists and researchers abroad would further hamper revenues from new products and intellectual property.

Economic models were advanced to support both views, but the results depended on the assumed data. The commission's view was that future markets could not be predicted, and that keeping options open in terms of GM and GM-free production was desirable.

4 The fourth principle is that of preserving freedom of choice for growers and consumers. Consumers have a right to choose the food they eat, and to know that food is safe and clearly labelled as to GM or other ingredients. Farmers and growers should have the right to use GM or conventional methods of production as they see fit.

The major area of uncertainty is whether coexistence between GM and other crops is possible. On this the commission received little evidence from experience abroad. It is easy enough to demonstrate that GM crops can outcross to other crops.

That is a fact of nature, and there are examples overseas where outcrossing has been damaging to other farmers' crops. But to conclude from that that any GM crop is uncontrollable does not follow. Crop-by-crop differentiation that takes individual plant characteristics into account is essential.

There exist informal arrangements between growers to avoid spraying when wind directions would blow the spray on to organic crops. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has standard separation distances laid down between crops so that pure seed certification standards can be attained. Species A will not outcross with Species B, so that a GM form of one species can coexist with a non-GM form of another. Regional separations of crops can be achieved under the Resource Management Act by regulation or local agreement.

A relevant concept was presented by a Swiss botanist, Professor Klaus Ammann, who submitted in evidence a table which categorised crop varieties in Switzerland according to their capacity to outcross with others. Key factors are the existence of plant relatives to which there could be outcrossing, and the differing capacities of crops to outcross.

A similar table developed for New Zealand use would ensure that some crops were never released into our environment, while others might be released provided they met the safety criteria overseen by Erma.

While a blanket ban would be a sure way to prevent outcrossing, it would also deny choice to many who saw value in a selective use of GM options. The above examples do not at this stage constitute an assured system for coexistence, but they do indicate paths to be pursued in the interests of freedom of choice.

T HE New Zealand voter is faced with a much more sophisticated choice on GM than blanket for or against options can offer. A GM-free New Zealand is a logical choice if one knows GM will never be proved safe, and that consumer resistance will always ensure an expanding market for GM-free product. But to put all one's eggs in one basket on the basis of hypothesis rather than knowledge is risky.

Extending the moratorium may likewise seem a safe choice, but is also a blanket option. Some GM options may well take several years to meet the rigorous standards of Erma, but others may fulfil the HSNO criteria in a shorter space of time. There would be an opportunity cost to an arbitrary delay in their release, as well as a denial of freedom to those who sought to use them.

No GM crop is likely to reach the open release stage any time soon. Research on safety issues remains to be done. Further study of market trends will reveal more of likely future patterns. Acceptable systems of coexistence need to be developed. It is a responsible choice to say "No" until such tasks have been completed.

But to continue to say "No" even when satisfactory solutions to the uncertainties are available is not logical. Blanket choices are tidy, and suited to simple Yes/No issues. GM is not such an issue. GM is complex and multi-faceted. Responsible choice requires a more sophisticated discernment.

* Richard Randerson is dean of Holy Trinity Cathedral, Parnell.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

GE links

GE glossary