Towards genetic engineering - with real caution

Genetic engineering appears here to stay. Environment reporter ANNE BESTON on the royal commission's 49 recommendations.

The title of the long-awaited report into genetic science in New Zealand was the biggest hint of the direction it would set for the country.

It was called "Preserving Opportunities", a clear indication that New Zealand could not afford to turn its back on the brave new world of genetic engineering.

And so it proved.

The findings of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification are "proceed with caution".

Among its 49 recommendations are suggestions that different types of crops, both genetically modified and organic, will be able to be grown in New Zealand, and a new provision allowing for contained release of a genetically modified organism.

But new rules will be needed.

These could include a Bioethics Council to consider the cultural, spiritual and ethical issues of GE and a new Parliamentary Commissioner on Biotechnology, along the lines of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

The first time a genetically modified organism (which is anything from a GE food crop to a GE medical vaccine) is released, it should be the decision of the Minister for the Environment.

If GE crops are grown, how do you stop cross-pollination contaminating GE-free crops?


The commission recommends that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry play a bigger role in policing how GE crops are grown in New Zealand. It says MAF should develop an industry code of practice "to ensure effective separation of distances between genetically modified and unmodified crops".

MAF would also get the tricky task of setting up a system of communication between farmers using different production methods if the Government accepts the report's recommendations.

The commission suggests that MAF "provide mediation where necessary" but whether the ministry gets the resources to do this is up to the Government.

It may be no enviable task being caught in the crossfire between an organic farmer worried his livelihood is about to disappear and an orthodox farmer claiming his right to grow whatever kind of crop he likes.

What did the commission say about Maori cultural and spiritual concerns on GE? The suggestion of a Bioethics Council and a Parliamentary Commissioner on Biotechnology are the two main recommendations to try to address Maori concerns about GE.

The commission found, unsurprisingly, that taking Maori concerns into account on every application to the Environmental Risk Management Agency is "almost impossible".

The commission takes as an example the breeding of cows at AgResearch's Ruakura base which angered local Maori and ended up in the High Court.

Eventually, the experiment had to go back to the regulatory body only to be reapproved.

With a Bioethics Council, the commission says, the spiritual and cultural objections of Maori to this kind of research could be aired.

Also, in view of Maori concerns about GE, the commission recommended that the grounds for stopping a particular experiment be widened, for instance where there are significant social, ethical or cultural issues.

The power to "call in" a particular piece of research work because of such concerns lies with Environment Minister Marian Hobbs.

But the Bioethics Council, although independent, would play only an advisory role and its decisions would not be binding.

What is the Parliamentary Commissioner on Biotechnology for?

The commission says the parliamentary commissioner will check up on the authorities making decisions in genetic science, flag new biotechnology developments and "fulfil a widespread educational and consulting role with the public".

Greenpeace, for one, is not impressed. Spokeswoman Annette Cotter has called some of the recommendations for new bureaucracies "expensive and ineffectual".

"You have to ask, how effective has the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment been on formulating policy, that's the question. This just means more people looking at the issue, and in effect what it will probably mean is field trials of genetically engineered organisms being rubber stamped."

What is a biotechnology strategy and who is supposed to set it up? The Ministry of Research Science and Technology gets this one. If the Government agrees, the ministry will consult the Bioethics Council and the Parliamentary Commissioner on Biotechnology and other groups on where New Zealand should head.

The commission says this fits the ministry's role as the body responsible for "providing direction for science and innovation as a whole, accelerating New Zealand towards becoming a knowledge economy and achieving better outcomes for investment in research, science and technology".

If something goes wrong, who takes the blame or who pays?

The commission left the curly question of liability open - it made no recommendations and said the status quo remained. Unlike America, which has seen billion-dollar lawsuits over the accidental contamination of GE-free corn by a GE crop, New Zealand farmers would find it tough to get compensation if something similar happened.

It is a question the Government may have to consider carefully as biotechnology develops, but the commission chose not to be of much help.

So if the Government adopts this report, what is likely to happen? Well it is unlikely to mean a crop of genetically modified feijoas coming to a garden near you any time soon.

The approval process to grow genetically modified crops or breed calves with human genes is rigorous, and some experiments have been on hold because of the voluntary ban on new applications for GE experiments.

The voluntary ban, agreed to by industry and research organisations while the commission was sitting, expires on August 31, and the Government will have to decide before then whether to extend it or allow regulated GE work to go ahead. The second option is the most likely, but we don't know yet what the Government will decide to take from the commission's report and what it will discard.

Life Sciences Network is an umbrella group of industry and scientists wanting GE to proceed as quickly as possible. But chairman Dr William Rolleston does not envisage rapid progress.

"While the moratorium was in place, people haven't moved forward, so we've got a lot of catching up to do. I'm sure scientists will be feeling that some of the shackles have come off and we can move forward in a responsible way."

Dr Rolleston said he knew of no planned commercial releases of a genetically modified crop and it was unlikely to happen until well into next year, if then.

Does this mean the fight against GE is probably over?

In fact, it may just be beginning.

The Green Party is unlikely to give up this one. A GE-free New Zealand is a core policy for the Greens, one they campaigned effectively on and probably one of the reasons they are a presence in Parliament for the first time.

Despite the sniping from some Opposition parties that the Greens pushed for the commission to be set up and should therefore live with its findings, that is unlikely to happen.

They will continue to pressure the Labour-Alliance Government to restrict GE as much as possible.

Greenpeace is also not giving up. Annette Cotter said the organisation would continue to lobby the Government for a GE-free New Zealand, and "at the end of the day it is the Government that will have to decide".

But Life Sciences Network, Crown Research Institutes and the dozens of scientists at work all over the country will push the Government to adopt the commission's findings. Science and industry is a powerful lobby group, and can argue convincingly that New Zealand needs biotech to pursue its vision of a knowledge economy.

Any significant backing away from the commission's recommendations is likely to draw their fire.

During its 14-month investigation, the four-member commission held 15 public meetings, 11 hui, 29 workshops, one youth forum and 13 weeks of formal hearings.

www.nzherald.co.nz/ge

Full report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary