Posted on 28-7-2002

The GE Divide
Source: Timaru Herald July 2002

Over the last week the Timaru Herald has featured contributions from two
scions of the South Canterbury farming community - neighbours and long-time
family friends, Dr William Rolleston and Sir Peter Elworthy. The Rolleston
family has farmed Blue Cliffs Station near St Andrews since the 19th
century while the Elworthy's have farmed nearby Craigmore for nearly as
long. Rolleston is, of course, Chairman of the Life Sciences Network and
Elworthy heads up the Sustainability Council of NZ (SCONZ).

The Timaru Herald decided it would make a interesting feature to have the
two provide their reasons for the positions they advocate. Each was given
an opportunity to write an opening statement which was followed by a right
of reply, in writing, a few days later. Here we set out what each of them
wrote:

Opening Statements

Dr William Rolleston's Contribution

When the moratorium expires in October 2003 not one genetically modified
organism will be released until approved, on a case by case basis, by the
Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA). The standards are very high
- the toughest in the world. The application is open to public scrutiny and
objection. The applicant must convince ERMA that the particular application
is safe and that the benefits outweigh the risks to the environment, health
and society. If there is insufficient information or unacceptable
scientific uncertainty the application will be turned down.

The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification spanned fourteen months and
cost six million dollars. The process was open and inclusive. The standard
for evidence was higher than can be achieved in the public arena. The
Commission confirmed that our regulatory agencies are robust and competent.
Its major conclusion was that we should "preserve our opportunities and
proceed selectively with appropriate care". The Royal Commission recognised
we have opportunities to develop and apply gene technology wisely for the
good of our health, our economy and our environment. Rejecting the option
of GM in agricultural production further erodes the science base of our
agriculture. The Commissioners acknowledged that a narrow strategy such as
"GM free" is high risk. They recommended a future where GM, conventional
and organic agriculture exist together.

Many objectors to genetic modification demand there be a guarantee of zero
risk. This is an unrealistic and unreasonable demand which would prevent us
doing anything in life. For instance, airbags may reduce injuries from car
accidents but you also run the risk they will accidentally inflate and
cause injury. Many of the risks of GM are overstated. Even the Royal
Commission said in its report: "Some of the claims of possible
environmental and health damage were exaggerated or based on inconclusive
research data or unproven hypotheses". They outline a number of these in
the report. The Life Sciences Network website "mythbusters" page outlines
15 myths about the dangers of GM which continue to circulate.

We are told our health and our environment is at risk and we must not
proceed. The reality is dramatically different. In the USA last year
genetic modification in agriculture reduced pesticide use by over 20,000
tonnes increased production by five million tonnes and improved farmers
incomes by $3.0 billion. Over 500 million tonnes of GM food has been
consumed over the last ten years without one allergy, sickness or death
attributed to GM. New developments in the pipeline are designed to provide
consumer benefit in the form of safer and healthier foods. We are told
coexistence is impossible and our trade is at risk. Once again the rhetoric
does not meet with reality. Over 50 million acres of GM crops are grown in
the USA and yet the US organics industry continues to expand with strong
markets in Europe and Japan. The very markets we are told will disappear if
we have any GM agriculture. Support for an ongoing moratorium refuses to
recognise that plants behave in different ways. A sterile GM tobacco plant
producing human medicines has different risks and benefits to GM canola. A
moratorium demands we unthinkingly reject both.

Choice is an important freedom in our modern society. True choice in the
supermarket includes the option of GM and non-GM food. Farmers should be
free to choose the system of agriculture which best suits them, their
farming situation and their markets. By reducing our choice, proponents of
a GE free New Zealand seek to impose their fear and prejudice on the rest
of us. The approved use of GM is safe and offers society and the
environment many benefits. The lifting of the moratorium will allow us to
select and use those applications which are safe and beneficial and reject
those which aren't.


Sir Peter Elworthy's Contribution

Gene science has an important contribution to make to New Zealand's
economic future. It covers a broad range of applications that include
identifying the genetic determinants of health conditions, biosecurity
screening, and mapping the genetic makeup of plants and animals for
agricultural and conservation purposes. A very small part of this new
branch of science requires the release of genetically modified organisms
(GMO) into our lands.

I became involved in this issue out of concern at the rush to commercialise
this particular area of gene science in New Zealand agriculture. I realised
that Federated Farmers, the Meat Board and the Game Industry Board, all of
which I support financially by membership or levy, were financing the Life
Sciences Network, an association which has taken an aggressive attitude
towards the use of GMOs in primary production. I took the opportunity to
approach these farmer representatives to seek the reasons for their support
of the Network's position. I was also given courteous advice and
information from four-generation family friend and neighbour, William
Rolleston, the chair of the Network.

On the other side of the issue is the green movement. My inquiries
indicated that there was a need for an organisation representing an
independent, middle ground on this issue. We established the Sustainability
Council of New Zealand, with highly credible people whom we felt
represented various constituencies of New Zealand life: Professor Garth
Cooper (science), Sam Neill (the arts), Annabel Langbein (a food writer)
and Susan Devoy (a sporting champion). The council is independent of any
political party and pro-science, with a professional secretariat
undertaking independent research.

We agree with the Government and with the Network on the opportunities that
gene science offers for advancement at relatively low risk. The medical
sector is rich in such examples. The use of gene technology as a tool for
plant breeding and diagnostic research has also proved a great asset to the
conventional breeding expertise that New Zealand has developed. Where we
differ is on whether we are ready for the small area of gene science that
relies upon GMO release. These applications pose the highest risks to the
New Zealand brand, as well as to the integrity of our agricultural and
native ecosystems. We may be ready for them in five years time, but not
until we better understand the science and the regulations right.

There are still many scientific questions that remain unanswered. Some of
these are critical and were not adequately addressed by the Royal
Commission. We also need to get a liability regime in place that protects
farming and all New Zealanders from potential negative effects of GMO
release. The Law Commission's report to the Government, released this week,
highlights the liability risks. It notes that GMOs have the potential to
cause irreversible damage and, in some cases, catastrophic harm. It points
out the difficulty in estimating the level of risk posed by GMOs or in
establishing the source of harm.

Putting the full financial risks with the developers is an important
commercial discipline. Unless GM developers bear the risk of GMO release,
taxpayers and farmers will bear the costs. Once we have the framework
right, then can we proceed to a case by case analysis of potential GMO
uses, should there be a convincing proposal in five years time. For the
time being, New Zealand is very well placed to fulfil the growing demand
for GM-free seed and food products to the world.


Right of Reply

Sustainability Council chairman Sir Peter Elworthy writes:

In the future, New Zealand may decide to develop and use genetically
modified organisms (GMOs) in the field for the good of our health, economy
and our environment, with minimum risk. For now, however, scientific
understanding and regulations of those processes still has a long way to
go. Careful review of the Environmental Risk Management Authority's
decision-making to date does not breed confidence in the agency's ability
to vet applications for commercial GM release.

Our advice is that it will take at least five years (three and a half years
from October 2003), to gain sufficient understanding of the science to
conduct adequate risk assessment. During that period, it will be important
to monitor parallel research overseas. Europe, for example, has just
mounted its own very substantial research programme. For now, consumers in
our main markets increasingly reject GM in their food. United States
farmers have been forced to find new markets for their GM corn exports, as
Europe has closed its doors to them. GM potato acreage may fall to zero,
according to the United States Department of Agriculture, due to the market
uncertainties around GM products. Unless there is a fundamental shift in
European consumer thinking, why would New Zealand farmers even consider
switching to GM agriculture?

Nor has there been any convincing evidence that GMO adoption in the field
now will benefit the economy as a whole. Indeed, farmers worldwide are
increasingly showing concern about the effects of GMOs on the environment
and their markets. Recently the president of the American Corn Growers
Association stated that
the majority of members now wished they had never used GMOs. Will failure
to lift the moratorium erode our science base? Only 3 per cent of the bulk
of New Zealand science expenditure is directed to GMOs, and some of that
research can be continued in containment. Indeed, most gene science has
continued under the current moratorium, and will do so under the
time-limited extension.


Life Sciences Network chairman Dr William Rolleston writes:

Sir Peter Elworthy has presented no sound reason to continue the moratorium
beyond October 2003. He falls into the trap of considering that all GMOs
have the same potential to be irreversible and cause harm. There is no
scientific evidence to support this view. The Government is on track to
have the issues of liability resolved by October 2003. It is worth
remembering the Royal Commission, headed by a retired chief justice,
stated: "From a legal liability perspective we have not been persuaded
there is anything so radically different in genetic modification as to
require new or special remedies."

The approved use of GM is safe and has been shown around the world to be
beneficial to society and the environment. The use of GM in agriculture has
reduced pesticide use and improved productivity reducing the need to
convert wilderness areas into farmlands. GM is being used in animals and
plants to produce healthier foods, new pharmaceuticals and vaccines,
biodegradable plastics and to assist with bio-remediation of polluted sites.

I agree with Sir Peter that gene science offers advancement at relatively
low risk. I disagree that we should forego benefits from the commercial use
of low risk GMOs through an unthinking moratorium which won't allow us to
consider any application for commercial use of GMOs outside the laboratory.
It takes 10 to 15 years to develop a scientific idea into a product.
Procrastinating now will have a profound effect in 10 years time. An
ongoing moratorium is the ditherer's option, which creates uncertainty,
reducing our science capability and repelling investors. Economic analysis
shows that a continued moratorium will result in a 10 per cent fall in GDP
and a loss of 120,000 jobs.

Continuing the moratorium moves us away from science based regulation to
regulation driven by fear and prejudice. This is contrary to our
international trade obligations. Other countries have shown that GM,
conventional and organic agriculture can coexist. Studies show that, given
the choice, even European consumers buy GM and non-GM food equally.

Lifting the moratorium and allowing applications to be assessed by the
Environmental Risk Management Authority to ensure they are safe is
consistent with the Royal Commission's recommendations to proceed with
caution on a case by case basis. It is consistent with the wishes of the
majority of Parliament and the public. Lifting the moratorium will keep our
opportunities open and allow choice for consumers and producers alike.