Posted
7th August 2001
Greens at crossroads
Intro
by Alan Marston:
There's another side to an old Chinese Aphorism, it reads `every
opportunity is a crisis'. The Green Party is on the tip of a
huge wave, and its not a knowledge wave, its much more powerful
constituted as it is of ideology mixed with high emotion. Whether,
in this most contentious issue since Nuclear Energy, humanism
will prevail over ideology, whether the Greens will be able
to surf the wave to the beach and glory or find the speed of
events and power of crowd emotion too much, is something only
a practitioner of I Ching would venture to predict.
The Greens wanted to lead political change, and now they have
no option. Its up to everyone who opposes the release of GM
organisms into the environment to support the Greens, and hope
they pull through in the charnel house that is politics. Meanwhile,
prepare yourself for a nationwide mobilisation against the open-ended
RC recommendations implementation - Saturday afternoon, 1 September.
Transcript from newztel news: rnz "Focus on Politics" Saturday
4 august 2001, 12.10pm
Presenter:
the normally mild mannered co-leader, jeanette fitzsimons, has
let her anger show. Why are the greens so wound up? To answer
that i'm joined by ms fitzsimons. I was told when you first
read this report you were close to tears, is that true?
Jeanette fitzsimons (greens co-leader): oh i think a lot of
us had a pretty strong reaction. We worked for three years to
get this process. We heard the evidence that was... Or much
of the evidence that was given to the commission and we just
couldn't see how they could come to those conclusions on the
basis of what they heard.
Presenter: yeah, we're used to the greens though reacting in
a very matter of fact way. You've been quite emotional about
this one, haven't you?
Fitzsimons: well, this is a technology that actually is about
the fundamentals of life itself. The greens are founded on a
principle of ecological wisdom, of harmonious relationships
between... Among all living things, otherwise the planet can't
survive. There's nothing attacks the foundations of life itself
more than this sort of sorcerer's apprentice approach of switching
genetic material around at random between species.
Presenter: you've described this issue, genetic modification,
as the greens number one issue. Why?
Fitzsimons: well, i think it's partly timing in that that was
the hot issue really for the public and for us as we led up
to the last election. New zealand is still ge-free in its agriculture,
its forestry and its environment, although not totally in its
food. The next year or two will determine whether we stay that
way or whether we go down the genetic engineering road and so
it is a turning point in history that will affect us forever
really.
Presenter: from a political point of view i guess your reaction
was really determined wasn't it? I mean it's an article of faith
for the greens that we should be ge-free, just like it's an
article of faith for act that we should be low taxed?
Fitzsimons: yes it is, provided you interpret ge-free as meaning
no release into the environment or into our food. It doesn't
mean at all turning our back on genetic technology, genetic
knowledge. There's a great deal of value we can do with it but
just not those things.
Presenter: what are you going to do if the government when it's
due to stake out its position in three months time, what are
you going to do if it adopts this report?
Fitzsimons: well, there are 49 recommendations here and the
government's got to come up with a response to each of them
so i don't think it's a question of just adopt or reject. I
think it's a question of whether we can find a way forward from
the evidence that is in this report. There are a whole... We
will obviously be negotiating with the government over the next
three months and trying to persuade them...
Presenter: i guess what i'm doing at... We'll come back to that
in a minute but what i'm doing is, i'm casting forward and i'm
saying, if the government adopts the (unclear)... Yes there's
49 recommendations but there's a key thing here for you and
that is, no field trials for genetically modified crops...
Fitzsimons: and no commercial release as well...
Presenter: now if they do go with that, what are you going to
do?
Fitzsimons: we haven't determined that yet. There are range
of levels of support that the green party can give the government
in parliament. At the moment we give them quite strong support.
There are a whole lot of options that we have in front of us.
We also have to look at the consequences of a decision we might
make and we will not be making a decision just in pique, we'll
be making it in terms of the long term political ramifications.
Presenter: well, you're talking about that range. I mean at
the top of it is, you have assured the government of the greens
vote on matters of confidence and supply. Is that now up for
grabs over this issue?
Fitzsimons: the assurance of confidence and su0pply was never
a blank cheque. It can't be...
Presenter: so it is up for grabs?
Fitzsimons: no party can ever say there is nothing the government
can do that would cause us to withdraw our support but that
is... We still have not made any decision on that.
Presenter: yes but this is your number one issue, isn't it?
Fitzsimons: yes it is.
Presenter:
so if anything was going to turn you against that statement
of confidence and supply this would be it?
Fitzsimons: i don't think it's quite that simple. I think you've
got to look at what you can achieve by that. I mean what we
are interested in is outcomes.
Presenter: well, the next order is that you would... And some
people have talked about it, that you would simply abstain on
confidence and supply motions, so you wouldn't vote against
them which effectively means that they keep their power but
you wouldn't vote for them. Is that an option?
Fitzsimons: there's a whole range of options and until the caucus
has discussed them and come to some conclusion i don't really
want to negotiate with the government through the media. The
one thing i can say is that if we decide to take some steps
in terms of our relationship with the government we will be
discussing it with the government before we discuss it with
the media.
Presenter: well, what's the range then? Does it extend beyond
confidence and supply is what i'm getting at?
Fitzsimons: there are a lot of ways in which the government
relies on our support in parliament. They don't have a blank
cheque now. We don't vote for all of their legislation. We don't
vote for all of their procedural motions. We don't always give
them urgency when they want it although sometimes we do if we
think it's justified. We make case by case decisions. What we
don't do is trade between issues and say we won't support you
on this otherwise very good piece of legislation because we're
piqued that you didn't do that because that doesn't get the
best outcomes overall and it's actually not honest.
Presenter: meantime you are the only party running a ge-free
policy or sort of a ge-free policy. Does this report and the
response of the other parties supporting it hand you an election
policy goldmine?
Fitzsimons: yes of course it does. My office has had hundreds
and i'm not exaggerating... There was 101 phone calls in just
a few hours after this came out... Hundreds of phone calls,
emails, faxes and letters from the public wanting to know how
they can join the green party but that doesn't give me a lot
of comfort. Our vote might well triple at the next election
over this issue but i would willingly trade that for a ge-free
new zealand.
Presenter: but it does make it look good for the next election,
particularly if this government adopts a policy supporting ge
field trials?
Fitzsimons: yes it does but as i say, we didn't go into parliament
just to get more and more people, we went into parliament to
make change and what we're focussing on now is making change
and if that means we get a ge-free new zealand and new zealanders
decide, oh well we don't need the green party so much, well
so be it... Even though that's not a sensible response.
Presenter: because it's not strictly true really is it that
the greens have a ge-free policy. You approve of genetic modification
experiments in the laboratory for medical purposes?
Fitzsimons: yes we do and the parallel there is with our nuclear-free
policy. Not many people say, new zealand is not nuclear-free
and yet we use nuclear materials in cancer treatment, in radiotherapy.
We use them in the laboratory and diagnostics and tracer techniques.
We use them in smoke alarms. We use them out in the community
in small-scale safe ways. And yet we are nuclear free because
we banned power stations and ships. Now we can be ge-free in
terms of our environment, our agriculture, the release of living
organisms beyond a contained laboratory and we can still allow
the extraordinarily valuable things that the understanding of
genetics can do for our medicine, our research, our understanding
of life and there are a lot of commercial opportunities there
provided they are in a contained, secure laboratory.
Presenter: so you don't mind all the work that's going on not
just in medicines but perhaps also in plants and other things
as long as it's in the laboratory?
Fitzsimons: well, we certainly don't mind the research that's
going on in plants in the laboratory but if you are... The ultimate
aim of your work is to produce a plant that you want to grow
widespread in the environment, then we think that's a waste
of time because we don't think we should ever allow the growing
of them widespread in the environment. That is another reason
for opposing field trials. The only reason for doing a field
trial is to test an organism in the natural environment, to
see how it's going to perform when you release it. If you're
not going to release it you're wasting hundreds of thousands
of... Well, actually hundreds of millions of taxpayers money
on field trials if you're not eventually going to grow that
stuff all over the country.
Presenter: it seems kind of arbitrary. It's okay to use it to
advance medical science. It's not... And our understanding of
the world and people and all the rest of it but it's not okay
to advance horticultural science?
Fitzsimons: it's not the purpose for which it's done that is
the point, it's the safety conditions around which it's done.
The laboratory stuff is mostly done on micro organisms so you
don't have the same ethical problems you have using cows for
example. The laboratory stuff creates an organism which is kept
in that very tight containment. The only thing that leaves the
laboratory is the purified protein and that's the other thing,
medicines are very thoroughly tested. Over a ten year period
they are a purified compound that the organism makes, they're
not the organism itself. A potato grown out in the environment
is just eaten as a potato. It doesn't undergo any of that testing.
Nobody really knows for sure what's in it because what the scientific
evidence to the commission has shown is that once you disrupt
the genetic make-up of an organism by firing a foreign gene
into it, anything can happen. The other genes can react in unexpected
ways. They can produce poisons and you don't know they're there.
Presenter: let's stick with the potato for a minute. The point
being made about that is, that by simply putting a gene in the
potato you avoid certain worms and so on... Being attacked by
certain diseases. That avoids spraying the crop. Isn't there
a good trade-off there for the greens?
Fitzsimons: well, first of all organic farmers manage to produce
worm-free potatoes without spraying anyway. We grow enough potatoes
on our farm to last us a whole year, that's a substantial lot
of potatoes. We don't have a problem with pests and diseases
but secondly the places overseas where these pest resistant
crops have been grown have not been shown to use less pesticide.
Presenter: the commission says on the basis of evidence, a policy
of 100% organic new zealand is not economically viable. That
while organic food may attract a premium, the commission concludes
that that's uncertain and it might not last. And then it goes
on to state this. Further evidence suggested the range of organic
foods that can be successfully exported from new zealand in
any volume is relatively narrow because of the shorter shelf
life and increased perishability of fresh organic food. In addition,
substantial distances between new zealand and its major export
markets make it difficult to deliver products in premium conditions.
Do you accept that problem?
Fitzsimons: i'd love to know who told the commission that because
it is complete and utter rubbish. First of all, organic foods
can be processed. Organic foods can be in cans. They can be
frozen. They can be processed in all kinds of ways as ordinary
foods are and still be organic. Secondly, if you're looking
at fresh produce, there's a lot of research showing that organic...
If you want to look at fruit for example, has a longer shelf
life than conventional fruit because it's not fed the high nitrogen
fertilisers. It doesn't contain as much water. It doesn't shrivel
up and shrink so quickly, so the shelf life is fine. They're
confusing fresh produce and processed produce. You can have
fresh organic or ge. You can have processed organic or ge. They're
not comparing apples with apples.
Presenter: and yet we've got a commission that's spent just
over $6 million of taxpayers money going up and down the country,
listening to all the experts, sifting all the available research
and evidence and so on and what you're saying is, it's stuffed
it up in a very major fundamental scientific way. That's hard
to believe.
Fitzsimons: yes it is and i guess i'm finding it hard to believe
too. But i think the areas where it got the science most wrong
is... Shows that i was right a year and a half ago when i argued
forcibly to the minister that we needed somebody on this group,
preferably who was a trained ecologist, that's a scientist who
understands the inter relationships of living things or failing
that, at least of practising land use... Somebody that gets
their hands in the soil. They would have laughed or scorned
the idea that you can tell bees how far they can fly or that
200 metres between crops will stop contamination or in fact
that an organic apple won't last as long on the shelf as a chemical
apple.
Presenter: this report's been described by the government as
balanced. You seem to be saying balance is not the issue. It's
impossible to reach a balance. You're either ge or you're not?
Fitzsimons: well, i think people have been confused by the language
of this report. It is very cautionary language but the proposals
in it are anything but cautionary. They actually throw precaution
to the wind, so in fact it isn't balanced because it proposes
taking us a giant step closer towards genetic engineering. As
i said before, we're standing on a threshold, we go one way
or the other. They have said very firmly you go the way that
has no return. You go the way that is irreversible. You go the
way that is not proven. I don't think that's balanced.
Presenter: what i'm asking is, do you... Would this commission
ever have been able to come up with any report that allowed
for organic and ge crops?
Fitzsimons: i don't believe and no organic farmer believes that
you can grow the two in the same area for long. Sure you can
keep them separate for a year or two but over time they will
get thoroughly mixed up, the way the star link corn in the states
has pervaded all corn growing so you can hardly find a food
crop in the states at the moment that doesn't have the illegal,
unpermitted star link corn that's only fit for animal food mixed
up in it.
Presenter: well, you've got three months to influence the government.
How are you going to go about it?
Fitzsimons: we're doing a thorough analysis of the report at
the moment. We're looking to list all the things that... Where
the conclusions are not supported by the analysis. We're looking
for ways forward that the government could take without totally
rejecting the report and we'll be taking that report to the
government and making it public when we've finished.
Presenter: and are there compromises that you think you can
make, that you can wear?
Fitzsimons: i think the main compromise is on the timeframe.
If the government doesn't feel it can declare our agriculture
and our environment ge-free for all time, it could at least
put a substantial moratorium on any commercial releases or further
field trials until we see more about what happens overseas.
The information's pouring in from overseas and most of it is
bad. We're not going to lose much by waiting five years.
Presenter: realistically, what chance do you think you've got?
You've seen what the government's said? You've seen how the
reaction has played.
Fitzsimons: i also heard marian hobbs say that we do not want
to do anything that creates any risk to our food, to our health
or to our environment. If she really believes that, she cannot
go with the conclusions of this report.
Presenter: so you think the door is open?
Fitzsimons: i do.
Presenter: jeanette fitzsimons, thank you for your time. That's
focus on politics. .
|