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. .