Posted 5th August 2001

We Are Not Amused
By Rosemary Du Plessis, Royal Society Council Member

The social scientists expert group who contributed to the Royal Society submission (Rosemary Du Plessis, Keiko Tanaka, Kevin Dew, Fiona Cram, Bevan Tipene Matua, Hugh Campbell, Ruth Fitzgerald, and Caroline Saunders) had a mixed response to the report of the Commission. Their submission focused on the circulation of knowledge about GM technologies and opportunities for all citizens to have a more effective and informed voice in decision-making with respect to the development and use of GM technologies. It explored the relevance of the Treaty of Waitangi for decisions about the use of genetic modification and looked at the economic interests of different sets of food producers. Many of these issues are addressed in the Report. This group of social scientists does, however, have a number of concerns about the content of the report and its recommendations.

Social, cultural, ethical and spiritual issues

Attention in the report to the ethical, cultural and spiritual concerns relating to genetic modification is welcomed, and the establishment of a Bioethics Council to focus on these issues is an excellent initiative. However, there is a need to clarify the conditions under which the recommendations of the Bioethics Council will be binding on Institutional Biological Safety Committees, ERMA, ANZFA, Medsafe and other regulatory agencies. Similarly, the creation of a Parliamentary Commissioner on Biotechnology will facilitate ongoing auditing of the development and use of genetic modification technologies. This initiative will also facilitate the circulation knowledge about biotechnologies and the creation of informed debate that was advocated in the Royal Society submission. However, the proposed Commissioner would only have an advisory role with respect to decision-making relating to the use of biotechnologies. The experience of groups advising ERMA suggests that their influence depends on the quality of their members, the adequacy of the resources at their disposal, and, most importantly, the power of the advisory group to ensure that their concerns are addressed. Furthermore, whilst the current Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Office should be highly commended for the quality of the reports produced and the monitoring role it plays, the influence of such offices on policy development and implementation will always be minimal until they are given adequate powers.

Indigenous flora and fauna and Maori property rights

The Royal Commission seems to have side-stepped the issues of Maori property rights with respect to indigenous flora and fauna, particularly issues surrounding the use of native species for genetic research. Indigenous flora and fauna research in Aotearoa has the potential to provide some leading edge research that is unique globally. At present, New Zealand scientists are not conducting genetic research on native species because of the WAI262 claim and related issues; there is no active protection of Maori interests in native species and it is easier for overseas interests to conduct this research.

GM and social research

The recognition of the need for research into the socio-economic and ethical impacts of the release of genetically modified organisms is significant, but there is a need to ensure that such research is independent; the addition of token social scientists into FRS&T programmes is not an optimum way forward.

Economic issues

There are a number of key issues that need to be addressed. First, the framing of economic questions in the report has been too focussed on Genetic Modification versus Organics. While the report makes a strong case for sustaining the organics industry, the economics of organics has only been partially comprehended by the Commission. A dualistic GM vs. Organics focus has diverted attention from benefits of non-GM agriculture across a range of non-organic sectors. Second, economic analysis has failed to account for New Zealand's economic position in global markets and development of GM. Assumptions that NZ can capture and retain the benefits of unique GM products need to be closely examined. Finally, economic arguments suggesting that reducing production costs through the use of GM crops automatically results in benefits for producers must be scrutinised in the context of overseas evidence. Another development scenario needs consideration - that New Zealand can gain primary economic benefit from developing new GM products for use in food and fibre production without actually commercially releasing these products in NZ.

The Commission argues that more research is needed on the economic costs and benefits of GM release. Research, both at an aggregate level, and also by crop, is strongly supported by social scientists who contributed to the Royal Society Submission. This must take place over the next few years if the Minister for the Environment is to make an informed decision over first release. Assumptions that New Zealand can capture and retain the benefits of unique GM products need to be robustly examined.

Pharmaco foods and GM vaccines

There was support for the recommendation that the legislative issues surrounding pharmaco foods be clarified. There does, however, appear to be some confusion over the possible impact of live GMOs in vaccines. ERMA should maintain a role in assessing the risk of medicines and pharmaco foods containing live GMOs that could potentially be excreted into the environment.

Liability issues

It is disappointing that the Commission concluded that, for the time being, existing laws are adequate to deal with liability issues relating to the use of GM technologies. The Commission suggests that strict liability will stifle innovation. The outcome is that any unforeseen adverse consequences of this technology will be borne by the wider community. As such the Commission reinforces the view that business interests should dominate over the interests of the community. The Commission advises that issues relating to liability be referred to the Law Commission. It is imperative that liability issues are resolved before further field trials or before the further importation of products containing live genetically modified organisms that could get into the environment..