 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - submissionsWEEK 6 OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION (27 Nov — 1 Dec)OVERVIEWThis week submissions were heard from the New Zealand Grocery Marketers Association (the Association), the New Zealand Arable Food Industry Council (AFIC), New Zealand Agritech Inc. Ltd. (Agritech), the New Zealand Feed Manufacturers Association Inc. (NZFMA), the New Zealand Vegetable and Potato Growers’ Federation (the Federation), the New Zealand Worm Federation Inc (NZWF), and ZESPRI International Ltd (ZESPRI). In general, all submitters, with the exception of ZESPRI and the NZWF, were in favour of a sensible controlled application of GM technology in New Zealand.. STRATEGIC OPTIONSZESPRI called for the Commission to recommend that commercial food production in New Zealand should remain GM free until assurances of food and environmental safety and consumer acceptance of the techniques are in place. They pointed out in their oral submission, however, that this stance was not due to risks associated with the technology, rather it was based on a marketing perspective. The AFIC submitted, however, that a GM free approach was not viable because it is not achievable, it would be expensive, and result in lost opportunities for New Zealand. This sentiment was echoed in the submissions of the Association, Agritech, NZFMA, and the Federation. RISKS & BENEFITSThe Association noted the wide use of ‘upstream’ GM technology in the food industry. This is the use of enzymes, yeasts and other food additives that have been derived using GM technology but are not necessarily GMOs in themselves. The NZFMA also observed that GM ingredients may already be in the country. This is because most of the soya meal used as feed in New Zealand is obtained from the United States where GM soya and non-GM soya are not segregated. The Association also submitted that the controversy surrounding GM foods has resulted in emotional arguments often based on inaccurate and erroneous understanding of the technology and its processes. For example, GM foods are frequently portrayed in the media as ‘Frankenfoods’ and many consumers, if asked to define a GM food, would say that it is a food that contains genes from animals or fish. Furthermore, the Association submitted that scientists are concerned with accuracy and therefore give qualified statements in respect to the risks and benefits of a technology. The media, however, frequently report only the qualifications and this results in a distortion of the public’s perception of the risks as compared to the benefits. In respect to the risks of GM technology the NZWF called for more research into the effects of GMOs on the soil biota in general and on worm heath specifically. They also stated that this should be done by a truly independent institution. The NZFMA also submitted a detailed report into the risk of outcrossing in Brassicaceae species. The possibility of outcrossing was also noted by the Federation. They observed that Crop and Food Research have researched and published a paper on pollen dispersal from GM potatoes and determined an absence of gene transfer to other Solanum species, including nightshade weeds. It was also noted that as fruiting on fertilisation is not allowed to occur in a commercial environment hence reducing the possibility of gene transfer in potato crops. This is because the potato tuber is used as a source of nutrients for the fruit and it will draw from it in order to mature the fruit. ECONOMIC ISSUESTony Mark submitted on behalf of ZESPRI that global food retailing is intensely competitive for consumer loyalty and purchasing power and is controlled by a small number of hugely powerful companies. These are sensitive to consumer perceptions and are risk averse where consumer opinion is concerned. It was noted that marketing for ZESPRI GOLD Kiwifruit had to incorporate frequent reassurances that the product was the outcome of a breeding programme not of genetic modification. Furthermore, a decision to allow commercial GM food production in New Zealand, in the present consumer climate, could destroy the European market for New Zealand kiwifruit. They then stated that New Zealand GM food production, if and when it occurs, should not be to the detriment of what is already being successfully earned. This concern was echoed by the NZWF who urged the New Zealand government to spend as much money on organic agriculture research as that spent on GM research. They further urged a reconsideration of GM cropping in New Zealand as it is felt that if GM agriculture is allowed in New Zealand it could pose a serious threat to the entire organic agricultural industry of which the NZWF organic input market is a part. In the AFIC’s opinion, however, GM technology and organic systems can and should co-exist. Furthermore, organic production systems might themselves pose dangers. For example, there may be a higher incidence of mycotoxins and/or Escherichia coli in organic food products. They did acknowledge that the claim as to the levels of E. coli in organic foodstuffs has not yet been confirmed. The sprays that are currently allowed in organic production may also be dangerous. For example, copper based sprays may result in a toxic copper build up in the soil. Rejection of GM technology by the organic industry may restrict, therefore, the reduction of chemical use in farming. |