 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - submissionsBio-Gro New Zealand (Bio-Gro)STRATEGIC OPTIONS — SECTIONS A(1), B(c), B(i), B(k), B(m)Submission Bio-Gro recommended to the Commission that the development of GMOs be prohibited and that research should be contained within a laboratory environment. In their opinion more emphasis should be placed on developing truly sustainable processes through the use of organic systems. They then lamented the lack of funding in respect to research into organic systems Bio-Gro then claimed that evidence in respect to the loss of scientists and international credibility was overstated. Scientists could be diverted into alternative areas of research. For example, New Zealand does not use nuclear energy but New Zealand is a world leader in hydroelectric power. Refusing to allow GMOs in New Zealand would enhance New Zealand’s image for innovation and show resistance to control by the multinationals. LAW & LEGISLATION — SECTIONS B(e), B(n)Submission Bio-Gro stated that difficulties are evident in respect to liability issues. For example, it is difficult to ascertain from where the ‘contamination’ has come from and hence from whom damages should be claimed. In their opinion liability should fall squarely on the shoulders of the biotechnology companies that have commercialised GM products. They also stated that the Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) appear to be pursuing possession of intellectual property to the detriment of more pressing research concerns. Bio-Gro also believed that the CRIs were indulging in research for research sake. For example, research into potato tuber moth resistance was not required as the problem was due to the poor management of crops . In organic systems, potato crops suffer little or no damage from this pest as they are well managed. RISKS & BENEFITS — SECTION B(b), B(c)(i), B(c)(ii), B(e)Submission Bio-Gro submitted that cross-pollination was a major problem in respect to GM crops. Gary Goldberg, a witness for Bio-Gro stated that farmers in North America can no longer be assured that the crops they are harvesting in autumn are from the seeds they planted in spring. Bio-Gro then stated that the use of GM technology was merely an extension of current problematic agricultural techniques. In their opinion GM technology was not required to develop truly sustainable food production systems. There was also no evidence that it could provide sustainable solutions to current agricultural problems. Conversely, the use of GM technology was stated to be poor science as it was a short term solution that could actually worsen the problems associated with current agricultural techniques. For example, the use of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) was stated to be short sighted due to the possibility that target insects could become resistant. This would then prevent the use of an important soft insecticide. The use of marker aided selection was also questioned. Bio-Gro stated that this technique may be useful for the detection of disease resistant varieties. Uncertainty existed, however, as to whether GM technology could actually speed up the development of these resistant varieties. They then submitted that current problems in respect to disease susceptibility were due to not focusing on the selection of strong, high-health varieties in the first place. In the opinion of Bio-Gro the use of herbicide resistant plant varieties were likely to increase not decrease the use of herbicide by farmers. A similar suggestion was also put forward by Dr. Ann Clark for the Bio Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association in New Zealand (See the Bio Dynamic summary under the heading Risks & Benefits). The possible release of GMOs into New Zealand’s Environment was then equated with the disastrous release of exotic species such as possums or Old Man’s Beard. ECONOMIC ISSUES — SECTIONS B(c)(ii), B(h), B(i)Submission Gary Goldberg stated that the planting of GM corn in North America is jeopardising major export markets. The loss of these markets was submitted to be causing severe economic problems for corn producers in the United States (US). He then noted that the farmers themselves would be burdened with the segregation costs if they wished to access markets that require product to be GM free. The segregation costs were estimated to be approximately $200 million per year. It was then submitted that demand for organic products was growing at a rate of 15% to 30% per year. Furthermore, demand fro these products far outstripped supply. The possible disqualification of US organic products, due to possible ‘genetic contamination’, was noted. Gary Goldberg then submitted that New Zealand would be in a perfect position to fill the gaps that this disqualification could produce. |