The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - submissions

Friends of the Earth (NZ) Ltd

STRATEGIC ISSUES & OPTIONS

Submission

The Friends of the Earth submitted that the organic method of, for example, horticulture and agriculture, which is both free of hazardous chemicals and of the technology of GM food is the only valid strategic option. Furthermore, it is their submission that this is the only option which is compatible with the Treaty of Waitangi. They then called for the adoption of the precautionary principle in respect to GM technology and recommended:

The immediate and total ban by legislation in New Zealand of all genetically modified food or food derived from genetic modification.;

An immediate review of all GM medicines currently in use and an immediate halt to the further development of GM medicines without proper research and controls;

The strict legislative and physical containment of any research involving genetic modification to the laboratory.

LAW & LEGISLATION

Submission

Liability

The Friends of the Earth stated that liability becomes insignificant when placed alongside possible irreversible damage to human and other genomes. Liability alone will not repair the damage which could be on a catastrophic scale. In the short term, liability for health and other problems caused by GM products should rest with the corporations which produce them.

Intellectual property

The establishment of a property right over living material by means of patent is socially, morally and legally unacceptable to the Friends of the Earth. Life forms should not be patentable on the grounds that it marks a significant further step in the larger process of commodification of life and the reduction of life and nature into an array of merely inert and material substances. Furthermore, the use of patent to establish such property rights is inimical to disinterested research and development that genuinely has the public good as its goal. It also damages that international exchange of knowledge upon which much beneficial innovation depends.; and erodes the tradition of science as a co-operative undertaking.

RISKS & BENEFITS

Submission

It was submitted by the Friends of the Earth that the problem with the creation of transgenic organisms is that there are no methods known presently which make possible the removal of the transgene escaped into the environment. Furthermore, there are no technical or scientific means available to stop the gene spreading or to keep it under control. Therefore, if any adverse effects did occur it would be almost impossible to limit or remove the threat. As in other submissions, concerns in respect to the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) 35S promoter and its reported recombinative ability were addressed. So to were concerns in respect to antibiotic resistance, the precision of gene insertion, the risk of increased allergies, the formation of new and possibly toxic plant metabolites, and DNA degradation were discussed.

The lack of independent studies to test the health effects of transgenic plants on humans was also lamented. In the opinion of the Friends of the Earth, this makes consumers unwilling subjects in a badly designed experiment where there are no controls. They noted that the biotechnology industries were purportedly arguing that absence of evidence against GM means that it is safe. In their opinion, however this argument is not valid. The case of GM might be similar to the effects of smoking. If you smoke one cigarette you would not drop dead. However, it is now well established that cigarette smoking is harmful, leading to the development of major diseases. In fact, the health hazards of smoking were known by the tobacco industry much earlier than they cared to admit it to the public. Similarly, it might take decades for the biotechnology industry to realise the potential dangers of GM food.

The submission then went onto describe research conducted by Dr Arpad Pusztai in respect to tubers from GM-potato lines expressing the lectin gene of the snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis). He stated that chemical analyses of two GM and parent-line potatoes indicated that the contents of some or all of the constituents of major nutritional importance in GM-potatoes were significantly different from those of the parent lines. The composition of the two GM lines were also significantly different. Thus, one of the GM lines had significantly less protein than the parent line or the second GM potato line, Furthermore, the contents of starch, glucose and antinutrients of the GM- and appropriate parent lines, such as the tuber lectin, trypsin inhibitors and chymotrypsin inhibitors were also significantly different. The conclusion stated was that GNA-GM- potato lines investigated by us were not substantially equivalent to the appropriate parent tubers or to each other.

Four major feeding trials were then described. The data from these trials was stated to support the suggestion that the consumption by rats of transgenic potatoes expressing GNA has significant effects on organ development, body metabolism and immune function that is fully in line with the significant compositional differences between transgenic and corresponding parent lines of potatoes. In his opinion, the results also suggest that a major part of these differences was not caused by the expression of the GNA gene in the transgenic potato lines but that these could have been due to the presence of one or more of the other gene(s) in the vector used in the gene transfer or to the possibility of disturbances in the functioning of potatoes' own genes caused by the random incorporation of the vector in the potato genome (positioning effect).

Dr Stanley Ewen further stated that despite all manner of attack, the peer reviewed published histological observations from a follow up study reveal a clear growth factor effect visualised as microscopic lengthening of the proliferative compartment of the lining of stomach and intestines of the rats. This effect may not be permanently harmful and is probably reversible after a few days of GM withdrawal but increased chronic inflammatory cells were also evident consistent with involvement of the immune system. Proliferative effects also been previously recorded following GM food ingestion, specifically the proliferation of stomach lining following ingestion of ‘Flavr Savr’ tomatoes and proliferation of small intestinal lining following ingestion of transgenic potatoes by mice.

It was contended, therefore, that the fact that three separate studies, carried out in three different laboratories, with three different GM crops expressing different gene products but using the same genetic engineering method, raised the possibility that such a gut mitogenic effect may possibly be a general consequence of exposing the gastrointestinal tract of mammals to GM food. Although it is not clear at present whether there are any pathological consequences of this gut stimulating effect of GM foodstuffs, it should at least compel the regulatory authorities to demand to carry out follow up studies as part of a routine safety testing of present or novel GM foodstuffs.

Further comment

It should be noted that these studied have been severely criticized by the scientific community. The Lancet, the journal the original study was published in, also added a disclaimer stating that they did not agree with the conclusions of the study but had placed it in the journal in order to stimulate discussion on this topic. The last statement is, however, valid. More research should be done in this respect.

SOCIAL, CULTURAL & ETHICAL ISSUES

Submission

Treaty of Waitangi

Simon Reeves, for the Friends of the Earth, submitted that the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 (the Treaty) is the document or "solemn compact" by which the present New Zealand administration as presently constituted purports to exercise either sovereignty or day-to-day "governorship" or kawanatanga. It is his opinion that, unlike any other jurisdiction on Earth, this country's response to genetic modification must and can only be within the parameters of the Treaty. They further submitted that because recommendation of the Commission would require statutory approval for its implementation the absence of effective parliamentary representation of Maori as the other Treaty partner must be of concern to which regard ought to be had.

The submission then went into a detailed discussion of case law in respect to the interpretation of the Treaty. For example, this submission outlined the ‘principles’ embodied in the Treaty, such as partnership and active protection, as discussed in the New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General. Treaty obligation sections in the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 were also outlined. It was then argued that the Treaty may demand more from the Crown than a mere directive to ‘take into account’ as is found in the RMA. The emphasis of Treaty dialogue should be on joint policy-making rather than on mere consultation. Furthermore, the principle of active protection may require a definitive "no" to a "development" which might adversely effect or destroy a taonga. In other words the ability to veto an application may be required.

Reductionism in science

Denys Trussell mounted an argument that the language used by scientists in general and molecular biologists in particular was a symptom of conceptual mistakes made in GM research. He submitted that Western societies have become accustomed to using words and phrases in regard to nature that lead to two conceptual mistakes. The first is the error of seeing living things as machines; the second is the confusing of our metaphors, analyses, models and descriptions of nature with the real thing. For example, the statement that the cell is the unit of life. This witness argues that this is an essentially mechanical and component-based concept that truly does not describe reality.

The semantic and epistemological problems outlined in this submission were stated to have practical outcomes in the practice of GM and in the formulation of law in regard to such activities. In the opinion of this witness such law and regulation has tended in practice to favour the perceptual bias of mechanist thinking. A dramatic example of this is the right to patent living material or organisms. In support of this contention he argued that the case of Diamond v Chakrabarty placed living material and living entities in the category of "human-made inventions" in order to claim the property right conferred by a patent. In his opinion, this case has established the morally obnoxious principle that life is a commodity. He then recommended that the Commission consider the mechanistic basis of this decision and subject it to a thorough re-appraisal.

This witness then went onto state that New Zealanders are now being subjected to a barrage of claims arising from ‘habitual’ thinking in the matter of GM technology. In his opinion, such claims arise generally from the underlying cultural ‘habit’ of assuming biological determinism. He then outlined some ‘corrupt’ claims that are in his opinion routinely made within the social discourse about this technology. This is a summary of what was stated:

That the human genome project will reveal genes that ‘code for’ a wide variety of human mental and physical disorders;

That the risks any employee may pose to any employer in terms of general reliability, health and absenteeism can be estimated by genetic testing of the employee;

That those who are successful in becoming rich and powerful are successful because their genetic make-up gives them the qualities to become rich and powerful;

That criminality is implanted in individuals by their genes;

That those who are social failures or are not rich and powerful are in their lowly state because they lacked the genes that would have been conducive to their social success;

That organisms are ‘inefficient’ and that their ‘efficiency’ can be improved in regard to the human use of them by modifying them;

That regulation of genetic research and development is vexatious, cripples medical research and stands in the way of human welfare, and that to question such research or to delay it in any way will cause an increase in the incidence of genetically based diseases.

He then went on to state that at the moment research institutions are increasingly dependent on private funding. Scientists, if they want salaries and careers are having to engage in research projects that have intimate links with the interests and prerogatives of biotechnology companies. They have to engage in research that will quickly yield profitable results in the form of applications to medicine and agriculture. He then argued that this cash imperative lessens the rigor of the science in that research must be done quickly and tested poorly. He then noted that the development of more intellectual freedom to speak about the dangers of any genetic research programmes may be achievable by abandoning the competitive model of tertiary education. It was therefore submitted that the Commission make recommendations in respect to a review of the education system that lead to more open, less development-driven practice in the biological sciences.

Further comment

Denys Trusell presented an interesting philosophical discussion in respect to GM technology. There will, however, be many who will disagree with the statements made in this witness brief. Some clarification is needed in respect to some of the claims that this witness has stated have been made in respect to GM technology. First, it is not claimed that genes that ‘code for’ a particular disease will be found. Rather, what will be ‘found’ are genes, or complexes of genes, that differ from the norm, such as through a mutation, so that the proteins that they code for act in an aberrant way that contributes to the symptoms of a disease. The next four statements have never been made as stating absolute truths. Furthermore, the meanings of the terms inefficient/efficient are not sufficiently defined in the next statement. Organisms are not modified simply because they are considered ‘inefficient’. A need is seen, and a particular organisms is adapted to fit that need.

Lastly, regulation of GM technology per se is not seen as vexatious or detrimental. Submissions presented to date have, in fact, acknowledged and supported the need for the regulation of GM technology. The objections are directed at overly prescriptive regulations with which stakeholders from all view points have expressed dissatisfaction. Furthermore, it is not contended that delays caused by questioning GM technology will lead to the increase of genetic diseases. It may lead to delays in the development of treatments for genetic diseases. No-one, however, is calling for the promotion of GM technology in medicine without due regard for safety.

Our Royal Commission homepage