 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - submissionsOrganic Product Exporters Group IncSTRATEGIC ISSUES & OPTIONS — SECTION A(1)Submission The Organic Product Exporters Group Inc (OPEG) stated that a full and final ban on the commercial production if GMOs was too draconian. They did, however, submit that the Commission should recommend a moratorium and that this time should be spent clarifying the risks and benefits inherent in the new technology. They also noted that the suggestion of integration of GM technology into organic production systems was dangerous. To even suggest this type of integration could result in a consumer backlash against New Zealand products. In their opinion it would be catastrophic if New Zealand decided to become a pioneer of GM organics. LAW & LEGISLATION — SECTIONS A(2), B(d), B(e), B(n)Submission OPEG recommended to the Commission that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 be extended to include an analysis of the economic and social risks and benefits of an application. Furthermore, a greater level of resources needs to be targeted towards the monitoring, analysis and reporting of international trends and issues by independent bodies. In OPEG’s opinion this would lead to more informed decisions being made in respect to these issues. They then noted that liability issues may arise in respect to loss of organic certification and reputation within the organic sector on the introduction of commercial GMOs. Court action may be pursued to recover losses if this was to occur. However, the prohibitive cost of legal action combined with the difficulty in ascertaining the source of ‘contamination’ may raise significant barriers to this type of action. ECONOMIC ISSUES — SECTIONS B(h), B(i), B(j), B(k)Submission OPEG submitted that there was a trade shift away from countries that currently purse the commercial use of GMOs to those that are not. The main markets are stating that GM food, or even animal products produced where GM feeds are used, are not acceptable. They also noted that there was only a modest amount of research investigating the potential negative impacts on other section. It was also noted, however, that views, preferences, practices and intentions are divergent in many respects. Central to the decision making processes of each are commonly held consequences that are very influential on their decisions to use gene technology, purchase GM food or organic methods. Reducing the perceived risks and increasing the possibility of desirable consequences will therefore have a direct effect on improving attitudes and intentions towards using gene technology and purchasing the food. As uncertainty is a feature of the consequences of gene technology it is noted that any action or policy initiative that reduces uncertainty is likely to make gene technology more acceptable. However, many of the consequences of gene technology are distant prospects compared to those from the use of organic methods. Given the availability of information on the consequences of using organic methods if favourable this information would quickly encourage more widespread use of the methods. The rise in the incidence of ‘green barriers’ was also noted by OPEG. This is where a country indirectly supports domestic agriculture through the incremental increase of environmental and food safety criteria in respect to imported products. The most blatant use of a ‘green barrier’ is the EU’s refusal to allow the importation of beef from hormone treated stock despite an unfavourable WTO ruling and retaliatory sanctions imposed by the US. It was also noted that multiple food retailers are prioritising organic food products in order to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market. This is closely aligned with the avoidance of GM products by major food retailers. OPEG submitted that there was a strong association between organic systems and the GM free label. The softening of the organic sector’s approach in respect to thresholds was stated not to be a broadly held view. OPEG stated that if a softened approach to GM technology was accepted there would be a loss of access to key organic markets in the US, EU and Japan, and expulsion of Bio-Gro NZ from the international organic certification body. Further Comment In respect to the economic model it should be noted that it is based on the assumptions of a large switch away from GM applications and a 20% preference for GM free products. Other models based on different assumptions may produce differing results (see for example the witness brief of Adolf Stroombergen for the New Zealand Life Sciences Network). The survey results are also highly summarised. It should be noted that usable replies in this study were obtained from only 35% of the farmers surveyed. RISKS & BENEFITS — SECTION B(i), B(j)Submission OPEG also outlined the phenomenon of ‘food scares’ which were stated to arise quickly but take longer to dissipate. The examples given were scares in relation to margarine and irradiated foods. This is likely to effect the acceptance of GM food products. They also stated that science based public education campaigns to decrease concerns are unlikely to succeed as it assumes an unwarranted degree of efficiency in public information campaigns. Parallel campaigns in health were stated to be less successful than their proponents would have liked. |