 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - submissionsThe Quaker Spiritual Ecology Group of The Religious Society of Friends - Aotearoa/New Zealand Te Haahi Tuuhauwiri
STRATEGIC ISSUES & OPTIONSSubmission The Quaker Spiritual Ecology Group (QSEG) submitted that New Zealand should not proceed with growing genetically modified (GM) crops. In their opinion GM crop production cannot be adequately controlled or predicted and therefore bio-diversity is compromised. New Zealand's best option, therefore, is to engage in organic production organic foods. It was submitted that demand for these products was increasing world-wide and commanding premium prices. GM crops, however, are facing falling demand. They then noted that GM crops would extinguish our organics industry.
Furthermore, New Zealand needs to act with great responsibility and caution in respect to the biomedical applications of GM technology. Biomedical GM technology should be rigorously monitored by an impartial body. This body should be independently funded, and provide information for public debate. Claims made about prospective medical benefits of GM technology need to be viewed with great caution. They then submitted that current funding for research seems to be directed at outcomes which satisfy economic goals. In the opinion of the QSEG it is the ethical, environmental and social goals that must be of primary concern.
LAW & LEGISLATIONSubmission QSEG supported a complete ban of GM food and food products. If GM food and food products are not banned then there must be legislation to require complete labelling of all GM food and products. This should include those that are derivative for example, oils, starches, sugars, additives, and processing aids. In their opinion, total labelling is essential to protect the rights of the public, and to make monitoring of public health possible.
Furthermore, the conflicting objectives of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) need to be addressed. They submitted that ANZFA has been given conflicting objectives:
It is QSEG’s opinion that the objectives of trade and commerce are not necessarily the objectives of health and safety, and indeed, the two often clash. It was recommended, therefore, that the second objective be placed with a separate authority. Such an authority should be a New Zealand body reflecting the specific health and safety concerns of the citizens of Aotearoa.
New Zealand also should refuse to allow or acknowledge patenting of GM life forms. They expressed dismay at the international rush to patent life forms and genes, and the current practice of bio-prospecting for profit. In their opinion, life has intrinsic value and claiming property rights over any life-form is just as repugnant as slavery. Furthermore, the public good is served by public ownership of genetic information. The concept of ownership and control of GM life forms was therefore rejected.
BENEFITS & RISKSSubmission QSEG expressed support for the precautionary principle in respect to GM technology. GM crops risk damaging the ecosystem of the planet affecting, therefore, both present and future generations. They then submitted that organic production is in harmony with natural ecosystems and enhances health and well-being. If GM crops were to be grown in New Zealand, no organic produce could be guaranteed free from GM pollution. In their opinion, there is no way of controlling, with certainty, the spread of seeds and pollen by insects, birds, and wind. Furthermore, insufficient research has been done in respect to issues such as viral recombination, genetic pollution, soil health, and the spread of antibiotic resistance. They then noted that should GM contamination occur any possibility of New Zealand profiting from the demand for organic produce would be permanently eliminated.
ETHICAL, CULTURAL & SOCIAL ISSUESSubmission QSEG expressed their lack of support for the prevalent pragmatic `risk/benefit' approach. They submitted that all life is sacred, and that all life forms are interdependent and interconnected. In their opinion, we evolve within our environment and that disruption to any part of the whole disrupts not only that part, but also the whole itself. A mistake could not only be disastrous for the health of our environment and ourselves but irreversible and costly. New Zealand must maintain, therefore, robust controls against violations of the biosphere, and make every effort to increase and protect biodiversity.
They also rejected the contention that GM technology will feed the world. In their opinion, this claim is misleading and manipulative. They noted that the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations has reported that there is ample food production potential to meet the needs of the world as a whole. It is poverty and the lack of fair distribution that are the real causes of hunger in the world. Ethical and equitable solutions lie with political will in the first world, not with GM food production.
They then noted that section 10 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBoRA)1990 states that: "Every person has the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person’s consent". In their opinion, the subversive introduction of GM products into our foods and environment is experimental and therefore a violation of the NZBoRA. Furthermore, the corporations which manufacture GM products are not accountable for any adverse effects. Risks are in fact being carried by consumers and the environment. It is the opinion of QSEG that such serious lack of responsibility and accountability is totally unacceptable.
In their opinion, control of scientific discovery seems to be in the hands of those with vested interests and therefore lacks impartiality. This encourages a very narrow focus in respect to research. Such a focus ignores the bigger picture and the wider public good. New Zealand must be aware, therefore, of the power of manipulative publicity. Public interest and biosphere security must take absolute priority. |