 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - submissionsWeek 5 of the Royal Commission (20 — 24 Nov)OVERVIEWThis week submissions were heard from the New Zealand Dairy Board (NZDB), the New Zealand Dairy Co-operative (NZDC), the New Zealand Gaming Industry Board (NZGIB), Meat New Zealand (MNZ), The Meat Industry Association (MIA), Agcarm, Federated Farmers, the New Zealand Wool Board (NZWB) and the New Zealand Veterinarians Association (NZVA). Due to the nature of these bodies the submissions were largely on economic issues and regulation. Despite predictions that the Commission will get harder on cross examination this has not occurred. Cross-examiners are still given a wide leeway in respect to the questions they ask. The only direction from the Commission has been that cross examination should be in the form of a question and not involve simple statements. Witnesses need to be ready, therefore, for vague and sometimes incomprehensible questions. It should also be borne in mind that the Commission is not based on an adversarial format as are Court proceedings. Witnesses are entitled to ask questions of their examiner in order to ascertain the meaning of the questions asked. Furthermore, witnesses are still simply resubmitting their written submissions in oral form. This is becoming less as less effective as the Commission proceeds. It is becoming imperative that witnesses choose points from their written submissions that they believe to be important and expand on these, rather than simply repeating their submission verbatim. Submissions that highlight solutions are being welcomed by the Commission. STRATEGIC OPTIONSThe general approach of the submissions heard this week can be summed up in the phrase ‘a bob both ways’. With the exception of the NZVA, all called for a ‘GM free’ stance in respect to the food chain due concerns about the technology in their respective markets. However, they also asked for the opportunity to use the technology if consumer views change. They requested, therefore, that the research capability of New Zealand be maintained. RISKS & BENEFITSThe NZVA gave a detailed outline of the use of GM technology in respect to animal medicine. They highlighted the fact that GM associated vaccines were safer, more effective and had less side effects than their ‘conventional’ counterparts. It was submitted that GM technology was already a valuable component of both human and veterinary medicines and that the pressure to use the most effective and safe products will intensify. In their opinion, any restriction in access to these medicines would place a heavy burden on those who attempt to prevent, diagnose and treat disease and would severely diminish the quality of the service provided. The issue of zeno-transplantation was also raised. The NZVA emphasised that this was not an issue in respect to GM technology per se. However, GM technology may make this type of transplantation more feasible, it was an important issue to raise. Specifically, the NZVA noted that pigs are being modified so that they express human regulatory proteins on their cell surfaces that limit the activation of human complement in order to help prevent the rejection of transplanted organs. Complement, however, is an important anti-viral immune defence component. They then noted that complement regulatory proteins are also likely to find their way into the membranes of enveloped viruses. As they then display complement on their surface they may be able to evade the human immune response. Although viruses are generally removed before transplantation there is one group of envelope viruses, the porcine endogenous retroviruses, that cannot be removed . This is because multiple copies of the viral genome are present in porcine cells. They present, therefore, a potential problem. The MIA observed that there are problems that are unique to New Zealand. The examples of facial eczema, soils lacking in selenium and the large dependence of the sheep industry on lamb were given. New Zealand cannot, therefore, rely on the research efforts of other countries. Dr Kathryn Stowell also highlighted this in the submission from the Institute of Molecular Biosciences (Massey University) in respect to Malignant Hyperthermia. The submission from Federated Farmers gave good first hand evidence of the benefits of GM and the possibility of co-existence of GM technology with organic farming systems. Peter Corish, an Australian cotton farmer, gave a specific example of the environmental benefit of planting pest resistant cotton. He stated that planting this cotton has dramatically reduced exposure to pesticide for himself, his family, and the environment. Thomas Lambie, an organic farmer, considered that the challenges of coexistence of organic production with GM production are similar to those already encountered with the coexistence of conventional and organic systems. This is the first time such personal evidence has been submitted and it is very effective. The New Zealand Herald, in a report on the Commission, highlighted both these points in their article. |