 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification - submissionsWEEK NINE OF THE ROYAL COMMISSIONOVERVIEWThis week the Commission received submissions from the Pesticide Action Network of New Zealand (PANNZ), Safe Food Campaign (SFC), GE Free (RAGE) New Zealand (GE Free NZ), Nelson GE Free Awareness Group (GE Free Nelson) the National Nutritional Foods Association of New Zealand (NNFA), the Green Party and the National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand Inc (NBA), the Pacific Institute of Resource Management (PIRM), and the Royal Forest & Bird Society (RFBS). The main emphasis of these submissions was a call for a moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs); this includes field trials. GE Free Nelson further called for a binding referendum to cover four distinct areas: environment, food, medicine, and human cloning. RISKS & BENEFITSThe most notable part of these submissions was a heavy emphasis on the risks associated with genetic modification (GM) technology. The SFC emphatically stated that GM technology defies traditional risk estimates, as both the probability of occurrence of harm and the level of possible harm are unknown. The RFBPS’s submission concentrated on possible effects on New Zealand’s unique environment. In their opinion the benefits of GM technology, especially in respect to pest control, were being oversold. They called for comparative research to be conducted in respect to GM and conventional control methods. Dr. Ann Clark, a witness for the Green Party, noted problems in respect to ‘disciplinary isolation’. She argued that while conventional plant breeders work closely with applied scientists and farmers to improve crops, molecular geneticists have worked independently leading them to overlook possible problems. Dr Clark then submitted that, in respect to crops, GM technology has been released prematurely. This concern was echoed by Dr Cliff Mason a witness for PIRM. He contended that important features in the regulation of gene function are only in the earliest stages of exploration. In his opinion, to introduce GMOs into the environment in such a profound state of ignorance is foolish, especially when there is no compelling reason to take such risks. In their submission GE Free Nelson made the error of equating a statistical correlation with cause and effect. Increased incidences of reported food poisoning and allergic reactions in the United States were equated with an increased consumption of GM food products, especially GM soy. However, it is equally valid to state that the increase is due to a greater volume of people eating soy, both conventional and GM, due to its purported health benefits. The difficulty with statistical correlation is that anything can be linked. For example, a report in Scientific America noted that there was an eerily close correlation between the birth rate of storks and the birth rate of humans in a particular area. They then pointed out, however, that this does not mean that babies come from storks. LAW & LEGISLATIONThe SFC submitted that the imposition of insurance for the environmental threats posed by GM technology is impractical. (See also week ten summary in respect to Friends of the Earth) ANZFA, and its regulation procedures, came under heavy attack. Nelson GE Free called for the New Zealand government to withdraw from ANZFA policies and instigate their own regulations. The NNFA went further and accused ANZFA of using falsified or fabricated data to establish food standards. The example given was the controversy surrounding allergic reactions to royal bee jelly. All the submissions expressed concern in respect to the perceived lack of independence and transparency of regulatory agencies. PIRM lamented the difficulties it has had obtaining information from ERMA. The RFBPS called fro the introduction of a Biosecurity Ministry, free from industry influence, to maintain strict procedures in respect to GMOs and their importation. ECONOMIC ISSUESGE Free Nelson contented that the introduction of GM technology and GMOs into New Zealand would be damaging to the ‘100% Pure’ marketing image. It was then stated that the future success of the New Zealand tourism industry will depend on New Zealand’s decision to declare itself GM Free so that we can continue to offer to our visitors the experience of a clean, green and 100% pure natural environment, the prime reason why they visit us. |