Major conclusion:preserving opportunities
13.
chapter |
13.
Major conclusion:
preserving opportunities
Introduction
1.
New Zealand is fortunate to be in a situation where we can benefit from a
variety of technologies. Some of the benefits derive from the selective use of
genetic modification, others from existing and developing uses that do not
depend on genetic modification. The Commission considers it would be unwise
to pin ourselves irretrievably to any one approach at this time as this would limit
our future options.
2.
Genetic modification technology offers many advantages, but the field is
far from fully researched and continues to develop rapidly. Global trends and
future consumer preferences cannot be predicted with any confidence. It would
be premature to commit all our resources to the new technology at this time.
Our conclusion
3.
There are aspects of genetic modification we consider positive and useful,
and hence to have an important place in New Zealand's future in certain defined
situations. We also want to maintain non-genetic modification options as
effective choices. We favour a strategy of preserving opportunities and proceeding
selectively with appropriate care.
4.
The Commission considers that genetic modification technology should
be used only in ways that are carefully managed. All opportunities to use the new
technology should be seen in terms of the net contribution they will make to New
Zealand. This would allow controlled use of genetic modification, the degree of
control varying with the situation.
5.
It is our view that an appropriate regulatory and institutional framework for
the controlled use of genetic modification is already provided by the Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO). Nevertheless throughout the
Report we have made recommendations for additional controls to make the
existing system more robust. These are listed in the appropriate chapter, and
numbered according to the chapter in which they were developed.
Chapter 13: Major Conclusion
| H1 | p331
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report
p332 |
Chapter 13: Major conclusion
Report | Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Positions we did not choose
6.
In reaching this conclusion, the Commission considered all positions,
including those at each end of the spectrum.
A New Zealand free of all genetically modified material
7.
At one extreme New Zealand could become free of all genetically modified
material, with no genetically modified products either in use or able to be
brought into the country. We regard this option as impractical in light of all the
evidence. Current medical uses would have to cease, including the use of
genetically modified insulin by diabetics. The economy would contract as skilled
scientists emigrated and academic and industry standards ceased to be
internationally competitive. We would lose the opportunity to export the
intellectual property gained through research employing genetic modification.
Nor would our national border controls guarantee that no genetically modified
material entered the country. Audit trail procedures and testing, which involve
the use of genetic modification technology, would have to be stepped up for all
imported foods and seeds, and this would ultimately raise the prices to consumers.
8.
We heard of increasing consumer resistance to genetic modification
technology in Europe. There was also evidence that the "clean green New
Zealand" image and New Zealand's "natural" environment are well recognised
among consumers of our exports. We consider that a "clean green New Zealand"
is an important image to maintain. However, although it is possible world
consumer resistance may remain high, there could also be a shift towards
increased tolerance of new forms of genetically modified food.
9.
We consider there are advantages to be had from using genetic modification
technology selectively, in a way that does not threaten New Zealand's "clean
green" image. This conforms with our preserving opportunities strategy.
10. Some submitters called for New Zealand to become 100% organic. In our
opinion this subset of a "genetic modification free New Zealand" is not
economically viable. Organic foods may indeed attract a premium. However,
world markets are uncertain, and it is unlikely that organic exports would attract
a sufficient premium in the near or medium future to offset to any degree the
contractionary effect of not allowing any genetic modification in the country.
11. Premiums gained for organic exports may also diminish in the long run as
they attract other countries into producing and exporting organics, increasing
supply and lowering price. We note that the organic sectors of many of the
economies around the world that allow genetic modification are expanding.
Chapter 13: Major Conclusion
| H1 | p333
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report
12. Further evidence suggested the range of organic foods that can be
successfully exported from New Zealand in any volume is relatively narrow
because of the shorter shelf life and increased perishability of fresh organic food.
In addition, the substantial distances between New Zealand and its major export
markets make it difficult to deliver products in premium condition.
13. Nevertheless we consider the organic economy important to New Zealand's
future and regard it a key component of a preserving opportunities strategy.
Unrestricted use of genetic modification
14. At the opposite end of the spectrum, we also reject the option that
New Zealand allow completely unrestricted use of genetic modification
technology. Unregulated use would involve taking unacceptable risks with
human and environmental health and with our cultural heritage. It would also
compromise consumer choice and our export market options. In the event, no
submitters suggested such an approach to us.
15. In short, either of the extreme options would significantly restrict
New Zealand's future choices and has the potential to impose considerable costs.
All sectors of our economy should remain viable and be able to expand to their
full potential within the constraints of a competitive environment.
Preserving opportunities in research, food
and medicine
Research
16. The Commission considers that a strong research base is essential if New Zealand
is to be able to pursue all possible opportunities. The acquisition and application of new
knowledge, to develop new technologies and new processes, is basic to the
establishment of a knowledge economy. A skilled research workforce contributes to
an internationally recognised education system and the growth of the economy in
diverse areas. Without a cutting-edge research capability, New Zealand's ability to
develop biosecurity systems or environmental impact analyses would be limited.
17. The Commission supports the continuation of genetic modification
research within the regulatory framework set out in chapter 6 (Research), as a part
of New Zealand's overall research programme.
Food
18. New Zealand imports a great variety of processed foods, many of which
contain genetically modified components. It is not realistic, and would compromise
p334 |
Chapter 13: Major conclusion
Report | Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
freedom of consumer choice, for such foods to be banned. In the future there will
be more genetically modified foods available, with the potential to bring
nutritional, health and price benefits to consumers. At the same time the content
and safety of such foods must be rigorously assessed, and each product adequately
labelled to ensure the well-being of consumers, and informed choice.
Medicine
19. Genetic modification in medicine is already proving of benefit in terms of the
production of drugs such as insulin, and in the diagnosis of disease or disability.
20. To regulate the use of genetically modified medicines, we recommend the
enhancement of our drug approval agency, Medsafe. This will enable it to better
conduct the risk assessment needed to protect our environment. For drugs and
vaccines containing live genetically modified organisms, this will avoid the
necessity for Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) evaluation as
well, and safely preserve opportunities for appropriate use.
21. Gene therapy is on the horizon with the first treatments being given to
patients in New Zealand as part of international medical trials. For afflicted
families this therapy promises hope and abatement of guilt; for our community
it raises deep anxiety about eugenics, disability and discrimination. Toi te
Taiao : the Bioethics Council will develop guidelines to help patients, health
professionals and regulatory agencies manage these challenges posed by the
rapidly expanding understanding of the genome.
Preserving opportunities in crops and other
field uses
22. The Commission concluded that genetic modification has a role in the
development of food crops, forest trees, flowers and garden plants, subject to a
range of controls designed to allow New Zealand to develop a mixed strategy of
production systems. We also see that benefits might be derived from the use of
genetic modification in other field uses such as pest control, bioremediation and
bioreactors. However, we have adopted a careful approach, which requires each
application for a genetically modified crop or field use to be treated on a case-by-
case basis. This approach imposes conditions to mitigate potential risks. A range
of mitigation measures has been proposed in order to reduce the risk of cross-
contamination of other production systems, including the use of physical barriers
and separation distances, and the adoption of sterilising technology.
23. Four broad categories of agricultural production were presented to the
Commission: genetically modified crops, conventional farming, Integrated Pest
Chapter 13: Major Conclusion
| H1 | p335
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report
Management (IPM) and organics. To preserve and indeed enhance our opportunities
in agriculture, all these forms of production should continue to be viable.
24. The four categories are not mutually exclusive, but each has a particular
place. The genetic modification of crops provides opportunities to develop new
products in new markets and improve commodity crops. Conventional farming
and horticulture remain major sectors of New Zealand's economy, but producers
are seeking to reduce costs, improve productivity and use more sustainable
techniques. IPM aims to reduce the level of chemical usage in agriculture and
promote ecologically sustainable methods. Organic farming likewise focuses on
a sustainable production process, to meet a growing market demand for
organically grown products.
25. As noted in chapter 5 (Economic and strategic issues), all forms of agriculture
are evolving. The different methods should be seen not in opposition to each
other, but rather as contributing in different ways to the same overall outcome.
26. That outcome is the achievement of the three sets of goals outlined in
chapters 3, 4 and 5: cultural, ethical and spiritual; environmental and health;
economic and strategic. The preserving opportunities strategy makes this
possible by supporting viability and strength in the different types of farming.
This concept is expressed in the diagram below.
p336 |
Chapter 13: Major conclusion
Report | Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Is compatibility possible?
27. A recommendation to preserve opportunities is only as good as the means
put in place to give it effect. In this next section, therefore, the Commission
addresses both the complexity and the diversity of the various strategies available
to provide for compatibility between genetic modification and non-genetic
modification land uses. We do not see that any one strategy, or combination of
strategies, will fit every situation. Rather, implementation of our major conclusion
requires a selection of strategies that ensures the release of any particular crop
does not threaten the overarching goal of preserving opportunities.
29. To accomplish this, an essential change is needed to HSNO. Currently
HSNO does not provide for any intermediate step between field testing (which
under the Act is regarded as being in containment), and open release. Field testing
means a crop is still in the process of being assessed, perhaps for environmental
safety, and ERMA can require containment provisions such as fences, plastic sheet
coverings or netting. "Open release" means that a new crop may be used freely
without restriction: HSNO section 38 prescribes that any such release must be
"without controls".
30. This latter requirement supports an "all or nothing" approach: genetically
modified crops may be anywhere or nowhere. If the Commission's major strategy
of preserving opportunities is to be effective, there needs to be a greater range of
options.
31. We have therefore recommended a new category of "conditional release",
the conditions (which could include monitoring) being those necessary to
achieve crop compatibility and to protect environmental and cultural values.
Recommendation 6.8 from chapter 6 (Research), also set out below, is designed to
achieve such a legislative change.
32. With that new general provision in place, some of the subsequent
recommendations below set out specific strategies that may constitute the
conditions attached to a release. We do not suggest these strategies are an
exhaustive list. Others may be available, now or in the future, to preserve
opportunities.
33. Nor do we suggest that every release must be with conditions. Section 38
remains in place, so that a genetically modified crop posing no threat to
coexistence may proceed to open release. Others released initially with conditions
may have those conditions modified or removed in the light of changing
circumstances. The timely monitoring of the effects of released crops will
increase the ability to make changes, withdraw approval or repair any damage
quickly.
Chapter 13: Major Conclusion
| H1 | p337
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report
34. Recommendations 7.1, 7.3 and 7.7 have been discussed in chapter 7 and are
repeated here to provide an overview of the total strategy for compatibility
between genetically modified and non-genetically modified crops.
35. Recommendation 13.1, however, introduces a new element. HSNO section
6(e) directs that "economic and related benefits" are to be taken into account
before any "new organism" is used, in this case a genetically modified crop. Much
of the evidence we heard set out the advantage to New Zealand's overall economic
well-being of preserving the marketing advantages of our "clean green" image, as
well as being open to benefits to be derived from selective use of genetic
modification technology.
36. As a case study we discussed at length the kiwifruit industry, which
dominates land use in the Bay of Plenty. ZESPRI International [IP46], in its
submissions on behalf of the kiwifruit industry, emphasised the value of genetic
modification-free kiwifruit for its marketing strategy in Europe. This strategy
would be put at risk should a genetically modified version of kiwifruit be
developed and grown in the same area and cross-pollinate with the established
non-genetically modified variety.
37. It is to prevent such a consequence that the Commission puts forward
Recommendation 13.1, whereby one of the strategies available under "conditional
release" would be the exclusion of a genetically modified crop from a district
where its presence would be a threat to an established industry. Some of the
evidence we heard suggested that this condition would also be of value to the pip
fruit and wine industries.
38. The concept of regional genetic modification-free zones was raised with
the Commission. Such a proposal might be achievable under the Resource
Management Act 1991. We discussed this idea extensively but saw difficulty in its
implementation. First, it would require widespread acceptance in a given region
before it could be put in place without impinging unduly on the rights of those
who wished to avail themselves of selected genetic modification technologies.
Second, and for the same reasons that we found an "all or nothing" approach to be
too inflexible, a blanket ban on applications of genetic modification would be a
blunt instrument when a genetically modified form of Crop A might be quite
compatible with a non-genetically modified form of Crop B.
39. The Commission also discussed a more selective concept relating to the
Resource Management Act provisions for different land uses. Genetically
modified and non-genetically modified crops might be permitted or prohibited
on a crop-by-crop and region-by-region basis. This would require a genetically
modified crop to be designated as a different use from a non-genetically modified
p338 |
Chapter 13: Major conclusion
Report | Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
crop of the same species. It may also be that over a period of time an aggregation
of genetic modification or non-genetic modification uses became characteristic
of particular regions and that identifiable regional differences emerged. These
distinctions in land use might be written into regional or district plans, just as
industrial use is separated from residential use. At the same time, the Commission
acknowledges there are considerable practical difficulties with such proposals,
which have the potential for dividing communities. Because of these difficulties
the Commission is unable to reach a decision but notes the possibilities.
40. We have preferred the approach set out under recommendation 13.1 as a
means of ensuring the preservation of established genetic modification-free
industries such as kiwifruit. In a situation where we seek to provide for a diversity
of crops, it is inevitable that there will be some restrictions on both genetic
modification and non-genetic modification uses in the cause of preserving
opportunities.
41. In recommendation 13.2 we consider that the Minister for the Environment
should exercise the call-in powers laid down in HSNO before the first release of
any genetically modified crop. We make this recommendation because the first
release would be very much a watershed decision. At that point we would no
longer be a genetic modification-free nation in terms of crops. Because of the
significance attached to this event by many, the Commission recommends that a
final overview be exercised at ministerial level.
42. Recommendation 6.13 underlines the need for adequate research funding
for each of the agricultural options exercised under a preserving opportunities
strategy. Research is essential for each form of agriculture to develop in a robust
and responsible manner. Under-funding in any area would disadvantage that
sector of our overall national strategy. The use of the word "adequate" does not
suggest that the research dollar should be divided into four equal amounts. Many
of the areas overlap, and some forms of research are more costly than others. But
a disproportionate allocation to one area, so that others falter through lack of
support, would undermine the strategy to preserve opportunities.
Recommendations
Recommendation 6.8 (Conditional Release)
that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 be
amended to provide for a further level of approval called
conditional release.
Chapter 13: Major Conclusion
| H1 | p339
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report
Recommendation 13.1 (Benefit assessment)
that the methodology for implementing section 6(e) of the
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 be made
more specific to:
* include an assessment of the economic impact the release
of any genetically modified crop or organism would have on
the proposed national strategy of preserving opportunities
in genetically modified and unmodified agricultural systems
* allow for specified categories of genetically modified crops
to be excluded from districts where their presence would be
a significant threat to an established non-genetically
modified crop use.
Recommendation 13.2 (First release)
that before the controlled or open release of the first
genetically modified crop, the Minister exercise the call-in
powers available under section 68 of the Hazardous Substances
and New Organisms Act 1996 in order to assess the likely
overall economic and environmental impact on the preserving
opportunities strategy.
Recommendation 7.7 (Separation distances)
that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry develop an
industry code of practice to ensure effective separation
distances between genetically modified and unmodified crops
(including those grown for seed production), such a code:
*
to be established on a crop-by-crop basis
*
to take into account
­ existing separation distances for seed certification in
New Zealand
­ developments in international certification standards
for organic farming
­ emerging strategies for coexistence between
genetically modified and unmodified crops in other
countries
* to identify how the costs of establishment and maintenance
of buffer zones are to be borne.
p340 |
Chapter 13: Major conclusion
Report | Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Recommendation 13.3 (Communication Networks)
that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry develop
formalised local networks to encourage constructive dialogue
and communication between farmers using different
production methods, and to provide for mediation where
necessary.
Recommendation 13.4 (Sterility Technology)
that sterility technologies be one tool in the strategy to
preserve opportunities, especially in the case of those
genetically modified crops most likely to cross-pollinate with
non-genetically modified crops in the New Zealand context
(eg, brassicas, ryegrass, ornamentals).
Recommendation 7.1 (Bt Strategy)
that prior to the release of any Bt-modified crops, the
appropriate agencies develop a strategy for the use of the Bt
toxin in sprays and genetically modified plants, taking into
account:
* the concept of refugia
* limitations on total planted area
* home gardener use.
Recommendation 7.3 (Bees)
that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry develop a
strategy to allow for the continued production of genetic
modification-free honey and other bee products, and to avoid
cross-pollination by bees between genetically modified and
modification-free crops, that takes into account both
geographical factors (in terms of crop separation strategies)
and differences in crop flowering times.
Recommendation 6.13 (Research)
that public research funding be allocated to ensure organic
and other sustainable agricultural systems are adequately
supported.