2.
Submitter profiles
section |
appendix 2
Outcomes of Consultation: Submissions
from Interested Persons
Section contents
2.
Submitter profiles
24
Submitter type
25
Attitude towards genetic modification
26
Stance of Interested Persons on differing uses of genetic
modification
26
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
Section 2: Submitter Pro files
| H1 | p25
2. Submitter profiles
A submitter profile was obtained by coding submitters according to the areas in
which they were primarily engaged and the stances they took on various issues.
This information identified the main sectoral focus (usually the production sector
in which each submitter was principally engaged) and the submitter type (essentially
the type of organisation where the submitter worked)
Main sector focus
The main sector focus of each submitter was coded according to the main activity
or business focus of their organisation. Over 60 codes were identified. These codes
covered the main production sectors in agriculture, forestry, fishing and
manufacturing. Codes for submitters principally involved in industries focusing on
biotechnology and research were also recorded, as well as environmental, religious,
ethical, cultural and Maori groupings. For each broad sector a range of activities
was identified. For example, in the health sector separate codes were identified for
health advocacy, health research and health service providers.
Biotechnology was the main sector focus for the largest group of submitters. The
prime sector focus for the major groups was:
*
biotechnology (15 submitters)
*
environmental advocacy (nine submitters)
*
research sector other (ie, not health or social and economic) (six submitters)
*
health research (five submitters)
*
governance, including local government (five submitters).
Submitter type
Submitters were also coded according to the type or organisation they represented.
The categories included Crown Research Institutes, private research companies,
universities, consumer networks and associations, industry networks and
associations, religious networks and associations, organic networks and associations,
government departments, Maori networks and associations, Runanga and trust
boards, national Maori organisations, state-owned enterprises and private
companies.
The biggest grouping of submitters came from industry networks and associations.
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Section 2: Submitter Profiles
p26 |
A breakdown of the major grouping was:
*
industry networks and associations (26 submitters)
*
other advocacy networks (18 submitters)
*
private companies (eight submitters)
*
organic networks and association (six submitters)
*
Crown Research Institutes (five submitters).
Attitude towards genetic modification
An assessment was made of each submitter's overall attitude towards genetic
modification based on comments throughout each submitter's full submission.
The majority of submitters with Interested Person status were assessed as being in
support of the use of genetic modification technology. Opinion was distributed as
follows:
*
`strongly for': 49 submitters
*
`tends to be for': 13 submitters
*
`neither for nor against': 10 submitters
*
`tends to be against': 12 submitters
*
`strongly against': 20 submitters
*
missing/no position: one submitter.
This information is presented in Figure 1.
Stance of Interested Persons on differing uses of
genetic modification
An assessment was also made from each submitter's full submission as to the
circumstances where each submitter "approved" or "disapproved" of the use of
genetic modification techniques. Eight broad categories of "support" and seven of
"opposition" were recorded.
Uses of genetic modification on which submitters were most likely to feel positive
were contained laboratory research and specified medical issues. Submitters were
most concerned about uses that involved release of viable organisms into the
environment, food production or the transfer of genetic material between "unlike"
species (in particular, the transfer of human genetic material into plants or
animals).
Submitters were likely to feel positive about using genetic modification if it was
used for:
*
contained laboratory research (29 submitters)
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
Section 2: Submitter Pro files
| H1 | p27
*
specified medical uses (19 submitters)
*
non-specified medical uses (15 submitters)
*
environmental protection (16 submitters)
*
increased food production (nine submitters)
*
increased food quality (eight submitters)
*
non-viable genetically modified material only (one submitter)
*
non-heritable genetic modification (one submitter).
Submitters were most concerned about the use of genetic modification techniques
if it:
*
involved transfer of genetic material between "unlike" species (12 submitters)
*
involved the transfer of human genetic material into plants or animals (11
submitters)
*
involved the production of genetically modified animals for "bio-factories"
(four submitters)
*
involved the release of viable organisms in the environment (21 submitters)
*
was for food production (15 submitters)
*
involved introducing inheritable genetic changes in humans (two submitters)
*
privatised genetic material (12 submitters).
Fig 1
Overall stance of Interested Persons on genetic
modification