3.
section 3.18 |
Analysis of
submissions from
Interested Persons
appendix 2
Outcomes of Consultation: Submissions
from Interested Persons
Section contents
3.
Analysis of submissions from Interested
Persons
28
3.18 Areas of public interest: economic matters
257
Introduction
257
Economic advantage from use of genetic modification
258
Business development
258
Research and innovation
259
Economic advantage from avoidance of genetic modification
260
Negative impact on "clean green" image
260
Positive impacts of "GE-free" production, especially
organics
261
Moral constraints on pursuit of economic advantage
261
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Section 3: Analysis o f Submissions from Interested Persons
| H1 | p257
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
3.18 Areas of public interest:
economic matters
Introduction
The Warrant under item (j) (iii) invited submissions on "economic matters
(including research and innovation, business development, primary production,
and exports)".
Most submitters commenting on this item were involved in the production sector.
Most were strongly in favour of using genetic modification. The principal sector
focus for the 58 submitters making substantial comment on areas of public interest
was the economic/production sector (33 submitters). A majority (31 submitters)
were assessed to be `strongly in favour' of genetic modification, with a further
seven `tending to support' the use of genetic modification.
Economic information dominated much of the material in written submissions
from all Interested Persons, with 53 submitters making substantial comment on
economic issues. Some of this information was included in response to Warrant
item (j) (main areas of public interest), but much of the economic material was
included in other areas, especially Warrant item (1) (strategic options available to
New Zealand) and also under Warrant item (i) (opportunities from the use or
avoidance of genetic modification) as described previously in the relevant sections.
Witness briefs also contained considerable economic argument that is not
discussed in this report.
Most submitters saw the `public interest' in economic matters in terms of the
economic benefits that biotechnology would bring to New Zealand's production
sector (including primary and secondary production, and research and
development). Improved performance in this sector was seen as the key source of
economic benefit for the country as a whole. Those submitters opposing the
widespread use of genetic modification technology generally raised issues of
economic benefits arising from avoidance of the technology, such benefits deriving
from fostering New Zealand's "clean green" image and organic production. They
also expressed concerns about moral constraints on the pursuit of economic
advantage.
p258 |
Section 3: Analy sis o f Submissions from Interested P ersons
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Economic advantage from use of genetic
modification
The key issues raised by submitters who saw economic benefits for New Zealand
in the use of genetic modification technology were generally grouped around two
themes:
*
benefits in terms of business development
*
opportunities from research and development.
Business development
Business development opportunities available through the use of genetic
modification technology were frequently evidenced as a source of economic
advantage to New Zealand, particularly by submitters from biotechnology
companies and organisations with affiliations to the production sector. Typical of
such comments were those of Wrightson [IP3], which listed the economic
advantages of "improved yields, increased productivity and improved product
quality" from the use of biotechnology.
Genesis Research and Development [IP11] highlighted encouraging "wealth
creation", maintaining a "competitive economy" and attracting "foreign
investment" as key reasons for choosing genetic modification technologies. This
view was shared by New Zealand Biotechnology Association [IP47], which
considered that genetic modification had the potential "to lift New Zealand's
economic performance and quality of life".
Industry representatives noted several industry-specific benefits as economic
matters of public interest. Production areas for such benefits included trees, food
and fibre. For example, New Zealand Cooperative Dairy Company [IP88] cited
"reducing the cost of milk production" and "reducing farm inputs" as potential
benefits from using genetic modification. Monsanto New Zealand [IP6] saw future
benefits in "healthier food" and "nutraceuticals in food". AgResearch [IP13] saw
opportunities for economic benefits in food production with "high value niche
opportunities in export markets". New Zealand Forest Industries Council [IP9]
noted several "economic opportunities" including the potential to "improve the
health of our forests and ... improve the management of insect and other pests", as
well as "by growing trees that require the use of less and fewer herbicides". Carter
Holt Harvey/Fletcher Challenge Forests [IP17] specifically mentioned the
potential benefits of improvement in wood yield and improvement in wood
quality.
Section 3: Analysis o f Submissions from Interested Persons
| H1 | p259
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
New Zealand Veterinary Association [IP28] argued that without the use of
genetic modification technology to control and eradicate animal diseases New
Zealand's "chances of success" would be "severely limited". New Zealand Game
Industry Board [IP33] advanced economic net benefits through "gains from
increased parasite host resistance", "potentially lower agricultural inputs" and
"improved nutritive value of food". New Zealand Feed Manufacturers
Association/Poultry Industry Association of New Zealand/Egg Producers
Federation of New Zealand [IP35] cited general economic benefits arguing that
the "economic benefits resulting from GE technologies will be significant, with
a reduction in cost inputs". In manufacturing, Federation of Maori Authorities
[IP69] identified "wealth created by food and fibre industries" as an economic
advantage.
Research and innovation
Opportunities for New Zealand to advance its production capacity through the
use of knowledge-based technology were frequently referenced by submitters.
(See also discussion of Warrant item (i), "Opportunities from the use or avoidance
of genetic modification".)
Research and development using genetic modification was seen as a "the key
strategic option for the New Zealand dairy industry" (Cooperative Dairy Company
[IP88]). In the research sector, economic benefits were noted for New Zealand "as
a producer of pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, medical and veterinary treatments"
using genetic modification technology (New Zealand Biotechnology Association
[IP47]). Researched Medicines Industry Association of New Zealand [IP55]
emphasised how biotechnology would "boost New Zealand's knowledge-based
economy".
Submitters noted several industry-specific economic benefits, especially benefits
from innovative research using genetic modification techniques. They saw
particular advantages to be gained from the development of new and innovative
products, as well as the potential for providing new management tools. For
example, AgResearch [IP13] saw economic advantages from the development of
"novel pesticides". Carter Holt Harvey/Fletcher Challenge Forests [IP17] saw
economic benefits from the opportunity "to diversify into end products" such as
"new pharmaceuticals and liquid fuels - products currently outside the range of
forest companies". Feed Manufacturers Association/Poultry Industry Association/
Egg Producers Federation [IP35] saw "the ability to produce a consistent product
is of significant advantage to the Intensive Livestock Industry where it is
traditionally difficult to produce the same product every season".
p260 |
Section 3: Analy sis o f Submissions from Interested P ersons
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Research institutions (especially in the health sector) and biotechnology
companies (such as Genesis [IP11]) also noted the general economic benefits of
immediate job creation, follow-on employment effects and a highly skilled
workforce.
But the greatest economic benefit seen by many submitters (from the research
sector and primary and secondary production sectors) was to be gained "from the
continued development of biotechnology and the full range of its tools" (New
Zealand Life Sciences Network [IP24]). Again, "our best economic interests ...
reside in the continuing development of a strong and vibrant innovative culture in
the field of GM" (New Zealand Association of Scientists [IP92]). These views
were typical of the submitters' opinion that defined progress in terms of new
paradigms. While increased yields, increased productivity and improved product
quality were important, submitters noted that even more important was the new
technology itself whose full potential had yet to be realised.
Economic advantage from avoidance of
genetic modification
The key issues raised by submitters who did not see economic benefits for New
Zealand in the use of genetic modification technology were generally grouped
around two themes:
*
the negative impact of use of genetic modification, especially on New
Zealand's "clean green" image
*
the positive impacts of "GE-free" production, especially organic produce.
These submitters also raised issues of moral constraints on the pursuit of economic
advantage.
Negative impact on "clean green" image
Several submitters had concerns about the risks of any commercial release of
genetically modified crops to New Zealand's "clean green" image. Typical of such
concerns were the comments from New Zealand Vegetable and Potato Growers'
Federation/New Zealand Fruitgrowers' Federation/New Zealand Berryfruit
Growers' Federation [IP75], which noted:
... there is potential for the first commercial releases of GM crops in New Zealand to have
an impact on the marketing leverage of our exporters using New Zealand's "clean green
image". We are not implying that GM is necessarily "un-clean and non-green" however
consumer perception currently links these issues. "Clean and green" is a real marketing
Section 3: Analysis o f Submissions from Interested Persons
| H1 | p261
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
tool and the market reality is that it may be affected by association with GM crops in New
Zealand.
Submitters' views on the compatibility of organic production and genetically
modified crops are discussed more fully in relation to Warrant item (i),
"Opportunities from the use or avoidance of genetic modification".
Positive impacts of "GE-free" production, especially
organics
Submitters who saw economic advantage from avoidance of genetic modification
perceived economic benefits to be gained from New Zealand adopting a "clean
and green" environment. They saw benefits in the positive advocacy of a "GE
free" environment. Several advanced the economic benefits of organic production.
Representative of this standpoint were the comments from Environmental and
Conservation Organisations of New Zealand [IP102], which noted `"growing
demand, world wide, for organic food, GE Free food". Nelson GE Free Awareness
Group [IP100] also noted that "clean green exports of GE Free primary produce
and organics ... will guarantee premiums for New Zealand [primary producers]"
(These arguments are covered in more detail in discussion of Warrant item (i),
"Opportunities from the use or avoidance of genetic modification".)
Moral constraints on pursuit of economic
advantage
Submitters not favouring genetic modification often stressed the importance of
totally different paradigms and values. For example, Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu
[IP41] asked: "... are we to be manipulated by economics, rather than ethics and
value systems that have served us well ... ?" Royal Forest and Bird Protection
Society, Nelson/Tasman Branch [IP43] raised similar concerns in its comment
that: "Economic matters must never override the ethical responsibility and
guardianship ... [New Zealanders] have in respect to the natural environment ...
Decisions on GM activity must not be economically driven." Friends of the Earth
(New Zealand) [IP78] commented that issues with very large environmental and
sociopolitical risks were often ignored because they were "difficult to monetise"
and that "as a rule, profits are privatised and costs are socialised".