3.
section 3.4 |
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
3.4
Strategic outcomes
49
Introduction
49
Health
49
Health outcomes from use
49
Health outcomes from avoidance
51
Environment
52
Environmental outcomes from use
52
Environmental outcomes from avoidance
53
Production
55
Production outcomes from use
55
Production outcomes from avoidance
57
Research
60
Research outcomes from use
60
Research outcomes from avoidance
61
Culture and ethics
61
Cultural and ethical outcomes from use
61
Cultural and ethical outcomes from avoidance
63
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Section 3: Analysis o f Submissions from Interested Persons
| H1 | p49
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
3.4 Strategic outcomes
Introduction
Around one-third of the Interested Persons (37 submitters) provided substantive
comment on strategic `outcomes' as a component of the three Warrant items
(items (1), (k) and (m)) dealing with strategy. With respect to the principal sector
focus of these submitters, two-thirds (25 submitters) were from the economic/
productive sector, three submitters were from the cultural/ethical sector, two were
from the environmental sector, two were from the health sector and five were from
other sectors. Looking at the industry groupings, the 37 submitters were primarily
from industry networks or associations (just over one-third or 14 submitters),
research organisations (eight submitters), and other advocacy networks or
associations (five submitters).
In terms of stance on genetic modification which the submitters who made
substantive comment on this issue took, most were assessed as `strongly for'
genetic modification (22 submitters) or `tending to be for' (five submitters), with
the remaining 10 submitters either `tending to be against' (five submitters) or
being `strongly against' genetic modification (five submitters). The positions taken
by submitters on genetic modification are reflected in the commentary on strategic
outcomes below, where a greater proportion of comments reflect those of
submitters who favoured genetic modification than those who were opposed to it.
The commentary provided below on the strategic outcomes for the promotion or
avoidance of genetic modification has been categorised according to health,
environmental, production, research, and cultural and ethical outcomes.
Health
Health outcomes from use
A range of mainly health research and patient groups provided commentary on
strategic outcomes that might be derived from the use of genetic modification
technology in the health arena, principally focusing on outcomes for patient
groups and greater understanding of biological processes.
p50 |
Section 3: Analy sis o f Submissions from Interested P ersons
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Submitters identified key strategic outcomes of the use of genetic modification
in health areas as including:
*
better understanding of diseases
*
better understanding of fundamental cellular processes
*
new applications for prevention, diagnosis and treatment of diseases
*
opportunities for improved health in New Zealand
*
continuation of biomedical research opportunities
*
ability to develop a basic research and teaching capability in recombinant
DNA and genetic modification technologies in New Zealand
*
possibility for New Zealand to develop a biotechnology pharmaceutical
industry
*
labelled food which allows consumer choice.
Range of health outcomes
Lysosomal Diseases New Zealand [IP99] identified a range of beneficial strategic
outcomes from the application of genetic modification in the areas of health,
employment and economic growth and commented that "avoiding GM technology
will maintain high levels of disability, and avoidable disease, suffering and death,
[and] lead to third world health status". Malaghan Institute of Medical Research
[IP10] also outlined a range of strategic health outcomes from genetic modification
stating that:
The strategic outcomes for future applications of GM, GMOs and products in the field of
human health extend to every facet of the human condition from basic food requirements
to understanding the nature of human disease and applying this knowledge to prevention,
diagnosis and treatment.
Patient outcomes
Patient and medical research groups tended to identify outcomes from genetic
modification that would directly benefit the sufferers of specific conditions. For
example, Malaghan Institute [IP10] identified considerable potential for gene
therapy to treat complex diseases such as cancer and heart disease. Similarly,
Diabetes Youth New Zealand [IP60] identified that patient lives, now and in the
future, "rely on genetically engineered medicines". Diabetes Youth commented
further that their hopes for a cure, and a life free from the degenerative effects of
their conditions, "lie in the latest techniques for manipulating biological material,
including genetic modification and xenotransplantation".
Greater understanding of biological processes
Several submitters commented on the outcome that genetic modification would
provide greater understanding of biological processes and human health
Section 3: Analysis o f Submissions from Interested Persons
| H1 | p51
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
conditions. Sustainable Futures Trust [IP51] identified the potential for genetic
modification research to contribute to the understanding and alleviation of
genetic conditions. Researched Medicines Industry Association of New Zealand
(RMI) [IP55] also observed that the most "critical" strategic outcome was
ongoing research involving genetic modification in the health arena, permitting
the creation and use of genetically modified organisms, and ongoing availability
of genetically modified therapeutic products. Institute of Molecular BioSciences,
Massey University [IP15] expressed a similar opinion that there was a requirement
for New Zealand to develop a capability in basic research and teaching in
recombinant DNA and genetic modification technologies. The Institute also
noted the need for the Commission to understand the impact made by genetic
modification on "our understanding of the fundamental cellular processes which
govern the development and survival of plants, animals and microbes".
Other health outcomes from use
Federated Farmers of New Zealand [IP34] noted that food altered by genetic
modification should be clearly labelled to allow consumer choice. Physicians and
Scientists for Responsible Genetics New Zealand (PSRG) [IP107] expressed the
opinion that all of the desirable outcomes of applying genetic modification
technology in medicine can be achieved without compromising the "GE-free"
status of the New Zealand environment, or prejudicing the quality and standing of
biological research in New Zealand.
Health outcomes from avoidance
Comments from Interested Persons on the avoidance of genetic modification in
the health arena focused on the negative effects that could result for medical
research and patient care and on beneficial outcomes that might result from
having time to establish more knowledge about the risks of genetic modification.
Submitters identified key strategic outcomes of the avoidance of genetic
modification in health areas as including:
*
reduction in medical research in New Zealand
*
loss of tools to better understand medical conditions
*
halt to advances in health research and treatment options in New Zealand
*
reduced likelihood that New Zealand could be competitive in drug
development
*
greater assurance of food safety
*
removal of unnecessary risks.
p52 |
Section 3: Analy sis o f Submissions from Interested P ersons
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Effects on medical research and level of care
Human Genetics Society of Australasia, New Zealand Branch [IP59] identified
that if genetic modification were to be avoided then serious repercussions would
be experienced in terms of research, application of molecular technology and
clinical care of patients. Council of Medical Colleges in New Zealand [IP37]
expressed similar views, noting that without access to genetic modification
technology advances in health research in New Zealand would be halted and some
treatment options and many diagnostic tools would be removed. Genesis Research
and Development [IP11] commented that without genetic modification technology
it was unlikely that New Zealand could be competitive in drug development.
Knowledge of risks
ZESPRI International [IP46] commented that commercial food production
should remain "GM free" until uncertainties were resolved and assurances of food
safety could be given. In addition, Soil and Health Association of New Zealand
[IP97] commented that there was no need to take unnecessary risks associated with
genetic technology.
Environment
Environmental outcomes from use
Submitters, principally from research organisations, identified a range of outcomes
from genetic modification that could provide environmental benefits. Submitters
claimed that among these key strategic outcomes of the use of genetic modification
in the environmental area were:
*
better understanding of environmental systems
*
greater control of pests and weeds
*
protection of fragile flora and fauna
*
bioremediation
*
reduction in the use of herbicides and pesticides
*
meeting international obligations.
Pest and weed control
Landcare Research [IP12] noted that research and development of genetic
modification products should continue in order to achieve the outcome of control
of environmental pests, including possums, stoats and wasps. New Zealand Plant
Protection Society [IP36] agreed that New Zealand was facing a "very significant
risk of adverse impacts from pests, diseases and weeds" and expressed the opinion
that "GMOs need to be considered for difficult pest management problems" as
Section 3: Analysis o f Submissions from Interested Persons
| H1 | p53
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
part of the overall solution. The Society commented further that there were
examples of primary production systems faltering or failing because of a lack of
sustainable solutions.
New Zealand Agritech [IP73] and Interchurch Commission on Genetic
Engineering [IP49] also identified the outcome that genetic modification could
help protect New Zealand's flora and fauna by controlling pests. Similarly,
Association of Crown Research Institutes (ACRI) [IP22] identified that with
genetic modification technology New Zealand would be better positioned to
attack its environmental problems relating to introduced pests, remediation of
polluted environments and the potential for reduced demand for agricultural land.
Understanding of environmental systems and effects
Royal Society of New Zealand [IP77] identified the knowledge gained from
genetic modification as a strategic outcome that could be used to create wealth,
wellbeing and provide "an informed understanding of the environment". Landcare
Research [IP12] expressed the desire to see an outcome of increased funding for
research into assessing risk of adverse environmental effects of genetically
modified crops and products.
International obligations
Landcare Research [IP12] noted that it was important to permit the use of genetic
modification tools for conservation genetics and related research so that New
Zealand could fulfil its obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Other environmental outcomes from use
Genesis Research and Development [IP11] identified a range of beneficial
environmental outcomes through implementation of biotechnology for the New
Zealand forest industry. These outcomes included: maintaining a competitive edge
and increasing land value to owners, as well as potentially improving the
environment through maintenance of biodiversity, bioremediation, reduced
pollution through less use of pesticides and herbicides, and recapturing of
marginal soil. Landcare Research [IP12] also identified the outcome of minimising
exposure to broad-scale pesticides as a desirable strategic outcome of genetic
modification.
Environmental outcomes from avoidance
Submitters, principally from environmental and organics organisations, expressed
views that the avoidance of genetic modification would allow a precautionary
approach to be adopted until effects of genetic modification were known and that
total avoidance of genetic modification was the only way to protect the
environment.
p54 |
Section 3: Analy sis o f Submissions from Interested P ersons
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Submitters identified key strategic outcomes of the avoidance of genetic
modification in environmental areas as including:
*
development of superior foods and crops
*
avoidance of unknown, long-term, potentially irreversible side effects
*
provision of time to develop testing programmes for potential health and
environmental effects
*
provision of time to make a considered response
*
protection of the biosphere.
Precautionary approach until environmental effects are known
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society [IP79] identified the outcome that
unknown, long-term, potentially irreversible side effects could be avoided if
genetically modified organisms were not released into the New Zealand
environment. Similarly, Comvita New Zealand [IP74] made the point that
genetically modified organisms should not be released into the New Zealand
environment until consequences of recombinant DNA crop development could be
assessed and objective testing programmes were in place to consider all potential
health and environmental consequences. Environmental and Conservation
Organisations of New Zealand [IP102] made a similar point; that a precautionary
approach should be adopted and that time was needed to make a considered
response to genetic modification in terms of environmental or health issues.
Avoidance of genetic modification as the only way to protect
the environment
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Nelson/Tasman Branch [IP43] viewed
the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment as "untenable"
and believed that sustaining New Zealand's unique flora and fauna and ecosystems
was the paramount outcome to be achieved. On a similar note, Nelson GE Free
Awareness Group [IP100] saw the avoidance of genetic modification as the only
option that would allow "full protection" of the biosphere and all organisms
residing in it.
Other environmental o utcomes from avoidance
Landcare Research [IP12] noted that if genetic modification technology were
avoided then it would be important that New Zealand not be left exposed to
substantial health, environmental and trade risks through heavy dependence on
large-scale use of 1080 and other broad-scale pesticides.
Section 3: Analysis o f Submissions from Interested Persons
| H1 | p55
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
Production
Production outcomes from use
Submitters, principally from primary producer groups, universities and
biotechnology organisations, identified a range of strategic outcomes from genetic
modification that could provide productive or economic benefits. Organics groups
identified strategic outcomes from the use of genetic modification that might have
adverse effects for the future of the organics industry in New Zealand.
Among these key strategic outcomes of the use of genetic modification in
production areas were:
*
maintenance and enhancement of New Zealand's international agricultural
competitiveness
*
development and trade of intellectual property
*
less reliance by New Zealand on overseas developments in genetic
modification
*
extraction of untapped value from food and fibre products
*
development of superior foods and crops
*
development of safe, sustainable internationally competitive products
*
development of products that were better suited to specific purposes
*
development of new cultivars in horticulture
*
economic, social and environmental benefits for forestry
*
loss of future earnings from organic products
*
negative impacts on kiwifruit exports.
Global economic outcomes
ACRI [IP22] noted that genetic modification technology offered the potential
outcome of high-value, niche-market products and better positioning of New
Zealand in the global economy. Similarly, Biotenz [IP25] commented that New
Zealand could use its agricultural science knowledge with the modern tools of
genetic science (such as genomics, bio-informatics and proteomics) to remain a
world leader in agriculture and create wealth. New Zealand Biotechnology
Association (NZBA) [IP47] made the point that it was essential that New Zealand
did not rely on overseas developments in biotechnology or it would lose its
competitive advantages in agriculture and horticulture.
Several submitters from the production sector commented on the strategic
outcome of New Zealand being able to achieve greater competitiveness
p56 |
Section 3: Analy sis o f Submissions from Interested P ersons
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
internationally if genetic modification technology were adopted, in particular for
primary production industries. Wrightson [IP3] commented that the economy was
heavily reliant on primary production, and that New Zealand needed to use
biotechnology in agriculture to maintain and increase its international
competitiveness. Carter Holt Harvey/Fletcher Challenge Forests [IP17] and New
Zealand Forest Industries Council [IP9] also noted that genetic modification
technology would enhance the competitiveness and sustainability of New Zealand's
primary sector industries. Similarly, New Zealand Wool Board [IP30] commented
that access to genetic modification technology was essential to New Zealand's
long-term competitiveness. New Zealand Dairy Board [IP67] and Agritech [IP73]
agreed that responsible use of genetic modification technology was needed to
maintain New Zealand's international competitiveness in biological exports.
Biotechnology outcomes
Biotechnology groups identified a range of beneficial economic outcomes that
might result from the use of genetic modification. RMI [IP55] noted that
biotechnology industries were "crucial" to New Zealand's future economic and
social wellbeing. Similarly, Monsanto New Zealand [IP6] identified that the
development of biotechnology products could result in "safe, sustainable,
internationally competitive products" that could sustain or further the standard of
living of all New Zealanders. Hamilton City Council [IP20] also identified that
genetic modification could be used to produce low-cost, high-value products and
intellectual property for the international marketplace. Monsanto [IP6] commented
that if biotechnology were embraced then this would be likely to lead to increased
investment in biotechnology research.
Primary sector outcomes
Organisations from the primary sector made comment on a wide range of
economic outcomes that the use of genetic modification might generate for
primary industry sectors, including new products and services. New Zealand
Arable-Food Industry Council [IP56] viewed strategic outcomes of genetic
modification in terms of improved crop plants, development of superior foods,
multiplication of seed for re-export and creation of intellectual property. New
Zealand Forest Industries Council [IP9] identified economic, social and
environmental benefits from the development of biotechnology applications in
forestry.
Wrightson [IP3] commented that biotechnology would allow New Zealand to
extract untapped value from food and fibre. Wool Board [IP30] identified a range
of outcomes from genetic modification technology important in New Zealand's
Section 3: Analysis o f Submissions from Interested Persons
| H1 | p57
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
biological economy including: allowing new goods and services to be produced,
improving existing products, and producing products more efficiently.
Meat Industry Association of New Zealand (MIA) [IP32] identified that if New
Zealand were to keep up with the latest technologies, including genetic
modification, then it would be in the best position to adapt to changing attitudes
within markets and the approaches taken by competitors. Wool Board [IP30]
expressed caution, noting that unrestricted use of genetic modification could
potentially compromise New Zealand's future markets. ZESPRI [IP46] expressed
concern that commercial production of genetically modified food could impact
negatively for New Zealand on the export of kiwifruit.
Organic industry outcomes
Organics groups, such as Organic Federation New Zealand [IP81] and Canterbury
Commercial Organics Group [IP65], expressed the opinion that if genetic
modification were promoted a strategic outcome would be a loss of present and
projected future earnings from organic products. Golden Bay Organic Employment
and Education Trust [IP104] was also of the opinion that the development of
genetically engineered crop farming would destroy an entire market segment of
organically grown crops and associated businesses. PSRG [IP107] agreed that field
testing of genetically engineered foods would risk "irreparable damage" to the
rapidly developing organics sector.
Producer groups, such as Dairy Board [IP67], commented on the possible conflict
of interest between different production systems but noted that organic farming
and farming using genetic modification technology were not mutually exclusive
outcomes. Federated Farmers [IP34] agreed that adoption of genetic modification
was compatible with a strong organic production industry. A2 Corporation [IP26]
noted that New Zealand's clean green image was a valuable marketing tool that
needed to be taken care of but stressed that that did not require banning genetic
modification technology.
Production outcomes from avoidance
Submitters, principally from environmental and organics organisations, identified
a range of positive strategic outcomes that the avoidance of genetic modification
might generate, including the development of organics and genetically modified
free products and markets. Research, biotechnology and primary producer groups
adopted an opposing view on the avoidance of genetic modification and identified
a range of negative strategic outcomes, including contraction of research and
teaching in universities, reduced economic performance of biological industries
and reduced quality of life.
p58 |
Section 3: Analy sis o f Submissions from Interested P ersons
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Among these key strategic outcomes of the avoidance of genetic modification in
productive areas were:
*
development of New Zealand's clean, green, organic image and products
*
diversion of energy and funding into "GM-free" alternatives
*
opportunity for New Zealand to take advantage of high-value niche export
markets for organic products
*
opportunity for New Zealand to produce products for markets that demand
"GM-free" food
*
injection of capital from investors looking to exploit "GM-free"
environments as a production base
*
protection of the future of New Zealand's agricultural economy
*
opportunity to clarify risks and benefits of commercial use of genetic
modification
*
serious implications for New Zealand science and wellbeing
*
substantial reduction in market opportunities and choice
*
reduction of options in sheep industry
*
inability to preserve export income earned by dairy industry
*
detrimental consequences for economic performance of biological industries
*
disadvantage for competitiveness of industry
*
contraction of economy
*
detrimental effects on quality of life in New Zealand.
Outcomes from being "GM free"
The main economic outcomes of avoiding genetic modification presented by
submitters related to the economic benefits that might be gained from marketing
of New Zealand's clean, green, organic image and products. Green Party of
Aotearoa/New Zealand [IP83] considered that an outcome of a "GE-free" status
would result in a "major boost to our food exports" and similarly, GE Free New
Zealand (RAGE) in Food and Environment [IP63] identified the expansion of
organic agriculture as a strategic outcome of the avoidance of genetic modification.
Friends of the Earth (New Zealand) [IP78] expressed the opinion that avoidance
of genetically modified products would lead to energy and funding being diverted
into the development of "non-GM" alternatives in medicines, agriculture and
other fields.
Several submitters identified positive strategic outcomes of a "GM-free" stance.
New Zealand Council of Trade Unions [IP95] noted that if New Zealand delayed
Section 3: Analysis o f Submissions from Interested Persons
| H1 | p59
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
the commercial release of genetically modified food then it could position itself
as "GM free" and obtain price premiums and preferential market access for its
exports. Similarly, Hamilton City Council [IP20] identified that the strategic non-
use of genetic modification would allow New Zealand to sell products to markets
that demand "GM-free food". National Beekeepers Association of New Zealand,
Poverty Bay Branch [IP62] also identified that high-value, niche-market export
opportunities might arise if a "GM-free" position were adopted, but noted that the
market promotional opportunities of being "GM free" would have to be desired by
international markets. The Association also noted that limitation of genetic
modification would lead to injection of capital and skill resources by overseas
investors looking to exploit a "GM-free" environment as a production base.
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Marlborough Branch [IP40] identified
that New Zealand could have a global economic advantage from maintaining
"GE-free" agricultural and horticultural crops. Canterbury Commercial Organics
Group [IP65] also supported the view that New Zealand would have a more
secure, sustainable and successful future as a "GM-free" nation and could take
advantage of expanding export opportunities in the organic sector. Te Runanga o
Ngai Tahu [IP41] commented that New Zealand's future as an organic producer
cannot coexist with genetically modified products.
Soil and Health Association [IP97] expressed the opinion that a ban on genetic
engineering would protect the health and safety and the future of New Zealand's
agricultural economy. Similarly, Organic Product Exporters Group [IP53]
commented that a moratorium on genetic modification would allow the opportunity
to clarify risks and possible benefits that might arise from the commercial use of
genetic modification.
Primary sector outcomes
MIA [IP32] expressed the view that if restrictions were placed on genetic
modification technology then New Zealand's meat sector of the economy would
contract. Crop and Food Research [IP4] also identified that a "substantial"
reduction in market opportunities would result from avoidance of genetic
modification technology. Wool Board [IP30] commented that a prohibition on
genetic modification would reduce options for the sheep industry. Similarly, Dairy
Board [IP67] commented that a totally organic strategy would not preserve the
export income earned by the New Zealand dairy industry.
New Zealand Grocery Marketers Association [IP54] commented that restrictions
on genetic modification would result in denial of consumer choice, breaching of
international obligations and loss of economic benefits including competitiveness
and economic vitality of industry. Similarly, New Zealand Vice Chancellors
p60 |
Section 3: Analy sis o f Submissions from Interested P ersons
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
Committee [IP18] and Lincoln University [IP8] noted that there would be
detrimental consequences for the economic performance of biological industries
and for the quality of life in New Zealand if genetic modification technology were
avoided.
Research
Research outcomes from use
Submitters identified key strategic outcomes of the use of genetic modification in
research areas as including:
*
maintenance of the global competitiveness of New Zealand universities
*
increased investment in biotechnology research
*
participation of New Zealand in the knowledge economy
Knowledge-based outcomes
Submissions from the universities expressed a clear view that if genetic modification
were not adopted they would not be able to remain competitive in a global
research and teaching market. Lincoln University [IP8] noted that genetic
modification was a global research tool and modern universities could only survive
in global markets if they generated and utilised new knowledge. Lincoln University
commented further that it must be involved in genetic modification research and
teaching "to ensure it remains globally competitive". Auckland University [IP16]
agreed that if it did not adopt genetic modification technology there would be a
"significant adverse effect" on the University's overall research effort and
questioned whether it would be able to comply with the requirements of the
Education Act 1989. Auckland University expressed the opinion that the option of
allowing genetic modification within "an appropriate regulatory regime" was the
only option that would be consistent with New Zealand participating in the
"knowledge economy".
Rural Women New Zealand [IP52] supported the views expressed by universities
that through supporting genetic modification research New Zealand could
maintain its position in the international knowledge economy. Institute of
Molecular BioSciences [IP15] also noted that New Zealand must ensure that it was
not left behind in the new "knowledge revolution". NZBA [IP47] identified the
need for a clear policy on genetic modification so that research funding authorities
could create clear and open opportunities for research investment.
Section 3: Analysis o f Submissions from Interested Persons
| H1 | p61
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
Research outcomes from avoidance
Submitters identified key strategic outcomes of the avoidance of genetic
modification in research areas as including:
*
genetic modification research and teaching at New Zealand universities
becoming outdated
*
New Zealand's medical research capability being crippled.
Knowledge-based outcomes
AgResearch [IP13] commented that if genetic modification technology were to be
halted or restricted there would be serious implications for New Zealand science
and wellbeing. University of Canterbury [IP7] provided the example that potential
losses would be incurred by avoiding genetic modification as universities would
cease to be current in their genetic modification research and teaching. Similarly,
University of Otago [IP19] noted that its ability to deliver teaching and research of
an internationally accepted standard would be seriously compromised if genetically
modified organisms and their products were avoided. In an accompanying witness
brief, the University commented further that avoidance of genetic modification
was entirely incompatible with the development of a knowledge-based economy.
Biotechnology outcomes
New Zealand Transgenic Animal Users [IP45] commented that New Zealand
could not afford to avoid genetic modification animal research in the future. To do
so would:
... cripple our medical research capability, negatively impact on our fledgling biotechnology
industry, downgrade the quality of education in postgraduate biomedical and biotechnology
programmes, and undermine our global credibility as a developed and technologically
capable nation.
Culture and ethics
Cultural and ethical outcomes from use
Submitters, principally from religious, ethical and Maori organisations, identified
a range of strategic outcomes from the use of genetic modification that focused
around the need for establishing an ethical framework for decision-making on
genetic modification and issues relating to genetic modification that were contrary
to ethical or cultural beliefs or integrity.
Among these key strategic outcomes of the use of genetic modification in cultural
and ethical areas were:
*
transfer of human genes causing insult to Maori whakapapa
p62 |
Section 3: Analy sis o f Submissions from Interested P ersons
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
*
impacts for Maori on whakapapa, kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga
*
licences for rights to genetics capable of being on-sold as leases
*
world leadership in setting high ethical standards
*
a culture fostering high-quality science and rigorous evaluation of issues
*
scientific freedom within a culture of social and cultural responsibility.
Need for an ethical framework
Public Questions Committee (Methodist, Presbyterian, Churches of Christ,
Quaker) [IP93] commented that New Zealand could lead the world in setting high
ethical standards in genetic modification research and development. New Zealand
Catholic Bishops' Conference [IP38] also identified the need for regulation of the
use of genetic modification to be based on principles of ethical decision-making
and noted that if regulation were too onerous in areas of low-risk application, the
benefits of genetic modification might be lost to New Zealanders. Environmental
Risk Management Authority [IP76] also commented on the need for a robust
regulatory process that involved a reflection of community views in decision-
making on genetic modification and that allowed decisions capable of the
prevention of unreasonable risks. Eubios Ethics Institute [IP96] noted that genetic
modification technology would eventually be used in every country and that New
Zealand would have to become "bioethically mature enough to deal with the
future".
HortResearch [IP5] noted that if New Zealand supported biotechnology, a culture
that fostered high-quality science and rigorous evaluation of all issues, including
safety, could be established. Meat New Zealand [IP31] and New Zealand Game
Industry Board [IP33] commented that scientific freedom within a framework of
social and cultural responsibility was a key factor for an environment in which
technologies such as genetic modification could develop.
Maori issues
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu [IP41] expressed the view that the release of genetically
modified organisms into the environment was not acceptable. Ngai Tahu also
noted consequences for Maori in that the development of genetically modified
organisms would have an impact on whakapapa, kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga.
However, New Zealand Maori Council [IP105] identified beneficial outcomes
from genetic modification; for example, the possibility of creating licences for
genetic rights which can be on-sold as leases (using a similar approach as the
Crown Forest Rental Trust model) and with ownership of such rights determined
by the Waitangi Tribunal.
Section 3: Analysis o f Submissions from Interested Persons
| H1 | p63
Royal Commission on Genetic M odification | Report Appendix 2
Cultural and ethical outcomes from avoidance
Submitters, principally from Maori, environmental, religious and other advocacy
groups, identified a range of strategic outcomes from the avoidance of genetic
modification that focused around the need to take time to establish an ethical
framework for decision-making on genetic modification and issues relating to
genetic modification that were contrary to ethical or cultural beliefs.
Among these key strategic outcomes of the avoidance of genetic modification in
cultural and ethical areas were:
*
avoidance of mixing of genes which is contrary to some religious beliefs
*
compatibility with the Treaty of Waitangi
*
right of Maori to an unmodified genetic endowment
*
time for discussion of the options on genetic modification
*
time for developing an agreed paradigm within which genetic modification
would operate
*
time for establishing ethical considerations for research applications
*
avoidance of imposing the cultural and ethical views of some groups on to
everyone.
Maori issues
Nga Wahine Tiaki o te Ao [IP64] commented that "positive strategic outcomes"
could be derived only from the establishment of a nation that was "GM free" and
considered genetic modification to be "an act of violence against tangata
whenua". Maori Congress [IP103] proposed development of a "Tikanga Maori
Framework of Protection" that had as a basic premise that Maori had a collective
right to an undisturbed inheritance of the genetic cell line: ie, the right to an
"unmodified genetic endowment". Friends of the Earth [IP78] added that
avoidance of genetic modification was the only option that would be compatible
with the Treaty of Waitangi.
Need time to develop an ethical framework
Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand [IP101] made the
point that a fully legislated moratorium on genetic modification would provide
time for New Zealand to have wide-ranging discussions on genetic modification
options before irreversible decisions were taken. Koanga Gardens Trust [IP72]
agreed that genetic modification should not be permitted until all parties had
agreed on a "paradigm" within which genetic modification should operate.
Maori Congress [IP103] made a similar point, that genetic modification should
be banned until a regulatory framework is in place that recognises Maori as
p64 |
Section 3: Analy sis o f Submissions from Interested P ersons
Report Appendix 2 | Royal Commission on Genetic M odification
tangata whenua and provides them with a decisive role in the decision-making
process. Similarly, SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation) [IP85] suggested
that any approvals sought for "laboratory-based research involving the genetic
engineering of animals" should be subject to a system of ethical considerations
such as those developed in the Netherlands. Dairy Board [IP67] made the point
that the cultural and ethical views of some should not be imposed on everyone in
terms of banning genetic modification.
Religious beliefs
Quaker Spiritual Ecology Group, Religious Society of Friends [IP50] expressed
its concern about genetic modification on "the spiritual and ecological
understanding that all life is sacred". The Group commented that New Zealand
should not proceed with growing genetically modified crops because "GM mixes
genes across species and kingdoms in ways that do not occur naturally".