Public Meetings:
summary of outcomes
2.
section |
appendix 3
Outcomes of Consultation: Submissions
from the Public
Section contents
2.
Public Meetings: summary of outcomes
10
Human health issues
12
Consumer choice/Labelling issues
13
Cultural and spiritual issues
14
Environmental issues
15
Economic issues
16
Future use issues
17
Global development issues
18
Ethical issues
19
Other issues commonly addressed at workshops
20
Legislation
20
Animal rights
21
Report Appendix 3 | Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Section 2: Public Meeting s
| H1 | p11
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
2. Public Meetings: summary
of outcomes
As part of the Commission's public consultation programme, a series of Public
Meetings was held in 15 cities or regional towns throughout the country during
September, October and November 2000. These meetings provided an opportunity
for the Commission to hear the views of the public in an informal setting. The
Public Meetings were additional to Formal Hearings, Hui and written submissions,
and a public opinion survey.
The purpose of the meetings was to allow the Commission access to the views and
opinions on genetic modification of a wide cross-section of New Zealanders.
Each meeting had two parts, which were conducted by independent bilingual
(English and Maori) facilitators. The first part involved a welcome followed by a
workshop on issues and questions surrounding genetic modification. A series of
questions was developed to facilitate discussion. The questions were intended
neither to be definitive nor to indicate any particular viewpoint. The second part
included workshop participants reporting back to the Commissioners on the issues
identified during the workshop, and directing questions and comments directly to
the Commissioners, thereby allowing for public comment on any issues not
included in the workshops. This process is described in more detail in Appendix 1,
"Processes of the Commission" ("Public Meetings: the process").
The process was developed to give each person present an opportunity to express
themselves, and to facilitate discussion rather than adversarial positions. The key
themes to emerge are presented below. The questions used in the meetings were
posted on the Commission's website ("Public Meetings Questions" document), so
are presented here in a shortened form. The summary of all questions relating to a
topic is listed first, followed by representative responses from across the country
indicative of some of the major points raised, relevant to any question of that
group. This is because responses often addressed general issues rather than being
directed towards a particular question. Full summaries of the workshop part of the
public meetings were placed on the Commission's website.
The Commissioners reviewed the workshop cards, and tapes of the report back
sessions were included in the initial review of material. The findings below
summarise the workshop cards. A wide range of views was expressed in the
responses to all questions. Responses were grouped under commonly recurring
p12 |
Section 2: Public Meetings
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
themes which generally reflected the questions posed. Exceptions to this included
the raising of animal rights issues and legislation.
Respondents' use of "GM" (genetic modification), "GMOs" (genetically modified
organisms) and "GE" (genetic engineering) is retained in the summary of
responses. Names of organisations whose abbreviated form has been retained in
the summary of responses are listed in the glossaries at the end of this volume.
The responses have been lightly edited for grammar and style consistency but are
otherwise presented as a series of quotations.
Participants primarily expressed an opposition to the general release of genetically
modified organisms and to any genetically modified products in the food chain.
Other issues commonly raised included ethical, cultural and spiritual matters,
economic concerns, agricultural and crop issues, and research, environmental and
medical issues. These major concerns were felt consistently throughout the
country. One exception was Hamilton, where issues surrounding research were
raised more than in other centres.
Human health issues
Questions
What are the health issues associated with the use or avoidance of genetically
modified:
*
foods (production and consumption)?
*
crops (production and consumption)?
*
pharmaceuticals (production and consumption)?
*
medical procedures?
*
nutraceuticals?
Responses
Most of the discussion involved perceived negative health effects of genetic
modification. The major areas of discussion included that high levels of uncertainty
surround uses of genetic modification in food, that presently unknown allergies
may develop, that transgenics are generally not favoured, that New Zealand could
be the victim of an experiment, that personal choice will be reduced and that
testing is not adequate. There was a lack of trust in those wanting to develop
genetically modified food. Some participants highlighted that genetic modification
may offer cures for diseases and should be permitted for this reason.
Much is unknown about GM/GE and how it changes biological processes. Contamination
from GE crops is unpredictable. Transgenic uses must be banned.
Section 2: Public Meeting s
| H1 | p13
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
GE food has not been tested on human beings, therefore it is wrong.
What about the effects of exposure to proteins never previously present in foods?
Transnational industries can not be said to have good health as an objective.
Why are we funding GE when the world trend is towards organics?
Long-term negative effects of GM are unknown and may include allergies and viruses
crossing species.
Consumer choice/Labelling issues
Questions
What rights do individuals have regarding their use or avoidance of genetically
modified:
*
food?
*
crops?
*
pharmaceuticals?
*
medical procedures?
What are the issues associated with labelling genetically modified products,
such as:
*
the adequacy of an existing or new labelling regime?
*
measuring and determining GM content?
*
the containment of GM products?
Responses
Points commonly raised included consumers' rights to choose what they are
eating, the level of possible contamination of non-genetically modified food with
genetically modified food, the importance of food labelling to those with allergies
and that New Zealand should convert to organic agriculture.
It is important to label GM medicines clearly.
Consumer sovereignty and personal right to choose what one ingests is an important
human right. With that, I think it is important to label foods with any genetically
engineered organism, whether whole or processed.
These GE foods have not been tested - we are the test sample. ANZFA does not test these
foods but takes the word of the companies that are pushing them. We do not believe this
protects consumers.
When a consumer chooses to buy organic food it is a very great concern that these will
eventually be contaminated by the GE crops grown nearby! With cross-pollination
occurring, how can we be sure seeds saved from organically grown plants are true to type?
p14 |
Section 2: Public Meetings
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
It takes away our choice.
There will not be labelling of foods in restaurants/cafes, so how do we know what we are
eating?
There is inadequacy of GE food labelling by ANZFA and difficulty in avoiding GE food.
Consumers may purchase, for example, GE soy cooking oil, as it will not be labelled as
genetically engineered.
The monopolisation of the food industry by a small number of corporations leads to less
consumer choice and an uneven power balance, including control of prices and safety
issues. We support local industry and not the globalisation of the food industry.
The myth that New Zealand is `clean and green' we want to be real. Why not go organic New
Zealand 100 percent organic?
Yes, let's label GM foods but, at the same time, let's ensure we label foods for other issues,
such as: "soil erosion techniques (cultivation) used in the growing of this crop"; "diesel oil
burnt, to grow this crop".
After six years of GE products on the market, with no damage/health risks being
identified, what is the problem?
Cultural and spiritual issues
Questions
What are the cultural, spiritual and religious issues for Maori associated with the
use or avoidance of genetically modified:
*
food (production and consumption)?
*
crops (production and consumption)?
*
pharmaceuticals (production and consumption)?
*
medical procedures?
What are the cultural, spiritual and religious issues for non-Maori associated
with the use or avoidance of genetically modified:
*
food (production and consumption)?
*
crops (production and consumption)?
*
pharmaceuticals (production and consumption)?
*
medical procedures?
How and should spiritual, religious and ethical concerns be weighted against
societal/economic benefits?
Section 2: Public Meeting s
| H1 | p15
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
Responses
Responses generally showed concern with sovereignty over cultural and
intellectual property, the possibility of `genetic discrimination', human rights and
freedom of choice.
We are Maori and we should have the right to know what GE is all about. We need honest
answers.
The Treaty of Waitangi promises to protect our cultural and intellectual property. It is
currently all being sold. We need to know that our properties are guaranteed to our Maori
iwi and this nation.
Under the partnership of the Treaty of Waitangi, both Maori and Pakeha should have the
right of veto over important decisions like GM. Partnership means taking both views into
account.
GE is against the principles stated in the Treaty of Waitangi under Taonga, and the
genealogy of Maori Whakapapa. To allow GE is to break the Treaty.
Animals and plants have a right to be themselves just as humans have. Humans have an
absolute right to freedom of choice - to know what they are eating.
Environmental issues
Questions
What are the environmental risks and benefits associated with the use of
genetically modified:
*
crops?
*
foods?
*
biological pest controls?
*
herbicides/pesticides?
*
pharmaceuticals?
*
medical procedures?
Responses
The prime points raised in discussion were that general release of genetically
modified organisms into the environment should not be permitted because of
uncertainty about the effects, as well as concerns about the integrity of soil biota,
that research should be permitted only in containment, that genetic modification
technology is irreversible, that nature knows best and that it may be prudent to
wait until further research is carried out.
We are only stewards of this land. We do not have the right to change what nature
intended. It has taken millions of years for the planet to evolve. Are the unspoken
p16 |
Section 2: Public Meetings
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
generations yet to be born going to thank us, or curse us, for GE? A referendum is
needed.
MAF is at present showing a huge lack of control over the entry of insects into our
country. How can it monitor GE trials safely? I want the right to grow organic food for me
and my family with no cross-pollination of GE.
We were of the view that the Commission must accept that the precautionary principle
should be adhered to. The table was unanimous in this thinking.
Remember previous scientific mistakes - Mururoa Atoll, Agent Orange etc. There was
scientific assurance but it still went wrong.
A tree creates 600,000 chemicals to control its environment naturally. Man can only
synthesise 25,000. We cannot beat nature; nature knows best.
Our existence as human beings is possible through our coexistence with animals,
vegetation and plant life. To tamper with and put genes of foreign entities (and viruses)
into beings is unnatural and will lead to further foreign viruses developing.
GE pharmaceuticals and pesticide-resistant GM crops result in water pollution.
With respect to the question of burden of proof, the onus should be on promoters to prove
it safe, rather than on consumers to prove it unsafe.
GE plants can be used for absorbing heavy metals as part of toxic waste reduction, ie, as
bioremediation vehicles.
The strategic approach would be to wait. We can always introduce it if it is proven safe.
Please consider and take a holistic approach to all things Maori, who live and breathe the
natural world of New Zealand.
Economic issues
Questions
What are the economic risks and benefits (regional, national and international)
associated with the use of genetically modified:
*
crops?
*
foods?
*
pharmaceuticals?
*
pest controls?
*
nutraceuticals?
*
medical procedures?
Who should fund research into genetic modification technology?
Section 2: Public Meeting s
| H1 | p17
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
Responses
Participants commonly raised such issues as that the risks of genetic modification
in the environment and human body cannot be predicted, that testing for genetic
modification content will not be expensive, that if New Zealand produces more
organic food it will have an advantage over the rest of the world, that it is
becoming difficult to obtain genetic modification-free ingredients and that there is
large international demand for genetic modification-free food. There was also
concern over who would bear the risks of the new technology and the dangers of
cross-pollination.
As a primary producer and tourism destination, the New Zealand economy depends on
ecology. The Commission does not include an ecologist and should emphasise this when
reporting on the effects of GE to our ecology and our economy.
The cost of having two separate systems - GE and organic - should be borne by those
who change the status quo. The cost of separation of the two systems is a loss to the
economy.
GE crops are capital intensive; they require a scarce resource. Organic crops are labour
intensive; they utilise an abundant resource.
Paying for modified seeds will erode our balance of payments yet the GE products do not
command premiums on the world markets. Organic foods can be produced with minimal
import cost and already command a premium.
Future use issues
Questions
What are the potential future uses of genetic modification technology in:
*
New Zealand agriculture?
*
New Zealand horticulture?
*
New Zealand's pharmaceutical industry?
*
New Zealand's medical industry?
*
New Zealand's scientific industry?
*
New Zealand foods?
Responses
Responses generally reflected that the Commission's recommendations will have a
significant effect on the future of New Zealand, that being genetic modification-
free is an opportunity, that world demand for genetic modification-free food is
high and that biodiversity will be threatened. Other views were also expressed,
p18 |
Section 2: Public Meetings
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
such as that the new technology may offer as yet unforeseen opportunities and that
it may be used to generate higher prices for exports.
GE may turn out in 30 years to have been a big mistake. Five years of testing to date
cannot establish 30-year effects (asbestos, smoking, thalidomide) and no GE release
should occur before contained testing for 30 years has occurred.
Within each generation there is the general assumption that we know it all, only to find
out in the next generation that we didn't. GM is likely to be seen as one of those huge
mistakes leaving behind and in front of it a path of destruction.
As New Zealand did with the nuclear issue, so this is again a chance to be a forerunner in
showing we don't have to go down a negative road. We could easily become the envy of the
world - a place where real food grows. We do not need to be fooled by scientists. It must
be exciting for them, but the negatives outweigh the positives.
I want all field trials denied in New Zealand. Aotearoa will not be able to grow organically
or have the potential to grow safe food if we allow genetically engineered trials to occur
in New Zealand.
I am a student of ecology. GE will disrupt the natural processes and balance of earth's
natural systems. These include dangers of viruses crossing over between species,
mutations, and cross-pollination.
As a remote nation with the opportunity to grab the organic market worldwide, why would
we even consider the possibility of GM?
Recommend as a first step to promote a thorough, honest education for every household in
New Zealand. An information package should be assembled by every interested group or
section of the population and sent to everyone in the country. It could utilise a question-
and-answer format and call for feedback.
Be open but controlled in what R&D is taking place in New Zealand on GE.
New Zealand must examine all the options, using real data (not emotions) to determine its
direction. Perhaps we should hold off public release of GMOs to give time. We can't have
either/or organic/GE.
Global development issues
Questions
What global developments might influence the way in which New Zealand utilises
genetically modified:
*
crops?
*
foods?
*
pharmaceuticals?
Section 2: Public Meeting s
| H1 | p19
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
*
nutraceuticals?
*
medical techniques?
What are the international environment, economic (including trade), political
and social implications for New Zealand should it choose to use genetically
modified organisms and associated products?
What are the international environment, economic (including trade), political
and social implications for New Zealand should it choose not to use genetically
modified organisms and associated products?
Responses
The wide variety of views expressed included that global development should be
holistic, that new therapeutic products should be researched, that caution is
necessary, that a spiritual approach is important, and that genetic modification is
not the answer to world hunger.
There should be a compensation process for unpredictable outcomes, eg through use of a
bond.
There'd definitely be threats and pressure and probably sanctions etc from pro-GM
interests and pro-GM countries - much more than when we took a nuclear-free stance -
but there'd be huge acceptance by a rapidly growing demand for organic food etc.
There is growing demand for therapeutic approaches that are non-toxic, holistic and
contain no side-effects. New Zealand would be wise to research, develop and promote
holistic alternatives and strong preventative approaches to health.
Ethical issues
Questions
Questions of risk and liability introduced a wider debate on ethical issues.
Who should take responsibility for the risk associated with utilising genetically
modified organisms and associated products?
Who should take responsibility for the risk associated with not utilising genetically
modified organisms and associated products?
Responses
Responses included concern over a common inheritance which should not be
patented, that genetic modification technology is profit-driven, that there is a loss
of independence and choice, that there is need for a balanced decision and that the
benefits of genetic modification should be available to all.
Patent rights being allowed on naturally occurring gene codes is a theft from the
common inheritance.
p20 |
Section 2: Public Meetings
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
The application of genetic engineering is ethically flawed since it presupposes that all
organisms can be employed for the benefit and profit of only one species, namely Homo
sapiens. Therefore, GE goes against the very evolutionary processes that have shaped our
planet. Remember, these have not been exclusively for the benefit of man - all forms are
interdependent. By employing GE we are abusing our power over other species. With power
comes responsibility.
There are ethical issues of using animals and humans as guinea pigs. Risks include passing
genes on to non-target organisms and contamination; GM crops colonising and altering
heritage crops; reduction of biodiversity, by contamination or GE species out-competing
our native flora and fauna. This threatens our ability to become an organic nation.
The GM debate does not acknowledge a spiritual belief that all beings are interconnected
- it experiments in isolation. The scientific lack of awareness around interconnectedness
is dangerous.
Modern science has a mind set that is largely incapable of recognising the idea that life is
sacred. It is therefore ill equipped to check its own activities from an ethical perspective.
Will we be the generation that future generations point to in anger and pain for being
responsible for creating - in the name of profit - the greatest and most far-reaching
man-caused disaster ever in the history of this planet?
There is need for an ongoing ethics forum to take debate out of political, economic area.
Is it ethical to export GMO products from New Zealand if New Zealanders don't want GMO
products for their own consumption?
Questioning the ethics of the technology itself, technology is not value free. It has its own
agenda.
What effect will GM have on people who have taken an ethical decision to become
vegetarian? How will they be able to avoid eating foods containing animal genes?
Other issues commonly addressed at
workshops
Legislation
In general, participants called for more regulation, and for independent testing for
the presence of genetically modified ingredients.
ERMA approvals are keeping on going, with at least three during the Commission hearings
so far. What of future uses if our regulatory agencies are so permissive?
Food labelling should have thorough coverage with no exceptions. Consumer choice has to
Section 2: Public Meeting s
| H1 | p21
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
be honoured. It was agreed by Australasian Health Ministers two years ago but there is
still no action for the patient public.
Animal rights
Concern was expressed about animal suffering, the large numbers of animals
used in experiments and pollution from "GE pharms".
Animals used for xenotransplantation would be kept in a sterile environment and would
be unable to perform their basic natural behaviours. There are also dangers of new
diseases infecting humans and other animal species through xenotransplantation.
There have been many problems with the GE of animals that have been modified so far. For
example, unexpected results such as GE salmon with deformed heads, or negative results,
such as pigs modified to be heavier having joint and cardio problems.
Why is there no inclusion of animal rights and welfare issues in the terms of reference?
The improvements in production of GE animals are unlimited, unlike the changes and
improvements made through the process of natural selection.
There is a lack of understanding of DNA. There is not enough knowledge of animals' DNA to
experiment with GM. GM takes a reductionist view of organisms. Genes function in a
complex and unpredictable way. Genes cannot be taken in isolation. We can never predict
the consequences of the GM of animals.
Pharming is completely unethical. Because of possible cross-species disease transference,
animals are kept in sterile, lifeless conditions. These animals are completely denied basic
freedoms.
Will transgenic meat be clearly labelled and publicised? Will this practice be permitted in
New Zealand?
Intensive farming of genetically altered animals for research or farming practices also
creates a risk of environmental and human damage from run-off from farms and factories.
Who will be responsible for controlling this? Will this be reported when it happens?