Analysis of Public
Submissions
Analysis of
Public Submissions
3.
section 3.14 |
appendix 3
Outcomes of Consultation: Submissions
from the Public
Section contents
3.
Analysis of Public Submissions
22
3.14 Summary of analysis of Public Submissions
106
Background
106
Main themes against Warrant items
109
Strategic outcomes, issues and options
109
Statutory and regulatory system
110
Use of genetic modification, genetically modified organisms
and products
110
Evidence and uncertainty
111
Risks and benefits
111
International obligations
112
Liability
112
Intellectual property
112
Treaty of Waitangi
113
Global developments
113
Opportunities from use or avoidance
113
Main areas of public interest
114
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
p106 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
3.14 Summary of analysis of
Public Submissions
Background
This report has summarised the views of 10,861 submitters around the topics
outlined in the Warrant. As outlined in "Introduction to the analysis of Public
Submissions", the Warrant requires the Commissioners to report to Government
on two principal matters: the strategic options available to New Zealand to
address, now and in the future, genetic modification, genetically modified
organisms, and products; and desirable changes to the current legislative, regulatory,
policy and institutional arrangements for addressing these technologies.
The Commission is also required to report on a range of relevant matters that
cover the use of genetic modification in New Zealand, liability, intellectual
property, the Treaty of Waitangi, relevant global developments, opportunities
from use or avoidance of genetic modification and the main areas of public
interest. Submitters' views have been presented around these Warrant items.
That the report is structured around the Warrant items does not mean that public
submitters presented their views according to the Warrant structure. A lack of
detailed attention to the Warrant could be attributed to a range of reasons. The
format of the Warrant may not have been entirely clear to all submitters, given a
degree of overlap they may have seen in some of the topics mentioned. Submitters
may not have seen the Warrant and/or any of the advice put out by the
Commission regarding preferred or suggested submission format. Submitters may
have been familiar only with the submission guides provided by organisations
other than the Commission. Usually these covered two matters addressed in the
Warrant: strategic options, and risks and benefits. Submitters may also have
wanted to make general comments only: many made broad statements about their
opposition to genetic modification and/or the risks involved, without any reference
to the Warrant.
Rarely did public submitters express specific views about all matters set out in the
Warrant, possibly because of a mix of the reasons outlined above. Any summarising
of public submitters' views according to the Warrant items is, therefore, somewhat
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p107
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
arbitrary, although necessary for reporting purposes. The topic areas they were
most likely to address in a substantial way were (i) how New Zealand should
respond to genetic modification (generally how to keep it out), (ii) human health,
environmental and economic matters, and cultural and ethical concerns, (iii) the
risks associated with genetic modification and (iv) changes needed to limit or
control genetic modification use. These topic areas more or less coincided with
four Warrant items:
*
Warrant items (1) and (m): strategic outcomes and options
*
Warrant item (j): areas of public interest
*
Warrant item (c): risks
*
Warrant item (2): legislative changes.
Other matters covered in the Warrant were seldom referred to in detail. It was
extremely uncommon for public submitters to address issues, with more than a
passing comment, from an international perspective, or to write about strategic
issues (given their almost wholesale rejection of genetic modification use), liability
issues and the Treaty. Thus the least-addressed Warrant items included:
*
Warrant item (l): international implications
*
Warrant item (k): strategic issues
*
Warrant item (h): global developments
*
Warrant item (e): liability
*
Warrant item (g): Treaty of Waitangi
*
Warrant item (d): international obligations.
The main themes with reference to the Warrant items are summarised in the next
sub-section and reflect public submitters' overwhelming opposition to genetic
modification.
Discussions of the main themes that emerged with respect to Warrant items need
to be considered in this light. Public submitters were relatively absolute in their
views, with only very small proportions prepared to consider genetic modification
use, benefits or exceptions to a general ban on all genetic modification applications.
Table 3.21 shows the distribution of public submitters' views, when they have
made substantial comment that coincided with matters set out in the Warrant.
Other reference may also have been given to these matters, but in a more cursory
way.
p108 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
Warrant items
Number
%
Warrant item (j): areas of public interest
6991
64.4
Warrant item (c): risks
5580
51.4
Warrant item (m): strategic outcomes
5320
49.0
Warrant item 2: legislative changes
2549
23.5
Warrant item 1: strategic options
2521
23.2
Warrant item (I): opportunities
2141
19.7
Warrant item (b): uncertainty
506
4.7
Warrant item (n): adequacy of statutory/regulatory processes
365
3.4
Warrant item (f): intellectual property
224
2.1
Warrant item (a): uses
197
1.8
Warrant item (k): strategic issues
112
1.0
Warrant item (l): international implications
97
0.9
Warrant item (h): global developments
84
0.8
Warrant item (e): liability
95
0.9
Warrant item (g): Treaty
69
0.6
Warrant item (d): international obligations
59
0.5
Table 3.21 Substantial comment against Warrant items
(n = 10,861)
p108 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p109
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
Main themes against Warrant items
The main themes are summarised under headings consistent with section titles.
These titles are usually consistent with matters laid out in the Warrant but, as in
"Strategic outcomes, issues and options", may reflect a combination of Warrant
items. The headings are:
*
strategic outcomes, issues and options
*
statutory and regulatory system
*
use of genetic modification, genetically modified organisms and products
*
evidence and uncertainty
*
risks and benefits
*
international obligations
*
liability
*
intellectual property
*
Treaty of Waitangi
*
global developments
*
opportunities from use or avoidance
*
main areas of public interest.
Strategic outcomes, issues and options
In general, the strategic outcomes sought by public submitters were premised on
genetic modification avoidance. Thus, desired health outcomes were often
expressed in relation to avoidance of genetic modification. In addition to general
health outcomes, submitters sought freedom from the impacts they associated with
genetic modification use, such as allergies. Similarly, for environmental outcomes,
submitters sought retention of what they described as the current "pure
environment". For them, environmental outcomes were synonymous with genetic
modification avoidance. However, submitters did not suggest that desired economic
outcomes would be achieved simply by way of genetic modification avoidance.
Achievement of economic outcomes would also require development of organic
production.
Strategic issues focused on choice, risk and risk management, and acceptability.
Submitters emphasised the importance of freedom of choice and consent, which
they equated with human rights and sovereignty. The most commonly discussed
strategic issue was risk and risk management. Most submitters considered the risks
of genetic modification too poorly understood, risk assessment techniques too
underdeveloped and unreliable and risks potentially too large to even consider risk
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p109
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
management. For submitters, therefore, the only responsible response to genetic
modification, therefore, must be avoidance, but with continued attention to
improving decision-making approaches. For the small proportion of public
submitters who discussed the possibility of genetic modification use, the degree of
genetic modification acceptance is primarily dependent upon ethical and cultural
considerations, although other factors such as potential benefits may have bearing.
Usually, the ethical and cultural considerations identified signalled the non-
acceptability of genetic modification.
Given most public submitters' rejection of genetic modification, the range of
strategic options they identified to address genetic modification in New Zealand
was fairly narrow. Most submitters (9695 in total) made some reference to how
New Zealand should respond to genetic modification. Most of these suggested
some variation of wholesale avoidance of genetic modification, perhaps with some
limited and selected uses, usually in the health area. Only small numbers of
submitters suggested options that would include wide application of genetic
modification and most of these acknowledged the need for a strong regulatory
framework. For most submitters, any consideration of risk assessment and risk
management options was irrelevant given their rejection of any use. However,
while stressing their preference for absolute avoidance, some submitters identified
minimum standards or actions to protect themselves and the environment in the
case of limited use of genetic modification. Thus, they stressed the importance of
labelling, a cautious approach to any approvals and the continuation of the current
moratorium.
Statutory and regulatory system
Few public submitters commented on specific aspects of the statutory and
regulatory system, including its adequacy and operational problems, probably
because they were not familiar with either the HSNO Act or the work of ERMA.
However, many commented on improvements, usually from a more generic
perspective. Most commonly, they wanted legislation that could be used to bar or
limit use of genetic modification and require stringent labelling, particularly for
food. When improvements were desired of decision-making processes, submitters
seldom specifically referred to ERMA. The most common suggestion related to an
adoption of some form of the precautionary principle to guide decision-making.
Use of genetic modification, genetically modified
organisms and products
Public submitters' perceptions about genetic modification activity in New Zealand
and overseas were consistent with their greatest fears. Most often the uses they
p110 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
identified related to food production, other crops and research into farming
production. Although health was the area in which submitters were more likely to
consider some limited use as acceptable, few indicated awareness of current
application in the health area.
Evidence and uncertainty
Although public submitters seldom specifically addressed the issue as outlined in
the Warrant, issues around uncertainty permeated their comments. In general,
they felt that the risks associated with genetic modification were potentially huge
(and irreversible) and pointed to past technological disasters as evidence that they
could be fairly certain that genetic modification-based disasters would occur. They
also cited insurance companies' reluctance to insure against genetic modification-
based impacts as evidence of the technology's inherent risk. In addition, submitters
stressed the inherently uncertain and unstable nature of the technology. They
believed that the probable environmental, economic, social and health costs of
genetic modification activity would fall on the public. Public submitters were also
extremely sceptical about claims of genetic modification safety and the benefits of
genetic modification. They discounted scientists' and producers' claims of genetic
modification safety and potential benefits because of what submitters saw as vested
interests, demonstrated lack of trustworthiness and their current inability to
demonstrate absolute safety.
Risks and benefits
Given public submitters' strong opposition to genetic modification, it is not
surprising that they were more likely to identify risks associated with genetic
modification use and benefits associated with genetic modification avoidance.
Often submitters' descriptions of the risks of genetic modification use and benefits
of genetic modification avoidance contained passionate language. Thus, submitters
anticipated risks ranging from non-specific environmental, social and/or economic
disaster to more specific impacts, particularly relating to health and environment,
but also relating to the economic opportunity costs of rejecting an organic future.
The identified benefits of genetic modification avoidance mostly centred around
major economic growth based on New Zealand becoming a leader in organic
production.
Submitters also identified a range of benefits from genetic modification use, for
instance relating to health treatments and environmental enhancement. However,
they did not consider the benefits sufficient to justify the risks.
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p111
International obligations
Few public submitters commented on international obligations. Of the few who
did, their view was that no previously entered international agreements should
compromise New Zealand's ability to make decisions about genetic modification
in the country's own interest. Indeed, they considered any international attempt to
limit New Zealand's internal policy-making as an affront to New Zealanders'
sovereignty. Therefore, they believed that New Zealand has no international
obligations. Some further commented that various international agreements
needed to be renegotiated to reflect public attitudes to genetic modification. Some
also took the opportunity to comment on the lack of public input into current
international agreements and recommended that this lack of consultation be
reversed in the future.
Liability
It was also unusual for public submitters to comment on liability issues. They were
more likely to comment on responsibility, although they also noted the importance
of ensuring that those responsible should also be liable. Submitters pointed out
inherent qualities of genetic modification technologies that made it difficult to
attribute responsibility including the lack of predictability and diffuseness of
impacts and their long-term nature. However, they also stressed the need to
continue to improve mechanisms for risk assessment.
While public submitters acknowledged current difficulties involved in attributing
liability, they were extremely clear about who should be liable. They argued
strongly for the "polluter-pays" principle and rejected any suggestion that the state
should be liable. They equated state liability with public cost-bearing. They also
noted the reluctance of insurance companies to provide coverage to producers and
identified compulsory liability insurance as one mechanism, along with options
such as bonds, to ensure decision-making and genetic modification applications
take better account of public interest.
Intellectual property
Intellectual property was another area that attracted little public comment. One of
the strongest messages from the few who commented was that any concept of
ownership of the "code of life" was abhorrent. People also opposed patenting for
cultural and economic reasons. Some people were anxious about potential loss of
Maori control over traditional knowledge and use of indigenous flora and fauna
if patents were established, for instance on new genetically modified organisms.
Others were concerned about increasing multinational control over animal and
plant life forms in general and subsistence crops in developing nations in
particular. Submitters felt that intellectual property mechanisms could only benefit
multinationals and would further strengthen their monopoly control.
Treaty of Waitangi
The greatest concern of the few public submitters who commented about Maori
issues in general was the incompatibility of genetic modification with tikanga.
Some also commented on Government's breaching of the Treaty of Waitangi, but
usually in passing rather than with further qualifying comment. The submissions
presented in te reo Maori were more likely to address broad issues such as
banning genetic modification than detailed comment on the Treaty, conflicts
with tikanga and other specifically focused on Maori issues.
Global developments
Globalisation was explicitly identified by public submitters as an undesirable
global development. They considered that genetic modification use would
exacerbate that process because it would further increase the control that
multinationals have. They also saw this trend as the basis for current pressurising
of New Zealand into conforming to the rest of the world. Some submitters
suggested that New Zealand should run against the trend and become a maverick
and organic world leader.
Public submitters were convinced that the demand for organic food is large and
growing, particularly in Europe. This global trend signals the advantages for New
Zealand of avoidance of genetic modification and the opportunity costs of use of
genetic modification. Such a global demand, coupled with increasing genetic
modification use elsewhere, means that New Zealand is one of the few countries
that could meet this demand.
Opportunities from use or avoidance
One theme that permeated public submissions was the economic opportunities
available to New Zealand from avoidance of genetic modification. These economic
opportunities centred around New Zealand gaining competitive advantage from
becoming a major non-genetic modification and organic producer and, to a lesser
extent, a world leader in organic research and development. Other health and
environmental opportunities would also flow from genetic modification avoidance.
Conversely, submitters emphasised the opportunity costs of use of genetic
modification. The major cost would be the forgoing of opportunities related to
organic and non-genetic modification production. A minority of submitters
acknowledged the potential opportunities of genetic modification use,
particularly in the health area. However, while some considered these
opportunities worthwhile enough to consider some genetic modification use,
most submitters still argued that they were insufficient to expose the country to
risks of genetic modification. Some submitters also acknowledged economic
opportunities from genetic modification use, but saw these captured by
multinationals and providing a basis for their further control of the New Zealand
economy.
Main areas of public interest
The main areas of public interest centred on risks associated with use of genetic
modification, which submitters often described as unknown and potentially
catastrophic. These risks related to the environment, public health, food safety
and, given the likely benefit-capture by multinationals, New Zealand's economic
and political sovereignty. In the absence of choice about genetic modification
application, submitters also saw their personal sovereignty as threatened.
Submitters' anxiety was heightened by their belief that risk assessment is still an
underdeveloped area of endeavour, yet scientists and genetic modification
producers continue to claim that the new technology is safe and that the risks are
predictable and manageable. As Table 3.22 shows, environmental, health and
economic issues were the next most commonly identified areas of substantial
comment.
Further, submitters believed that the ethical and cultural implications of use of
genetic modification, which they felt outweigh economic considerations, continue
to be overlooked or undervalued in decision-making processes.
p114 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
Topics
Number
%
Risk, risk assessment and risk management
5675
52.3
Environmental issues
4885
45.0
Health issues
3373
31.1
Economic issues
1802
16.6
Ethical issues
1257
11.6
Regulatory/regulation issues
1045
9.6
Social issues
970
8.9
Spiritual issues
243
2.2
Cultural issues ­ Maori
1 5 4
1 . 4
Intellectual property
114
1.0
Liability issues
68
0.6
Treaty of Waitangi issues
58
0.5
Cultural issues ­ other
56
0.5
Insurance and underwriting
20
0.2
Multiple response
Table 3.22 Topics of substantial comment (n = 10,861)
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p115
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3