Analysis of Public
Submissions
Analysis of
Public Submissions
3.
section 3.6 |
appendix 3
Outcomes of Consultation: Submissions
from the Public
Section contents
3.
Analysis of Public Submissions
22
3.6
Risks and benefits
67
Background
67
Outline of this section
67
General overview
67
Risks and benefits of use of genetic modification
68
Benefits
68
Risks
70
Risks and benefits of avoidance of genetic modification
74
Benefits
74
Risks
75
Report Appendix 3 | Royal Commission on Genetic Modification
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p67
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
3.6 Risks and benefits
Background
Under relevant matters, item (c) of the Warrant seeks information about:
the risks of, and the benefits to be derived from, the use or avoidance of genetic
modification, genetically modified organisms and products in New Zealand, including -
(i) the groups of persons who are likely to be advantaged by each of those benefits; and
(ii) the groups of persons who are likely to be disadvantaged by each of those risks
Outline of this section
This section of the report focuses on public submitters' perceptions of risks and
benefits as a consequence of use and avoidance of genetic modification. Some of
the information presented duplicates that presented earlier in coverage of
submitters' views about strategic options for genetic modification use, in the light
of their views about the ethical, cultural, environmental, social, and economic risks
and benefits of genetic modification (see "Strategic outcomes, issues and options").
This section summarises public submitters' views about the risks and benefits of
genetic modification in three sections. They include:
*
a general overview of submitters' views about risks and/or benefits
*
risks and benefits associated with the use of genetic modification and who
will bear the risks and gain the benefits
*
risks and benefits associated with the avoidance of genetic modification and
who will bear the risk and gain the benefits.
General overview
As Table 3.11 shows the vast majority of public submitters were opposed to genetic
modification in New Zealand, most of these expressing strong opposition. Their
general view was that the risks that genetic modification posed were particularly
great because impacts, if they could be predicted, were likely to be irreversible and
spread randomly from point of impact. Therefore, given current understanding
and assessment mechanisms, the risks associated with genetic modification could
not be accurately assessed.
p68 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
Table 3.11 Public submitters' general stance on genetic
modification (n = 10,861)
Stance on genetic modification
Number
%
Strongly against
7036
64.8
Tends to be against
2963
27.3
Neither for or against
659
6.1
Tends to be for
132
1.2
Strongly for
72
0.7
Risks and benefits of use of genetic
modification
Some public submitters, including those expressing an overall opposition to
genetic modification, acknowledged benefits from genetic modification use in
particular areas, usually health but also the environment and, to a lesser degree, the
economy and food production. However, for most public submitters, the risks
were too great, or insufficiently understood, to justify applying genetic modification
technologies, regardless of the claimed benefits. In rare cases, public submitters
considered the risks small enough, the technologies safe enough, or the benefits
great enough, to justify the use of genetic modification. However, overall, they
were more likely to identify benefits from genetic modification avoidance and risks
from genetic modification use. The benefits and risks identified are described for
the three most commonly mentioned sectors: health, the environment and the
economy.
Benefits
As Table 3.12 shows, 1045 public submitters did acknowledge some potential
benefit from genetic modification use, particularly in the health area. However,
most of those indicating some acceptance of its use for health reasons also stressed
p68 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p69
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
Acceptable applications
Number
%
For laboratory, contained research
604
57.8
Medical uses ­ non-defined
447
42.8
Medical uses ­ specified
178
17.0
Increased food production
77
7.4
Increased food quality
60
5.7
For environmental protection
38
3.6
Strictly controlled testing
13
1.2
Limited to non-viable genetic modified material
8
0.8
Creates technology, data or products
8
0.8
Outside New Zealand
4
0.4
Animal use
4
0.4
Forestry or plants
3
0.3
Limited to non-heritable genetic modification
1
0.1
Other
12
1.1
The "Other" category includes the following acceptable GM applications:
*
limited field trials for medical research only
*
when GM involves same kind of species
*
when distribution of costs and benefits are equitable
*
when modifications are reversible
*
to improve food safety
*
to improve biosecurity
Multiple response
Table 3.12 Acceptable applications of genetic modification (n =
1045)
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p69
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
that such use had to be laboratory based and contained. Only very small
percentages wrote about benefits of genetic modification for food quality and
productivity, and environmental protection. Amongst these, however, were some
who expressed frustration at the level of public misinformation about the uses of
genetic modification. This frustration was exemplified by one submitter who was:
tired of GE being the root of all evil. I feel our `informed' choices are extremely
misinformed ... GE is not just about frog genes in potatoes and a monopolised seed supply.
With public encouragement, it could be about third world countries being able to support
themselves ...
Public submitters who acknowledged potential health benefits (see Table 3.12)
from genetic modification wrote about targeted treatments generally, cures for
specific diseases, the eradication of inheritable disorders, use of gene therapy, the
development and use of nutriceuticals, lowering of health care costs, improved
food quality and safety and increased food productivity. Submitters were also
concerned about the capture of any benefits from genetic modification by
multinationals. There was a general belief that only a few (almost always
multinationals) will benefit from genetic modification and many (namely the
general public) will suffer the costs. Other notable concerns included the ethical
and spiritual implications of genetic modification, the irreversible nature of
genetic modification application, the eroding of consumer choice and adverse
economic impacts. The adverse economic impacts related to organic farming in
particular, but also the opportunities New Zealand would forgo (for instance,
taking advantage of niche markets based on our "clean, green image") if we take
the genetic modification road.
A small number of public submitters (38) discussed benefits to the environment
from use of genetic modification. Benefits were identified as new pest control
mechanisms, the eradication of possums, gorse and other pests, reduced use of
insecticides and herbicides, and less intensive agriculture and, therefore, less stress
on the environment.
Few submitters identified economic benefits from genetic modification use. Of the
few that did, the benefits included increased choice of products, increased
productivity, profitability, competitiveness in a range of sectors and increased
scientific activity.
Risks
Public submitters were far more likely to identify risks as a consequence of genetic
modification use. These ranged from general environmental, social and/or
economic disaster to more specific negative impacts.
Submitters saw risks as highly likely and extremely dangerous given the relative
infancy of this field of research. One submitter's fears, typical of others, were that
"... the observed and potential risks of GE technology are so numerous that it is
hard to believe they are being ignored. It is an inherently uncertain and unstable
technology, and yet it is being implemented at a pace that assumes all the
consequences are known." Submitters pointed to other technologies (principally
nuclear power) as potentially devastating but still ultimately containable. In one
example of a contrasting of those technologies with genetic modification, a
submitter stated that "... our new technologies involve such fundamental and
powerful levels of nature and are being applied over such short-term scales and on
such a global level that even minute mistakes can become overwhelming problems
overnight." Submitters argued that because it is alive, genetic pollution is self-
replicating and cannot be cleaned up. This irreversibility, combined with the
uncertainty around risk made submitters wary. One, for instance, stated that "...
the analogy to the story of Pandora's Box is most appropriate - there will be no
possible chance to reverse the process if unknown adverse effects become
established in our lives."
Table 3.13 summarises submitters' views about unacceptable uses of genetic
modification, given levels of risk and characteristics of use that are ethically or
otherwise unpalatable. Most often, use was unacceptable given risks to food quality
and supply and to the environment.
Environmental risks identified by submitters, other than general environmental
disaster, included:
*
general destabilisation of natural ecosystems
*
the unpredictable and, therefore, uncontrollable and irreversible nature of
impacts including
*
cross-pollination of genetically modified crops with other flora including
commercial organic and non-organic crops, indigenous flora and other non-
commercial plants
*
cross-species gene transfer, contamination of indigenous fauna
*
consequent loss of Maori traditional foods
*
loss of biodiversity and biosecurity
*
loss of environmental integrity, with consequent degradation of its cultural
and spiritual value to particular groups (eg, interference with whakapapa)
*
threat to indigenous ownership/knowledge of fauna and flora posed by
potential multinational control of genetic information
*
increased use of pesticides.
p72 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
Non-acceptable characteristics
Number
%
Food production
2130
68.1
Release of viable organisms in the environment
(ie food or non food crops)
1479
47.3
Transfer of genetic material between `unlike' species
491
15.7
Introduction of inheritable genetic changes in humans
365
11.7
Privatisation of genetic material
131
4.2
Transfer of human genetic material into plants or animals
128
4.1
Experimenting on animals
77
2.5
Non-insurability against risks
49
1.6
Production of genetically modified animals for bio-factories
17
0.5
Human uses
9
0.3
Plant research and development
7
0.2
Medicines or medical research
5
0.2
Commercially driven
5
0.2
Terminator technology
4
0.1
General undefined research
3
0.1
Other
6
0.2
The "Other" category included the following non-acceptable applications:
*
possum control
*
military uses
*
use of antibiotic resistance markers/ viral resistance genes
*
natural medicine components
*
bioremediation techniques/biosensors
*
artificial sweeteners
*
substitution of tropical cash crops
*
release of non-viable organisms
Multiple response
Table 3.13 Non-acceptable characteristics of genetic modification
applications (n = 3130)
p72 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p73
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
Submitters were very concerned that any negative environmental impact would
be unstoppable. "Through evolution and natural selection over millions of
years", one argued "organisms have developed finely balanced relationships
between themselves and the physical environment. Once we have `genetic
pollution' this will persist as long as there is life on earth." Even nuclear waste, it
was pointed out, becomes harmless after tens of thousands of years. Negative
effects of genetic modification can never be recalled.
Public submitters addressing genetically modified crops pointed to the hazard of
crop pests becoming immune to natural toxins produced by genetically modified
plants. This would necessitate the development of ever more dangerous pesticides,
causing greater environmental harm. This would also impact on the organic
farmers who rely on natural pesticides on their farms. If pest insects become
immune to these toxins organic farmers would not be able to use this integral
approach to pest management in the production of their crops.
A wide range of health risks was identified by public submitters concerned about
the application of genetic modification in New Zealand. These included:
*
allergies to genetically modified food and to an environment contaminated
by genetic modification
*
poorer health for the next generation, given genetic modification-related ill
health
*
poorer health for the economically disadvantaged (in New Zealand and
elsewhere) who may be able to afford only genetically modified food. Other
options will be too expensive
*
severe and generalised health deterioration from loss of food sources and
genetic modification-contaminated environment
*
viral diseases and other infections from horizontal gene transfer to humans
*
death from genetically modified medicines (eg Insulin)
*
inappropriate use of genetic modification-diagnostic testing in workplace
and for insurance
*
non-insurability of health effects
*
loss of choice in health care as genetically modified medicine become more
ubiquitous and alternatives, such as homoeopathy, are genetic modification-
corrupted
*
unknown risks from nutriceuticals (eg `Golden Rice').
Another health issue identified by many submitters was the likelihood of increasing
the incidence of antibiotic resistance in human through the consumption of
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p73
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
p74 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
genetically modified food. These submitters pointed out that scientists use an
"antibiotic resistance marker gene" to determine whether or not the genetic
modification successfully occurred. They cited scientists who believed that these
antibiotic resistance genes could transfer over to humans when genetically
modified food is consumed, rendering many antibiotic treatments in hospitals
ineffective. A related concern was that viral vectors (notably Escherichia coli) used to
transmit genetic material were themselves dangerous, being capable of transferring
to human beings through the genetically modified food they eat.
Economic risks from the use of genetic modification identified by public submitters
included:
*
loss of organic and non-genetically modified produce markets (with
consequent employment declines), given environmental contamination
*
loss of agricultural and forestry markets generally, given unreliable
productivity as a result of genetic modification-contamination
*
generalised economic costs to the New Zealand economy as benefits are
captured by multinationals
*
decline in tourism with the loss of our clean, green image
*
loss of Maori commercial fisheries (quotas wiped out by genetic
modification-contamination of fisheries).
Risks and benefits of avoidance of genetic
modification
In general, when public submitters identified benefits from genetic modification,
they associated them with genetic modification avoidance in New Zealand.
However, in some cases they identified benefits and opportunities from genetic
modification use. These are also discussed later in the report (see "Opportunities
from use or avoidance").
Benefits
One set of benefits identified by submitters was, they stressed, contingent upon
maintaining the integrity of the natural environment. For them, an environment
in its natural state (that is, without any release of genetically modified organisms)
would be healthier and safer for its inhabitants. In addition, it would enhance the
spiritual and psychological health of a range of groups including Maori, specific
religious groups, identified ethnic minorities and others, such as vegetarians, who
live according to particular sets of beliefs.
Section 3: Public Submissions
| H1 | p75
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
Often, public submitters argued that remaining genetic modification-free would
open the way for New Zealand to develop a profitable organic production sector
and take advantage of the growing international demand for organic produce. The
potential benefits to the New Zealand economy would include foreign exchange
earnings, employment growth (including those in production and research),
potential savings from reduced production costs and regional economic
development. Other economic benefits would include tourism growth and
opportunities to develop new business, for instance based around seed banks and
the preservation of biodiversity.
Most of the health benefits from avoidance of genetic modification identified by
public submitters related to the advantages of living in a genetic modification-free
environment, eating genetic modification-free food (often confused with organic
food) and having access to a quality environment and organic food denied other
countries. Many submitters suggested that the absence of genetic modification in
New Zealand would lead to people living healthy life styles with a sense of
sovereignty over themselves, wholesomeness, personal integrity and cultural and/
or ethical safety. Some of those arguing that a rejection of genetic modification
would pave the way for New Zealand to establish itself as a viable organic producer
also suggested that the country would profit from an increased interest in studying
and using organic/natural ways for alleviating disease and illness.
Risks
It was very unusual for public submitters to identify risks to anything as a
consequence of genetic modification avoidance. This is not a surprising result
given the overwhelming objection to the technology by public submitters. The
few risks identified included rampaging pests, increased use of chemicals and
overuse of land, as a result of increased production. Health risks from avoidance of
genetic modification identified by public submitters cluster around potential
benefits forgone:
*
missing out on genetic modification-treatments
*
loss of researchers and knowledge, given `brain drain', with consequent loss
of health treatment advances
*
opportunity costs to New Zealanders of rejecting genetically modified foods
if they prove healthier
*
denying people cures for inheritable conditions.
Economic risks resulting from genetic modification avoidance, identified by a
small number of submitters, included:
*
loss of markets if genetic modification production proves competitive
p76 |
Section 3: Public Submissions
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
*
economic sanctions by United States, European Union and other trading
partners if New Zealand avoids genetic modification
*
loss of scientific capability if genetic modification research is constrained
either because New Zealand scientists will not be able to participate fully in
the new technological revolution or they leave to pursue their science
elsewhere
*
loss of agricultural productivity compared with competitors
*
loss of investment in science and genetic modification production.