Scoping Meetings:
summary of outcomes
Youth Forum:
summary of outcomes
section |
5.
appendix 3
Outcomes of Consultation: Submissions
from the Public
Section contents
5.
Youth Forum: summary of outcomes
169
Introduction
170
Programme
170
Issues for discussion
171
Participants' views on the seven priority topics
172
Medical and human health
172
Environmental
173
Economic
174
Treaty of Waitangi
175
Ethics and morals
176
Political and legal
176
Conclusion
177
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
p170 |
Section 5: Youth Forum
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
5. Youth Forum: summary
of outcomes
Introduction
The Commission held a Youth Forum to hear from young New Zealanders on the
issue of genetic modification, as part of its consultation programme. The Youth
Forum was held at Te Papa, Wellington, on 5 March 2001.
The day was designed to allow participants to hear a range of views regarding
genetic modification and then discuss and report their own views. A workshop
programme incorporating a role-play, brainstorming session and reporting-back
session was developed. Details regarding the process involved in establishing this
event are outlined in Appendix 1 (see "Youth Forum: the process").
The meeting was facilitated by two independent contractors, experienced in
working with young people. Ninety-nine youth attended, together with the
Commissioners and the Commission Kaumatua. A transcript of the forum was
placed on the Commission website.
Programme
The day started with the Commission introducing itself. The Chair said the
Commission had attended a large number of hearings, received many written
submissions and was holding the forum to hear young people's views on genetic
modification. He reiterated that young people's views were important because
today's young people are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of
whatever decisions are made in regard to genetic modification.
A role-play was conducted looking at different perspectives on the genetic
modification issue. Ten participants selected to take on the roles of medical
scientist, parent-to-be, international agriculture consultant, tourist operator,
environmentalist, consumer representative, plant scientist, orchardist, church
leader and iwi representative were provided with basic information about each
persona.
After the role-play, the participants identified key genetic modification issues in
the brainstorming session and then worked in 10 smaller groups to select their
Section 5: Youth Forum
| H1 | p171
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
priorities for discussion. The seven most commonly prioritised genetic
modification issues were identified and participants spent the rest of the day
discussing and reporting their views on these topics.
Issues for discussion
The issues identified by participants for discussion were:
*
environmental
*
cultural
*
medical
*
developing countries
*
animal rights
*
economic importance to New Zealand
*
natural selection
*
individual choice
*
genetic modification in New Zealand already
*
labelling food
*
agriculture
*
resources, natural resources
*
who is making the decisions
*
ethics, world view
*
containment issues
*
philosophical understanding of the issue
*
testing
*
effects
*
genetic modification and the "soul" or spirit
*
limits
*
obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi
*
overpopulation issues
*
religion
*
liability
*
international competition
*
international political obligations
p172 |
Section 5: Youth Forum
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
*
corporate domination
*
secrecy
*
human rights.
From the above list participants prioritised seven topic areas for each small group
to discuss. These were:
*
medical and human health
*
environmental
*
economic (including agriculture and developing countries)
*
consumers and food (including labelling)
*
Treaty of Waitangi (including cultural)
*
ethics and morals (including philosophy and religion)
*
political and legal (including restrictions, liability and who makes decisions).
Participants' views on the seven priority
topics
The participants' views were tape-recorded and transcribed, the outcomes of their
`reporting-back' noted on wall charts and they also had the opportunity to
contribute to a `graffiti board' which was later displayed in the Commission office.
Following are samples of the discussion to illustrate the breadth and depth of
young people's thinking on genetic modification.
Respondents' use of "GM" (genetic modification) and "GE" (genetic engineering)
is retained in the summary of responses. The responses have been lightly edited
for grammar and style consistency but are otherwise presented as a series of
quotations. These `quotations', however, are not always the words of an individual
but may present multiple responses grouped by subject matter, sometimes offering
both `pros and cons' of an issue.
Medical and human health
The medical and human health issues surrounding genetic modification were
identified as the priority for youth. An articulate, informed and often personal
debate was held on these issues. Points made included:
Does New Zealand really need genetic modification in health? There will be some health
benefits to a small number of people, but what about the effect on the environment and
other people? There is a tension between curing people and doing what you can to save
lives - after all, people have to die some time. There will be less need for antibiotics if
genetic modification is used in health.
Section 5: Youth Forum
| H1 | p173
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
Genetic modification is a `technocentric' approach - in the past more complex diseases
have been created by `pill fixes'. We should look more at the causes of diseases such as
cancer.
Everyone has good intentions regarding genetic modification, but who will actually be
able to afford it? Won't it be used for things like biological warfare instead of for good?
Should the Olympics be `GM-free' in addition to `drug-free'?
Genetic modification in health is a personal choice issue. Without genetic modification in
New Zealand, people with diabetes will have to move to other countries.
Will humans become susceptible to animal diseases if they have genes implanted in them?
Genetic modification has potential; there should be more research so we can fully
understand it.
There should be compulsory standards and codes for genetic modification.
It would be bad if in the future it became in vogue to genetically modify your children.
Genetic modification may mean that people in same-sex relationships can have their own
children.
Environmental
Debate on environmental issues by youth was equally spirited, with the following
points being raised:
Genetic modification is another example of humanity looking for quick and simple fixes
for things. Let's think creatively about answers to the problems genetic modification is
trying to solve - as we know from the case of health, alternative medicines can be used
which have fewer side effects.
Because we do not know what may happen through introducing genetic modification; we
cannot plan for it. Many mistakes have been made in the past, so let's wait and see with
genetic modification. If we make crops all the same, then one disease could wipe them all
out.
Already food contains too many unknown things; adding genetic modification will simply
make it worse.
The chances are that genetically modified crops will get into and move up the food chain
through cross-pollination and then damage the environment.
The ultimate environmental cost of using genetic modification technology is not currently
factored into the price of genetic modification products.
Because many of our plants and animals are unique they need to be protected; already,
imported species have caused major problems.
p174 |
Section 5: Youth Forum
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
Natural selection already modifies genes anyway and endangered species could be saved.
But shouldn't we be trying to prevent extinction rather than trying to bring back extinct
species?
Genetic modification may help reduce problems with horticultural sprays and nitrogen-
related soil and water pollution, but it may not always result in a reduction in pesticides.
Marginal land may be able to be saved because of better yields from genetically modified
crops.
Economic
Youth selected economic issues surrounding genetic modification, including its
usage in agriculture and in developing countries, as their third priority to discuss.
The tourism and organic produce markets were identified as major players in the
economic debate. Issues raised included:
Introducing genetic modification will destroy New Zealand's `clean green' image. If we stay
GM-free, and everyone else in the world is selling it, we will always have a market for our
GM-free food and an economic advantage. We need to do something to stop other countries
sending genetic modification products here.
New Zealand agriculture has always remained up to date with technology, why not do this
with genetic modification? If we are going to go genetic modification, we should jump
right in and attract investment from research companies early on.
The organic market is just starting in New Zealand and will be overrun by cheaper genetic
modification food if it is introduced. You cannot claim that you are producing organic food
if there is any genetic modification production nearby. All of New Zealand's agricultural
production would be threatened by genetic modification cross-pollination.
If we don't introduce genetic modification and just wait and see, in 20 years' time we can
always go GM if we want to. Decisions should not just be market-driven.
There are other ways of helping developing countries, apart from genetic modification; for
instance, our growing more food for them. People in developing countries should be given
the choice as to whether they want genetic modification or not. Genetic modification
won't cure world starvation; poor countries will not be able to afford genetically modified
food.
New Zealand is too small to do its own thing; we will have to follow the lead of larger
countries. With economic globalisation, it will be hard to keep New Zealand GM-free.
Consumers and food
Food, consumers' right to choose and the labelling of food containing genetically
modified components were also raised as issues. Again, the risk of the unknown
Section 5: Youth Forum
| H1 | p175
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
was also identified. Following are samples of some of the responses:
As a country, we need to have control over what goes into our food supply. We can't ban
genetic modification food, we can only hope to control it.
Because genetic modification's long-term effects are unknown, we should be careful and
not rush in so fast that we can't back out of it.
There should be good labelling because people have the right to informed choice when
deciding what they want to eat. This is particularly important for vegans and people with
allergies. There should also be consumer education. However, how far we should go in
labelling is a complex question; for example, what about milk from cows that have eaten
grass that may have been genetically modified?
We need to decide what price we are willing to pay for this new technology.
If genetic modification develops a thicker-skinned fruit, won't larger bugs just develop?
Isn't putting human genes in our food like cannibalism?
It is a mistake to think of genetic modification as `putting pieces of animals into fruit' as
it only consists of rearranging the order of the natural chemical bases within DNA.
Genetically modified food is cheaper and looks better. When apples are sprayed now, you
end up eating dead bugs. We are already eating preservatives, so genetic modification
couldn't be any worse. However, it is not a good argument to just say that, because what
we eat now is bad, genetic modification could not be worse.
Treaty of Waitangi
The role of the Treaty of Waitangi in the genetic modification debate and cultural
issues were also raised by youth. Samples of some of the comments made follow:
New Zealand is not multicultural in a political sense, it is a `bicultural' country with the
relationship being between Maori and Pakeha.
The Treaty is a political relationship, how do we respect Maori views on genetic
modification, which we believe to generally be negative? The Treaty debate needs to be
more than just finding out what Maori want and doing it.
Genetic modification is not a Maori/Pakeha issue: it is an ethics issue. Each individual's
views should be respected. Not all Maori are for or against genetic modification.
We need to have ground rules that apply to all cultures to stop one culture just going and
cloning lots of itself.
If they are successful, Treaty of Waitangi claims may make it difficult to do genetic
modification in the future.
p176 |
Section 5: Youth Forum
Report Appendix 3 | Roy al Commission on Genetic M odification
Ethics and morals
Youth debated the ethics and morals surrounding genetic modification including
aspects of religion and philosophy. Some of the issues raised included:
Everyone's views should be heard on the genetic modification issue.
Just because we can use genetic modification, should we?
What will our children's ethics be regarding genetic modification? Their views should be
given more weight than ours; we shouldn't make decisions for generations to come.
Why put animals' rights below ours? Animals are not commodities to be experimented on.
Anyway, rats are different from people, therefore experiments on rats are not useful. If it
is not ethical to test on animals, then how should we test things? It is better to test things
on animals than on humans.
Non-religious people are for genetic modification because they want to live longer and
religious people are against it because they are not afraid of dying. We are constantly
trying to prevent nature from taking its natural course. But people need to die; we should
not be cloning people when overpopulation is a problem. We are still feeling the effects of
atomic radiation; genetic modification may be dangerous and it may take a long time to
find out.
If you had a disease would you use a genetically modified product?
Political and legal
While the political and legal issues surrounding genetic modification was the last
of the top seven priorities, discussion was extensive and included reference to
restrictions, liability and who actually makes the decisions. Samples of the debate
are included below:
Not everyone will agree on the genetic modification issue; that is the nature of majority
government. If the majority is wrong, don't we have a duty to do what is right?
The Green party is only three to five percent of the vote, but in the end the majority will
win. But green ideas are growing and the Greens are not the only ones against genetic
modification. Consumers have already spoken out against genetic modification, and
politics is about power and people pressure - people saying `no'.
We should not let a small number of people control what happens, for example, seeds
being produced that have the ability to `turn off' after a period of time. Anyway, the
Americans can just determine our policy such as labelling.
We also have obligations under the World Trade Organization.
The biotechnology companies want to get rid of organics.
Section 5: Youth Forum
| H1 | p177
Royal Commission on Genetic Modification | Report Appendix 3
There are always problems with any new invention. Any codes and regulations need to be
tested. If genetic modification is used for warfare and we don't know anything about it, we
won't be able to protect ourselves.
There will be huge problems if people with illnesses have to get their drugs from overseas.
Government should provide better knowledge to educate the public. People need to form
an opinion and take a side in the debate. Some people just don't have enough information.
Conclusion
As expected, the participants in the role-play rose to the occasion and clearly
articulated the diversity of views on the issue. Participants then identified the
issues they wished to discuss in small groups. (Small groups were considered the
most appropriate method of working with the young participants because it
encouraged all participants to speak and provided opportunities for informal
discussion.)
The Youth Forum reported a diversity of views amongst young people in regard to
genetic modification. The issues and views provided at the Youth Forum reflected
those collected from the adult community in the Commission's broader consultation
programme. The order of priority given to the issues, however, differed in that
youth addressed medical, human health, environmental and economic issues
before the issues of consumer choice and food.
The Commissioners thanked the participants for their well-informed discussion
and commented that they were better informed on the subject than the older
generation. They said that some of the questions which the participants found
difficult, the Commission had also found difficult, and that the questions
participants thought important were the same as those raised in the wider
discussions. The Commissioners said the energy and diversity of the participants
was impressive and highlighted that there were massive issues to deal with, ranging
from insulin production right through to human cloning.
The Commissioners said the Youth Forum continued the debate that they had
been hearing around the country and they were continuing to investigate whether
there were areas where genetic modification techniques could be used and those
where they should not be used. The Commissioners noted that, while they had
had a year to discuss this issue and come to terms with it, in one day the youth
participants had raised most of the issues the Commission had been thinking
about.