Genetic modification

a hot topic in NZ

Opinion

ONLY a few months ago, there were probably not many New Zealanders who knew what “genetically modified” meant. Now, just about everybody is familiar with the GM acronym and it features regularly in newspaper headlines, television news reports and talkback radio discussions.

It may still seem an esoteric topic in the islands. But the debate New Zealand is having now is one that will sweep through the Pacific at some time in the future - and probably sooner rather than later. For here we are talking about the food we eat, about how it can be improved, how it can be made resistant to diseases, how it can last longer on shop shelves or in home refrigerators about not just how it looks, but how safe it is.

And that is something everyone is interested in, whatever their way of life, dietary preferences or level of income.

There are also implications for national economies. Just remember what taro blight did to Samoa’s economy six years ago when it destroyed up to 90 per cent of the crop. Just think what it would mean to Samoa if taro was given immunity to the disease or to other parts of the Pacific if squash pumpkins, kumara, yams and export fruit crops could be grown with no fear of being similarly stricken or enabled to thrive in weather and soil conditions that are not natural to them.

For genetic modification offers those very prospects. Like human beings, every organism, from animals to plants and insects, have genes. They make us what we are, dictating our eye and hair colour for instance, and they make plants look and taste as they do. Some plants and animals are naturally resistant to some dis eases. Others have little resistance. Modem science has developed techniques to take or copy a gene from one organism and insert it in another. That is genetic modification.

Scientists have been doing something similar for ages, of course; inter-breeding animals to produce bigger, better sheep with more wool, for instance, and developing new strains of flowers with brighter colours or stronger scents. But now they can mix any organisms - plants with animals, or animals with humans - and that is the prospect that has got people worried and talking about so-called “Frankenstein foods”.

One experiment, inserting artificial genes copied from toads into potatoes to combat soft rot, drew the attention of a militant group called the Wild Greens who ripped the plants from the ground in a dead-of-night attack. Other projects, including putting a human gene into cows to make their milk taste more like moth er’s breast milk, are planned. Maori groups in New Zealand par ticularly have opposed the concept of mixing human and animal genetic codes and there have been widespread calls for the estab lishment of an ethics committee to consider the cultural, ethical and moral issues at stake.

What has upset many people is the belief that genetic science is being foisted on unsuspecting consumers by stealth. It has long been used in the United States which supplies most of the world’s soya beans —a raw material widely used in a great variety of food stuffs. Up to 40 per cent of the entire US crop is now genetically modified and is so inter-mixed with conventional product that nobody can differentiate it. Scientists and food producers insist that the GM products are safe. Concerned consumers say they have not been around long enough to be sure. The Wild Greens questioned whether feeding people with potatoes, modified by the toad’s natural antibiotic that combats soft rot, would make them resistant to medical antibiotics, thereby risking public health.

While the government shrugged off these concerns, some med ical and environmental heavyweights added fuel to the debate.

The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners said it had “serious health and environmental concerns” about GM foods and urged the government to take a “conservative approach” to approving them. And the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Morgan Williams, suggested a moratorium on their development to allow a breathing space for wider public debate. Anxiety was rising, he said, because the technology was advancing so quickly ahead of public understanding.

At the very least, consumers demanded that all foods that have been genetically modified should be labelled as such so that they can make a choice about eating them.

The government agreed with this in principle but was in a quandary about how to do it meaningfully and cost-effectively. It blocked an opposition private member’s Bill calling for mandato ry labelling three years’ running, even though Prime Minister Jenny Shipley said consumers had a right to know what they were eating. Australian and New Zealand Health Ministers were sharply divided on the issue when they met last December but took a majority vote in favour of labelling even though they admitted they did not have a satisfactory definition of genetically modified foods. The situation was further confused by a May 13 deadline, set last year, for all GM foods to be tested for safety by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority or withdrawn from sale.

Only two products had been approved by mid-March and it was clear this month’s deadline would have to be extended.

It is no easy issue to settle. On the one hand, there are the very real ‘concerns of consumers who increasingly prefer fresh, natural foodstuffs. On the other, there is the unrelenting advance of sci ence, bringing new technology countries like New Zealand and its Pacific neighbours cannot afford to ignore. ■

David Barber

Wellington