Fortunately, there is low-hanging fruit within reach – liberalising our Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) regulations.
New Zealand’s history with GMO has been difficult.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s there was a backlash against the newly developed technology, much of it unscientific, and poorly informed. Nevertheless, GMO hesitancy captured national consciousness. The Bolger government introduced the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) in response.
The HSNO applied stringent one-size-fits-all restrictions on GMO technology. The stream of field tests for GMOs in New Zealand consequently declined to a trickle. Following a royal commission instigated by the Clark government and further amendments to the HSNO, the remaining trickle dried up almost entirely.
For nearly three decades now, New Zealand has neglected the development of GMO policy and technology. This is neither in the national interest, nor aligned with scientific consensus. New Zealand is an agricultural economy, and GMO is foremost an agricultural technology. By robbing ourselves of the competitive edge it offers, we risk playing an eternal game of catch-up as bolder nations become increasingly productive.
Immediate benefits from liberalisation could include pest-resistant and more productive crops, sterile pines for forestry, reduced carbon emissions, reduced agricultural methane, better healthcare products, predator control, and cheaper medication. Still more benefits will follow as other countries continue to invest in research.
The technology itself has also improved. For instance, Genetic Engineering (GE) is a new tool in the agricultural scientist's pocket. GE precisely edits existing genes rather than introducing foreign ones. Its results are often indistinguishable from traditional breeding methods, but faster and more precise. However, GE currently languishes in the same bureaucratic prison as GMO. It is functionally forbidden in New Zealand
One unfortunate consequence of the current regulations is that they drive kiwi GMO research overseas. Obtaining approvals for field tests at home has become unbearably cumbersome and costly.
For example, at AgResearch, New Zealand researchers are working on a cow feed that will reduce the volume of methane emitted by our cows. Incidental benefits will include reducing bloat and internal parasites and improving overall animal productivity.
Because of our backwards domestic system, this research has been carried out in America. After initial success there, AgResearch plans to carry out further trials in Australia.
Even AgResearch feed were approved only for animal consumption in New Zealand, there is no clear path for producing it here. These quirks are symptoms of a broken approach.
If we continue as we are, there is a plausible future in which New Zealand-led research produces a crucially important product for our agricultural sector that we cannot use. The irony might be funny if it wasn’t so aggravating.
Fortunately, there is a growing political appetite for change. Judith Collins, the current Minister for Science, Innovation, and Technology, has been vocal in her support for reform. Her ministerial colleagues Shane Jones and Andrew Hoggard, both of whom hold relevant portfolios, agree with her.
Support for Collins' view has also come from the Royal Society Te Apārangi, the New Zealand Productivity Commission, and the wider scientific community.
The question is, if the law is unfit for its purpose and politicians want change, what’s the problem with replacing the HSNO?
The biggest unacknowledged barrier is convincing the same people that wanted it gone the first time around. 57% of kiwis still say they would not eat GMO products if they became widely available.
Collins and other GMO proponents will have to allay concerns about New Zealand’s ‘Clean & Green’ image, about potential genetic drift, and about the accidental introduction of new pest species. None of these problems are without solutions, and none require us to keep the same regulations we currently have.
Adopting solutions requires cogent advocates. Any government, pundit, or scientist serious about changing the situation needs to be able to speak lucidly to Kiwis about the necessity for change.
It’s an issue that Minister Collins will encounter soon if she pushes on with her proposed reforms. She will have to hammer home how important this is for us as a country. New Zealand will remain economically dependent on agricultural exports for the foreseeable future. We cannot afford to turn down a pivotal for improving those exports.
To do that we must have access to all the tools available. Crops that grow in American field tests with American livestock may grow differently in the New Zealand climate. Forcing kiwi research overseas is negatively affecting our agricultural sector, our impact on the climate, and our economic prosperity.
A simple alternative model will also be a useful tool for explaining the case for change. Such a model could operate on a scale based on the novelty and potential risks of the organisms. At one end of the scale, the system would quickly approve organisms similar to those we already cultivate, particularly those grown in climates like ours and already approved by peer nations. At the other end of the scale, truly novel organisms would be subject to more thorough requirements and scrutiny before approval.
New Zealand stands to gain a much-needed win in liberalising its approach to GMOs. However, any government serious about reform is going to have to bring the doubters along with them.
Max Salmon is a Research Intern at the New Zealand Initiative. He joins as a generalist, with interests in education, infrastructure, and energy. This article was first published HERE
The HSNO applied stringent one-size-fits-all restrictions on GMO technology. The stream of field tests for GMOs in New Zealand consequently declined to a trickle. Following a royal commission instigated by the Clark government and further amendments to the HSNO, the remaining trickle dried up almost entirely.
For nearly three decades now, New Zealand has neglected the development of GMO policy and technology. This is neither in the national interest, nor aligned with scientific consensus. New Zealand is an agricultural economy, and GMO is foremost an agricultural technology. By robbing ourselves of the competitive edge it offers, we risk playing an eternal game of catch-up as bolder nations become increasingly productive.
Immediate benefits from liberalisation could include pest-resistant and more productive crops, sterile pines for forestry, reduced carbon emissions, reduced agricultural methane, better healthcare products, predator control, and cheaper medication. Still more benefits will follow as other countries continue to invest in research.
The technology itself has also improved. For instance, Genetic Engineering (GE) is a new tool in the agricultural scientist's pocket. GE precisely edits existing genes rather than introducing foreign ones. Its results are often indistinguishable from traditional breeding methods, but faster and more precise. However, GE currently languishes in the same bureaucratic prison as GMO. It is functionally forbidden in New Zealand
One unfortunate consequence of the current regulations is that they drive kiwi GMO research overseas. Obtaining approvals for field tests at home has become unbearably cumbersome and costly.
For example, at AgResearch, New Zealand researchers are working on a cow feed that will reduce the volume of methane emitted by our cows. Incidental benefits will include reducing bloat and internal parasites and improving overall animal productivity.
Because of our backwards domestic system, this research has been carried out in America. After initial success there, AgResearch plans to carry out further trials in Australia.
Even AgResearch feed were approved only for animal consumption in New Zealand, there is no clear path for producing it here. These quirks are symptoms of a broken approach.
If we continue as we are, there is a plausible future in which New Zealand-led research produces a crucially important product for our agricultural sector that we cannot use. The irony might be funny if it wasn’t so aggravating.
Fortunately, there is a growing political appetite for change. Judith Collins, the current Minister for Science, Innovation, and Technology, has been vocal in her support for reform. Her ministerial colleagues Shane Jones and Andrew Hoggard, both of whom hold relevant portfolios, agree with her.
Support for Collins' view has also come from the Royal Society Te Apārangi, the New Zealand Productivity Commission, and the wider scientific community.
The question is, if the law is unfit for its purpose and politicians want change, what’s the problem with replacing the HSNO?
The biggest unacknowledged barrier is convincing the same people that wanted it gone the first time around. 57% of kiwis still say they would not eat GMO products if they became widely available.
Collins and other GMO proponents will have to allay concerns about New Zealand’s ‘Clean & Green’ image, about potential genetic drift, and about the accidental introduction of new pest species. None of these problems are without solutions, and none require us to keep the same regulations we currently have.
Adopting solutions requires cogent advocates. Any government, pundit, or scientist serious about changing the situation needs to be able to speak lucidly to Kiwis about the necessity for change.
It’s an issue that Minister Collins will encounter soon if she pushes on with her proposed reforms. She will have to hammer home how important this is for us as a country. New Zealand will remain economically dependent on agricultural exports for the foreseeable future. We cannot afford to turn down a pivotal for improving those exports.
To do that we must have access to all the tools available. Crops that grow in American field tests with American livestock may grow differently in the New Zealand climate. Forcing kiwi research overseas is negatively affecting our agricultural sector, our impact on the climate, and our economic prosperity.
A simple alternative model will also be a useful tool for explaining the case for change. Such a model could operate on a scale based on the novelty and potential risks of the organisms. At one end of the scale, the system would quickly approve organisms similar to those we already cultivate, particularly those grown in climates like ours and already approved by peer nations. At the other end of the scale, truly novel organisms would be subject to more thorough requirements and scrutiny before approval.
New Zealand stands to gain a much-needed win in liberalising its approach to GMOs. However, any government serious about reform is going to have to bring the doubters along with them.
Max Salmon is a Research Intern at the New Zealand Initiative. He joins as a generalist, with interests in education, infrastructure, and energy. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
Max, Your enthusiasm for GMO is fine , Recently the good work done with Golden Rice gene editing etc and the excellent theory of health benefit that the new breed of rice would assist is thought provoking .
However the Guy Hatchard report on Breaking Views and the serious evidence and allegations from the COVID experience and related deaths is cautionary and because of the way it was Internationally administered scary.
Max, you're an intern and look refreshingly young. Unfortunately, the latter attribute means you have not had time to read all of the literature regarding genetic engineering - at least that is the conclusion one reaches after reading your article. Gene editing is not the precise tool we imagine and many other off-target effects occur when rearranging the order with-in genes. What that should tell us is that we understand next to nothing how genes function. Information is available if you would care to look for it. Have pine trees actually been engineered that do not produce cones ? If they are developed we'd need many years of growing to see if there are any other effects on the plant or environment - would the timber have worse or better properties ? Are there effects on root exudates and how does this affect the soil micro-biome ? Many more question need to be answered. Imagine how many variables there are to be investigated when feeding cows genetically engineered feed - what happens to the rumen, what impacts are there on reproductive, health, meat and milk quality. Scientists often throw around additional benefits, such as you mentioned with bloat and parasites, without any evidence because it suits their agenda (often more grant money) or strokes their ego. The other commenter mentioned golden rice and he is a bit to generous to mention what an abject failure that was. One would need to consume several kilos per day to have any appreciable effect. Genetic engineering is a dead end because of our lack of knowledge of how to perform it -conventional breeding techniques have and can continue to provide large gains, especially when allied with sensible and up to date nutrient programmes.
Genetic engineering isn't an easy win for New Zealanders. Rather it will undermine our reputation as a food exporter. At the end of the day GMOs are largely about patenting life and creating markets for toxic herbicides and insecticides that would cease to exist without GMOs. Leave NZ agriculture alone to do what it does with far greater efficiency without GMOs. They are a solution that requires the invention of problems...
Post a Comment