But that is all about to change.
Yesterday the Government announced it is moving forward on its intentions to overhaul restrictions on the use of gene editing and other genetic technologies in New Zealand and establish a dedicated regulator. A regulator is being put in place to give the public confidence in this new approach.
Legislation is expected to go to Parliament by the end of the year, removing regulatory hurdles on developing genetic technology beyond the lab that has been in place for the last 30 years. These new regulations will put us in line with the approach that Australia is taking.
Back in 2002, like a lot of people, I was interested in the Royal Commission of Inquiry and Corngate scandal and concerned about the potential impact of releasing GM crops into the environment.
But like all technology – so much as changed over the last couple of decades, and if we don’t readdress these regulations then, as former chief scientist Professor Sir Peter Gluckman has warned NZ runs the risk of becoming a biotech backwater.
We can already buy products on our shelves that are genetically modified – they must be labelled, and we have a choice as to whether we buy them, but I can understand why some people are still concerned about the environmental releases of GE crops. Therefore, the government needs to make sure they get this piece of legislation right. It’s good to see robust risk assessments will be in place, which may also include public consultation before the regulator is satisfied with the risks can be managed.
But there is so much more we can do with GE than just grow food. Over the last few decades, we have seen what GE can contribute to medicine, agriculture and the environment. As Science reporter Jamies Morton pointed out in the NZ Herald today.
Look at Wellington’s Malaghan Institute and its development of CAR T-cell cancer therapies that involves collecting a patient’s immune cells, genetically modifying the cells to recognise and kill their cancer and returning the cells to the patient as treatment. Current restrictions around research like this have proven challenging for scientists to work with.
Another company is developing gene-edited sterile Douglas fir trees as a way to help tackle the spread of wilding pines across our landscapes, but is having to conduct field trials in the US.
At AgResearch, scientists have been looking at whether gene editing might unlock a pathway in white clover leading to specific compounds that might also help cut methane and nitrogen pollution. The new laws would make it easier for the agency to run controlled field trials here in New Zealand
Implanting genetically modified sperm, eggs and embryos will remain prohibited.
So, is it something to still be afraid of?
A survey on 1029 people run by Primary Purpose, a research firm specializing in primary industries discovered that attitudes on using genetic tech in food were approximately split into thirds: 34 percent support, 31 percent opposition and 34 percent were unsure. So how do you feel about it?
This is new territory for New Zealand – it's a move away from a cautionary approach. But are we at the point now whereby the benefits for society outweigh the risks.
Francesca is a well known film reviewer, writes for NZ Herald's Timeout magazine, and contributes to Jack Tame's Newstalk show. This article was first published HERE
Legislation is expected to go to Parliament by the end of the year, removing regulatory hurdles on developing genetic technology beyond the lab that has been in place for the last 30 years. These new regulations will put us in line with the approach that Australia is taking.
Back in 2002, like a lot of people, I was interested in the Royal Commission of Inquiry and Corngate scandal and concerned about the potential impact of releasing GM crops into the environment.
But like all technology – so much as changed over the last couple of decades, and if we don’t readdress these regulations then, as former chief scientist Professor Sir Peter Gluckman has warned NZ runs the risk of becoming a biotech backwater.
We can already buy products on our shelves that are genetically modified – they must be labelled, and we have a choice as to whether we buy them, but I can understand why some people are still concerned about the environmental releases of GE crops. Therefore, the government needs to make sure they get this piece of legislation right. It’s good to see robust risk assessments will be in place, which may also include public consultation before the regulator is satisfied with the risks can be managed.
But there is so much more we can do with GE than just grow food. Over the last few decades, we have seen what GE can contribute to medicine, agriculture and the environment. As Science reporter Jamies Morton pointed out in the NZ Herald today.
Look at Wellington’s Malaghan Institute and its development of CAR T-cell cancer therapies that involves collecting a patient’s immune cells, genetically modifying the cells to recognise and kill their cancer and returning the cells to the patient as treatment. Current restrictions around research like this have proven challenging for scientists to work with.
Another company is developing gene-edited sterile Douglas fir trees as a way to help tackle the spread of wilding pines across our landscapes, but is having to conduct field trials in the US.
At AgResearch, scientists have been looking at whether gene editing might unlock a pathway in white clover leading to specific compounds that might also help cut methane and nitrogen pollution. The new laws would make it easier for the agency to run controlled field trials here in New Zealand
Implanting genetically modified sperm, eggs and embryos will remain prohibited.
So, is it something to still be afraid of?
A survey on 1029 people run by Primary Purpose, a research firm specializing in primary industries discovered that attitudes on using genetic tech in food were approximately split into thirds: 34 percent support, 31 percent opposition and 34 percent were unsure. So how do you feel about it?
This is new territory for New Zealand – it's a move away from a cautionary approach. But are we at the point now whereby the benefits for society outweigh the risks.
Francesca is a well known film reviewer, writes for NZ Herald's Timeout magazine, and contributes to Jack Tame's Newstalk show. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
The State is "trusting the science" which is moving at the "speed of science", so what could possibly go wrong!!.
Clark got many things right, including her assessment of Campbell. She had maori similarly sussed.
No, we're at the point where billions of dollars have been invested in this technology with mainly failed outcomes and no desire for the public to use products produced by this technology aka no market. But there has to be a return on investment and the people funding it hate the public and have enough dirt on politicians to force them to push their products irrespective of the consequences.
Post a Comment