By PHILIPPA STEVENSON agricultural editor
Business and research organisations are overwhelmingly relieved by the middle ground charted by the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.
Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday released the commission's report which recommended against the extremes of banning the technology altogether or giving biotechnology companies free rein.
John Wilson of Agritech
NZ, a group of 55 technology exporters, was just one comforted by what many described as a common-sense approach.
"New Zealand is absolutely in a unique position to benefit from agritech business and it would be a tragedy not to continue [with GE research]," he said.
Huge opportunities lay in store for New Zealand companies "provided there's not a total bureaucracy".
Dr Corran McLachlan of A2 Corporation said his company's biotech research was into existing genes, or "the reverse of genetic modification".
He supported GE science within suitable constraints. "It would have been a negative outcome if research had been stopped. It sounds like they've chosen good, moderate ground."
Business New Zealand chief executive Simon Carlaw said the business community knew its future depended on how well science was used to move from a dependence on commodities to highly differentiated products.
"The commission has balanced the need for progress with the need for robust safety controls."
The report would help GE-related issues to be considered in a more rational, informed way than previously, Mr Carlaw said.
Former AgResearch genetics researcher Phil L'Huillier, who left for Australia in May frustrated at delays to his cloning research in cattle, agreed.
Speaking from a biotech conference in Queenstown, he said the commission had done a sound and thorough analysis of controversial, complicated and difficult issues.
"Many people should read it from all sides of the debate because it provides a lot of background and factual material, as well as recommendations and discussion points as to how we can deal with some of these things."
Some recommendations addressed many scientists' concerns at the amount of paperwork associated with low-risk experimentation.
The commission also addressed anomalies in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.
Australia invested much more in biotech and there was more leadership by state and federal government, Dr L'Huillier said.
"Now is the time for the [New Zealand] Government to put its cards on the table."
Dr Ian Warrington of HortResearch, speaking for several crown research institutes, said the commission's recommendations gave New Zealand choice and allowed it to explore the opportunities from the new technologies within a controlled and responsible framework.
He welcomed the recommended Bioethics Council and the Parliamentary Commissioner on Biotechnology and praised the commission for recognising consumers' and producers' right to a choice.
"Producers having choice raises the issues of border zones, and districts that might be GM-free. Clearly those issues have to be now worked through," Dr Warrington said.
Recommendations for streamlining regulatory procedures would be welcomed by those who had found compliance costs prohibitive.
Recent US data suggested that meeting regulatory standards there for commercial field release cost companies between $US1 million ($2.4 million) and $US5 million.
"That's the low end of the spectrum, so if it got more complicated than that then you are dealing with some pretty big numbers.
"It means you need crops with significant value to justify those compliance costs."
HortResearch scientist Dr Dan Cohen, who has bred disease-resistant tamarillos, said the costs would be too high for the small tamarillo industry to look at commercial release of the genetically inoculated plants. Tamarillo exports are worth just $5 million a year.
"Other major crops can afford that expense. Minor crops can't afford to go down that route," he said.
Dr Warrington said concerns remained that New Zealand could miss the biotechnology boat while many countries sailed on with research, including on apples, in which New Zealand has led the world.
"There are probably more transgenic apple trees in Europe than anywhere else in the world, and ironically they are transforming New Zealand varieties, like Royal Gala."
Dr Warrington said that while the crown research institutes Crop and Food Research and Forest Research could be among the first to apply to release commercial GE crops, it was more likely that an overseas body would be the first cab off the rank.
"It's just timing. The New Zealand research effort is not at a pre-commercial phase yet."
Dr William Rolleston, who chairs the pro-GE Life Sciences Network, said the commission had set a very clear, science-based course for New Zealand.
The network had argued that the future economic, social, health and environmental well-being of the country depended on its scientists and developers being able to use gene technology responsibly and with appropriate caution, he said.
"We are extremely pleased the royal commission has accepted the need for us to be able to undertake field trials of GM crops to test their environmental impacts prior to commercialisation."
He urged the Government to reinstate the Environmental Risk Management Authority's ability to receive applications for field trials.
www.nzherald.co.nz/ge
Full text of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification report
GE lessons from Britain
GE links
GE glossary
By PHILIPPA STEVENSON agricultural editor
Business and research organisations are overwhelmingly relieved by the middle ground charted by the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.
Prime Minister Helen Clark yesterday released the commission's report which recommended against the extremes of banning the technology altogether or giving biotechnology companies free rein.
John Wilson of Agritech
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.