Rural delivery: Put facts before fervour in GM food debate

By ROGER MORRIS*

It woulds be easy to conclude from the political debate that genetic engineering is the greatest risk we face in providing safe food to New Zealand consumers and to our export markets.

As a scientist involved in providing safe food, but with no involvement in GM matters, I feel a duty to make some facts available to counter the fervour which seems to be dominating discussion of this issue.

We have been using genetically modified products for many years. The best example is the insulin which diabetics use. This used to come from pigs, but for many years now has come from genetically engineered bacteria.

If we are serious about avoiding GM products, why don't we go back to getting our insulin from pigs? Because the GM product has proved to be safe and effective, and is a little easier to produce.

The Greens claim this is somehow different because it has medical benefits, but it is hard to see the difference. We have also used GM vaccines for some diseases, because these have considerable advantages.

The evidence from around the world says GM ranks low down on the scale of risks we face from our food, and we should keep a sense of balance about where the risks lie.

The greatest risk we face of getting sick from our food, in New Zealand and overseas, is from infections of various kinds.

If we want to protect consumers, that is where the greatest gains can be made. But it is difficult to convince the anti-GM lobby to focus on issues in order of importance.

Ironically, the food production systems they support - for example, outdoor extensive piggeries - present a higher risk of spreading some of these diseases than do high health commercial pig farms, so this creates a bit of a problem.

As a local example, over the past year there have been two notable incidents of unusual animal infections associated with extensive pig farms near Auckland causing human disease cases.

Should we therefore ban extensive systems of outdoor pig production, which the people who warn us of the risks of GM strongly advocate?

There is no plausible experimental evidence that GM foods are harmful, and it is part of the structure of life that organisms constantly exchange genes in a variety of ways. We are just catching up with nature.

The argument that GM foods are likely to produce food allergies also holds little water.

Food allergies are already widespread and typically associated with various commonly used foods.

GM techniques can potentially be used to remove the allergenic features of such proteins, and are not especially likely to create more.

New Zealand has built a high international reputation for its honesty and integrity as a food supplier, and for basing its actions on sound science.

If we build our future on fervour instead of fact, we will seriously undermine our international standing, rather than enhance it.

This is not to say we should rush headlong into new technologies without suitable protection.

The lessons of history are that the real risks often come from unexpected directions, and that we should go through a careful, steady process of developing and evaluating new technologies.

If we move cautiously but positively while giving adequate attention to evaluating the risks as we go, we will make the gains and minimise the downsides.

This is the approach which has made New Zealand a premier supplier of high-quality food products to the world, and we need to focus on a careful way forward which protects our market advantages, not stay in a time warp.

* Professor Roger Morris is an expert in control of animal diseases at Massey University, and an adviser to the World Health Organisation on animal diseases which can be transmitted to people.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

GE links

GE glossary