Any risks negligible, say GE giants

The world's first substantial inquiry into genetic modification began in Wellington yesterday, with a concession by GE giants that it was impossible to guarantee containment.

But the two members of the "big six" multinationals of genetic engineering that put their case on the first day of the 14-week Royal Commission of Inquiry into the new technology, emphasised that they said this only because absolute guarantees were impossible in any endeavour.

Any risks, they said, were negligible.

First up before the commission was Aventis SA - a newly formed merger of Rhone-Poulenc and AgrEvo.

Aventis argued that modified production would benefit the world's huge population - now 6 billion, and growing rapidly.

The company's public affairs head, Naomi Stevens, said that in the future there would be crops resistant to drought, cold and damp.

As well, there would be foods with improved nutrition and shelf life; as well as plants with health benefits, combating anaemia, child blindness, juvenile diabetes and protecting against heart disease and cancer.

The next company to appear, DuPont, accepted in its submission that there were public concerns about the technology.

"While much of these concerns arise from misinformation or alarmist exaggeration, we nevertheless believe that we should proceed with caution."

"A scientifically impeccable process is needed and as much information as possible should be made available publicly," it said.

In these circumstances, we consider that a regulatory regime must be established and robustly administered."

Both companies faced tough questioning from cross-examiners, who included the Green Party, Greenpeace, an Organic Industry group and the Nelson GE-free Awareness Group.

Asked about the effect of any escape to organic groups' ability to certify their products as GE-free, Robert MacDonald of Aventis said "additional management would be required."

Mr MacDonald also conceded that cross-pollination and cross-hybridisation could occur from the modified canola his company produced, to related species.

Pressed on the effectiveness of present regulatory requirements separating plots by 400m from related species, he said: "Rare pollination events can occur at greater distances, yes."

Ms Stevens, in answer to questions about the need for long-term clinical testing to rule out allergenic effects from modified foods on humans, said she was "not sure" these would provide a complete answer.

Modified proteins, however, had not been detected in final products.

Professor Clive Holland, representing DuPont United States, said no introduced DNA had so far been transferred into meat or milk from an animal fed a modified product.

"But we can't give you guarantees, particularly with crops, because nothing in life is risk-free," Professor Holland said.

"But all our data shows we are comfortably way above the line on safety."

Asked if his company would be liable should something go wrong, he said: "Most of us use automobiles.

"Do we hold the automobile company liable for ... providing safe products, absolutely tested?

"I feel we all have the freedom to operate and choose."

In its submission, Aventis approved of strong regulatory processes but argued strongly against the high costs of hearings and duplications between approval and monitoring authorities.

It recommended a national biotech strategy to help New Zealand "realise the potential benefits" of biotechnology.

DuPont said that modified crops had the ability to increase productivity, decrease pesticide use, decrease insect harm where pesticides were not used, provide new products such as fuels, polymers and pharmaceuticals and add nutritional value.

Opportunities specifically for New Zealand included increased-energy oil corn for stock, low bloat clover and lucerne, pest control and herbicide-tolerant varieties of corn, and an expansion of soy protein and fibre products.

The inquiry is continuing.

- NZPA

Herald Online feature: the GE debate

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary