Editorial: We have to be sure that GM is safe

Just over a year ago the country held an election in which the only issue of moment seemed to be the continuation of a moratorium on the commercial release of genetically modified organisms. It mattered not that the moratorium was to run until October this year and that the Government was giving no indication that it would be lifted even then.

In the heat of election campaigns positions are taken often for strategic political purposes rather than from a dispassionate assessment of arguments. The Green Party poisoned the GM debate by making its post-election support for a Labour Government conditional on continuing the moratorium.

Labour in response made it an issue of a minor party overreaching its role. Most people seemed to agree with Labour, giving it an alternative supporting party which has negated the Greens' influence.

October this year is no longer a distant deadline. The moratorium is due to expire in a little over two months. It is time to decide the future of GM in this country and an opportunity to do so in a climate less politically charged. Today the Weekend Herald updates the GM debate and the state of the safeguards here and elsewhere.

One conclusion from different countries of late is that GM technology may not bring the wonders once predicted for it. The advances in crop yields and other benefits are turning out to be quite modest and that naturally raises questions of whether the risks - physical and economic - are worth taking.

At the same time, the physical risks are not making themselves evident either. GM corn, canola, soybeans and the like have been in production in the United States, Canada and parts of South America for years now and there is no clear evidence that they are causing bodily harm.

Opponents of GM say that is because the proper studies are not being done, but the causes of health defects are under constant study. If GM products come under suspicion, we would hear about it.

The greater risk right now is economic. Such is the antagonism to GM food, particularly in Europe, that a risk arises of a consumer backlash in those markets against the products of any country suspected of letting modified organisms into its agriculture.

The catastrophe that could represent for this country's economy hardly needs mention. Today we report concern that the principal GM monitoring body, the Environmental Risk Management Authority, is not geared to take trade risks into account.

But should that be Erma's job? The trade risks have nothing to do with any sort of scientific evaluation of GM safety. The trade risks are entirely to do with public impressions of the risk, and those are not for environmental scientists to assess. They are risks that public relations people and politicians are as well placed as anyone to judge.

Permission for the commercial release of GM plants and animals probably will depend on trade considerations primarily. The safest course - the "precautionary principle" as conservationists call it - would be to continue the moratorium for as long as public fear and antagonism to GM products persists.

But there is a risk in that option, too. Our primary exports depend on keeping pace with international improvements in food production and varieties. Genetics are the most promising field of investigation and the boundaries of gene adaptation, selective breeding and modification may not always be clear. We should not make decisions that reduce our scientists' horizons.

We have another two months to make this decision. It is an opportunity for the science to convince us it has made good use of the moratorium. It must assure us that commercial release is sufficiently safe.