Nearly all Herald readers writing in response to our GM series remain opposed to lifting the ban on the release of genetically modified organisms. Here is another edited selection of letters on the issue.
I think the GM ban should not be lifted. My main reason is not ecological, environmental or relating to international trade.
My reason is that it is not sustainable. It is impossible to be sustainable without sharing fairly the resources we all need to live. If we don't do that all the environmental factors come under huge stress.
GM is about property rights. It is about a few people making lots of money at the expense of all the rest. Open pollinated plants are like open-source programmes from the internet, freely available and a gift from all who have had a hand in creating them through the generations. Anyone can reproduce them without payment to anyone else.
GM is about cornering the market, not about public good. If it was about public good, it would be publicly funded and its products would enter the community.
Cornering the market is part of the problem, not part of the solution when it comes to environmental sustainability. It has vast implications for Third World countries and all farmers.
I have no doubt that GM can be used safely, but have no trust in the processes that arise out of our economic system, which puts so much power in the hands of vested interests to make wise decisions. We are not ready for such a technology. - Bryan Innes
* * *
Your headline in Saturday's Herald, "Tampering with Creation", really says it all. The whole concept of genetically altering organisms, particularly the transfer of genetic material from plants to animals and vice versa, is a profound moral issue.
I do not believe that the moral and ethical implications of allowing genetic engineering to proceed in New Zealand have been adequately addressed. Nor do I feel confident that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the environment will be protected in the event of the release of GMOs.
There do not seem to be any good reasons for allowing the release of GMOs in New Zealand, and I urge the Government to keep the moratorium in place. - Louise Clark
* * *
Quite simply: why go ahead with something when the consumers do not want it? Or is keeping the United States happy more important than keeping New Zealanders happy? - Gill Jackson
* * *
I am a New Zealander who reads the Herald on the web. I am also a scientist who runs a laboratory in which we use and generate genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) in our research. Until phrases like "proceeding with caution", "strict controls", and "robust science" carry some specific meaning with respect to GEOs, lifting the GE moratorium in NZ defies logic, and appears to be nothing more than politics as usual. - Professor David S. Williams, PhD, University of California San Diego
* * *
GMOs shouldn't be released because of unknown effect on native flora and fauna. Release would leave us liable to claims by tangata whenua. - Moea Armstrong
* * *
It is not acceptable for a person, company or authority to assume the general public must tolerate an inevitable and constantly growing level of genetic contamination of our food supplies. Polls show that most consumers prefer to eat GM-free food.
Due to cross-pollination and exchange of genetic material between quite different species (plants/animals/bacteria), it would eventually be impossible to source organic - natural - produce. - Ivo Wiesner
* * *
It is a fact that there is doubt on many aspects of GMO release. Life is too precious to gamble with. We also know that betting on "life processes" is not in the best interest of any life, especially if that life depends on that same process. Say no to GMO release. - Peter Riddering
* * *
I write from New York City, as an American who hopes to visit the clean and green land of New Zealand one day. One of its attractions is not only your beautiful scenery (coast, lakes, rivers and mountains) but your reputation for high-quality, clean and safe food.
I happily pay a premium for NZ produce, as the US national food supply is already contaminated with GE foodstuffs (and no comprehensive GE food labelling).
If your Government allows any release of GE in NZ, our source of pure food will be compromised. It's a risky move for a country that has no need to do so. - Bernard Sargaent
* * *
I think there is a huge amount of ego-stroking going on here. For scientists to think that they can tamper with the building blocks of an organism and manipulate it into the form they want without unforseen developments is ridiculous.
I don't understand why people cannot see that the only way to feed ourselves is with food grown in a sustainable way. I choose organics not organisms manipulated by companies to make a big profit and with the attitude "to hell with the consumer's health". - Megan Marshall
* * *
I totally oppose (except for medical research ) the introduction of GE until such time as it has been proved to have no negative effects. It would be a disaster for our clean, green image and our organic farmers. The risks are totally unacceptable. We need more time - why the rush? Is it because the Government puts the interests of the United States before the people?
Most are against GE at present so to proceed would make a mockery of democracy. - John Wheeler
* * *
If two-thirds of our population is against GM then the moratorium has to be extended. It's as simple as that. - Bert Esser & Deborah Collins
* * *
It frightens me that with the evidence so far published NZ is even considering lifting the ban. I hate the idea that in 20 years, when the possibility of new strains of weird diseases start flourishing, scientists around the world will gather and say "Well, maybe that wasn't such a smart idea after all." Let's take responsibility and lead in a GE-free world. - Charlotte Pearsall
* * *
What a shame NZ First MP Brian Donnelly was so rude to visiting UK MP and former Environment Minister Michael Meacher, instead of listening to what he had to offer. Mr Meacher couldn't believe that NZ is even considering lifting its ban. Why throw away our competitive advantage of being able to grow the kinds of products people around the world want to buy?
And how bizarre that just as we are about to lift our moratorium, Australian states are doing the opposite. Mr Meacher, and many others, have pointed out that containment is impossible and countries that go the GE way limit their farming methods to two scenarios: GE crops by choice or GE crops by contamination. - Lois Griffiths
Herald Feature: Genetic Engineering
Related links
<i>GM: Is it too soon:</i> Readers feedback
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.