Ryegrasses linked to reduced methane and were developed by Kiwi scientists but not tested in New Zealand. Photo / Ross Setford
Ryegrasses linked to reduced methane and were developed by Kiwi scientists but not tested in New Zealand. Photo / Ross Setford
Opinion: Ideologically-based beliefs are preventing consumers from experiencing the benefits that gene editing in agriculture can bring, Dr Jacqueline Rowarth writes.
It is over two decades since the Royal Commission on genetic modification (GM) responded to the task of evaluating the technology within the context of New Zealand.
The major theme of the 473-page report was self-described as "preserving opportunities".
The authors went to considerable lengths to explain the different concerns and perspectives of New Zealanders who, by and large, were comfortable with GM for medical purposes, but were less so in food production.
Concerns were around the unproven "safety and certainty of the science", the fact that world consumer preferences were against the use of genetic modification in food and that "first generation genetically modified crops have shown few obvious benefits for consumers".
In 2001 some of the parroted statements from anti-GM websites were surprising. Two decades on and the statements are simply wrong.
Concerns have not been validated and precaution is preventing opportunities, particularly to do with food production, from being pursued.
An increasing number of countries are realising that advances in science mean that ideologically-based beliefs are preventing consumers from experiencing the benefits to do with gene editing in food.
The delays in approvals in some countries reflect regulatory systems which are, in many cases, no longer fit for purpose.
Increasingly there are calls to regulate developments based on the outcome (a novel food – are there any health concerns?) rather than the process (is it genetically engineered?) to achieve the outcome.
Canada has been doing outcome-based regulation for over 20 years. Health Canada has approved over 140 genetically modified foods for sale and to date:
• All of the GM foods reviewed are as safe and nutritious as non-GM foods • No verifiable scientific evidence that shows GM foods are less safe than traditional varieties has been found • No study has caused conclusions about any assessed GM food product to be changed.
In the EU the decision to require an environmental risk assessment or a food safety assessment is based on the way an organism is produced.
Debates on the suitability of the approach continue and a policy document released in 2019 stated that "the current legislation on genetically modified crops in the European Union is insufficiently future-proof in the light of the advances being made in genetic modification technologies".
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth. Photo / Supplied
This month in Science, a team of researchers led by Fred Gould, Distinguished University Professor of Entomology and Co-Director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center of North Carolina State University, pointed out that the current approach to genetic engineering is foolish.
"Much effort has been expended globally over the past four decades to craft and update country-specific and multinational safety regulations that can be applied to crops developed by genetic engineering processes while exempting conventionally bred crops. This differentiation made some sense in the 1980s, but in light of technological advances, it is no longer scientifically defensible."
Yet New Zealand is still trying.
Dr John Caradus, a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand, and of the New Zealand Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Science, has pointed out that we are slipping behind in potential opportunities by persisting with the precautionary principle of regulation.
"Genetic modification has continued to be used as a research tool and for medical purposes but has gained no traction, momentum, or impact in improving New Zealand's economic wellbeing."
Our economic well-being depends on the primary sector; it contributes over 80 per cent of the trading economy, and pastoral agriculture is the biggest contributor.
Our competitive position in being able to sell meat and milk on a global platform could be under threat.
High lipid ryegrasses, which are linked to reduced methane and were developed by New Zealand scientists, have been tested in America and now in Australia but not New Zealand.
Listen to Rowena Duncum interview Dr Jacqueline Rowarth on The Country below:
This is frustrating for scientists and farmers alike.
It should be basic common sense to invest funding to ensure that pastoral agriculture in which doesn't lose its competitive edge.
Gene editing must be one of the tools that are evaluated to keep us sharp.
In 2001, the Commissioners stated "Our major conclusion is that New Zealand should keep its options open. It would be unwise to turn our back on the potential advantages on offer, but we should proceed carefully, minimising and managing risks".
Of equal concern is that continuing with this caution allows the misunderstandings about safety to perpetuate.
Professor Gould is clear that if countries continue to maintain "scientifically unsupportable regulatory frameworks, we can expect that the status quo of split public and government opinion about the safety and value of GE foods will persist".
Society deserves the debate to be reopened. Future opportunities for the economy depend upon it.
- Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, Adjunct Professor Lincoln University, has a PhD in Soil Science (nutrient cycling) and is a Director of Ravensdown, DairyNZ and Deer Industry NZ. The analysis and conclusions above are her own. jsrowarth@gmail.com
