Opinion: genetic modification – time for a rethink?

The retiring Chief Scientific Adviser for the Government, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, has publicly raised the question of whether we should rethink our approach to genetic modification. He raised the issue in his final TV interview as Chief Scientific Advisor. Genetic modification (GM) covers technologies and techniques for altering the properties of living organisms by altering their genomes. The genome is the “blueprint” for the properties and characteristics of every living organism – from bacteria to plants to animals.

I think that Professor Gluckman’s call is entirely appropriate and I would like to see it picked up by the Government. However, I don’t have high expectations, because the technology is still controversial for many people and there are groups (such as GE New Zealand) who remain adamantly and vocally opposed to Genetic Modification.

The reality is that the technology has been extensively implemented overseas for at least 20 years, particularly for crops such as rice and corn, and is proven to be safe. From a safety point of view, I would have no qualms about approving the commercial adoption of GM in New Zealand, subject to approval by a competent regulatory authority. Approval should still be required, to prevent unreasonable use of the technology or its proposed adoption in a form which does raise clear risks. In this respect GM technology is no different from any other technology – it can be used beneficially or misused to the detriment of society.

The legislation which covers GM approvals in New Zealand is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act. The approving authority was the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), but ERMA has now been rolled into the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For the first 8 years of its existence, I was the Chief Executive of ERMA and thus have an intimate knowledge of how the Authority operated and of the risk and cost/benefit assessments carried out. During that eight years, the Authority approved many proposals for work on GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in containment, either laboratory containment or in the form of controls on a field trial. No approvals were granted for the release of a GMO. The approach taken by the Authority during my time was very conservative – especially for field trials there had to be negligible risk for an approval to be given. This reflected in part the requirement in the Act to take a cautious approach in the face of scientific uncertainty, but also the prevailing attitude in the community.

20 years on it would be very timely to see how far community views have moved, particularly given the absence of any discernible adverse effects from GMOs over that period. The HSNO Act could also be reviewed, with a particular concern about the Acts requirement for caution in the face of scientific uncertainty. Although less dogmatic than the famous “precautionary principle” the language in the Act on scientific uncertainty could do with a reset to a more realistic prescription. The reality is that the science is always uncertain to a degree – the key issue is always that of how uncertain, and language like “risk assessments should take account of the degree of scientific uncertainty etc” would be much more appropriate.

Safety issues aside, the largest caution about approving GMOs for release really relates to our trade with other countries. Some markets may be reluctant to accept foods which contain GMOs, irrespective of how safe they have been determined to be by the New Zealand Authorities. So, there may be trade advantages in keeping some sectors GMO free. One area which does not suffer from that concern is the use of GM technology to deal with pests and predators inside New Zealand. I have talked before about my support for the concept of achieving a predator-free New Zealand, maybe by the year 2050. I think that application of GM technology to this problem is the “game changer” that will make the predator-free objective realistically achievable.

Changes in community attitudes and changes to the legislation notwithstanding, the key event which will change the landscape will be the very first approval to release a GMO into the New Zealand environment. I would expect an application for such a release to attract huge attention from those groups opposed to GMO approvals, and for this to place the approving Authority under enormous pressure. It would give a very important signal and provide comfort to the Authority if this benchmark application was directly sponsored by a Government agency with the tacit support of Ministers. Once the precedent had been established, further applications for approval for release would almost certainly follow. However, I would not expect there to be a flood of applications. The full introduction of GMOs is likely to be slow and measured, reflecting the need to be careful and to make good use of the potential for benefit.