I was really pleased to hear Science Minister Judith Collins tell me that laws prohibiting the use of gene editing technologies would be relaxed in New Zealand from next year.
It’s been talked about for years and I applaud Ms Collins’s courage in actually making a decision.
Past governments of all colours have refused to make that call. They let the rest of the world pass us by.
Speaking to politicians over the decades I’ve heard a lot of excuses as to why we shouldn’t allow gene technology into NZ. Most of the excuses I would describe as idiotic, irrelevant and in several cases, stupid.
Mind you, the anti-GE sentiment had been fanned by zealots of the likes of Greenpeace, who never let a solid fact get in the way of a money-earning position. It seems to me their anti-GE stance would have been a real cash cow for the organisation.
Last week after the government’s announcement Greenpeace was quickly out of the blocks with a media statement below the headline “GE not the solution to NZ’s dairy pollution”. I was blissfully unaware it was, but the Greenpeace focus was on GE nitrogen inhibitors. GE is much bigger than that.
They also claimed that “GE techno fixes” are a risky distraction. Unsurprisingly, I disagree.
For a start, genetic engineering isn’t new. It was first mooted way back in 1934. Putting that in perspective, GE was talked about before computers, cell phones, space travel or Elvis Presley.
In the United States the first GE lab was functioning in 1973. That’s over 50 years ago. Field trials in the US were started in1994, 30 years ago.
There are 422 million diabetics in the world, all needing insulin. That insulin has been produced using genetic modification since 1978.
Australia started laboratory trials in 1976 and then passed the Gene Technology Act in 2000. Our legislation is going to be loosely based on that but the reality is that Australia has almost a quarter of a century lead on us.
That further highlights, in my humble opinion, the blinkers that were worn by our politicians over the decades.
Our biggest trading partner, China, was growing GE crops in the field in 1992 and progressed to genetic modification for disease control in humans in 2015.
By the mid 1990s there were genetically modified crops available for human consumption. They included squash, soybeans, cotton, corn, papayas, tomatoes, potatoes and canola.
I remain totally ignorant of anyone’s bollocks falling off for having consumed any of those GE crops at any time over the previous 30 years.
Over 30 years ago the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agricultural Organisation worked together to develop international guidelines and standards for genetically modified organisms.
In 2007 bread made from genetically engineered wheat was 25% cheaper to produce and that is considerable.
Lincoln University outlines four benefits of genetic engineering and they are: reduced production costs, increased yields, reducing environmental damage and the production of food with extra benefits.
Why wouldn’t you?
It has been estimated that 75% of processed food in a supermarket, “from soda to soup, from crackers to condiments” contains genetically engineered ingredients.
So what’s the problem?
Talking to prominent academic and farmer Professor Jacqueline Rowarth was interesting. As always she had some pertinent points to make.
“Time has passed, education has improved and the need has increased,” she told me. “The original concerns about genetic modification, which in New Zealand prompted the Royal Commission investigation in 2000/2001, have not been proven to be grounded in reality. In contrast, predictions of increasing hunger and difficulties in producing food have come true.
“What the world needs is a pragmatic adoption of all precision tools that allow increased food production, with minimal inputs, from current land.
“The new Gene Technology Bill proposed by Minister Collins will allow New Zealand to join in the scientific challenge of reducing hunger while protecting the environment and the biodiversity it holds.”
Professor Rowarth is a scientist, I’m not. As a layperson, however, I have no argument with any of the points she makes.
It also seems to me that ethical science has always been on the side of GE.
I desperately tried to find any reason for us not to embrace GE. I googled the countries that “banned GMO imports and cultivation” and there are eight.
Among the countries are Algeria, Kyrgyzstan, Bhutan, Madagascar and Peru. I’m unaware of any significant trade or trade potential with any of them.
The politics have been interesting. It was a cornerstone of the ACT party’s negotiations. National promised, pre-election, to reverse the ban on GE. Labour’s Deborah Russell urged caution and wants proper consultation, which is fine.
That tells me the legislation will be passed and stay passed no matter who is in power.
Minister Collins made the point that introducing GE will provide “massive economic gains” for NZ.
We need them.
Ideas That Grow Podcast | Nuffield insights from across the globe
