By Alec Foster, Scion portfolio leader for Bioproducts and Packaging. He is also on the Biotech NZ executive council and the government’s technical advisory group for biotechnology.
The recent opinion piece from GE Free New Zealand’s Claire Bleakley makes a number of incorrect statements about Scion’s work in gene technology. I’ll set the record straight on that before sharing some more personal responses to the opinions Bleakley shared.
It is not accurate to say that the GE field trials that Scion has conducted have been a “commercial failure”. Much of Scion’s work in field trials of modified trees has been pre-commercial and focused on advancing fundamental scientific understanding.
The knowledge gained from such experiments extends beyond genetically engineered trees, translating into strategies that can be leveraged across a broad spectrum of applications. These include traditional breeding programmes, the development of diagnostic tools, crop and pest management approaches, as well as the creation of novel bioproducts.
It is also not true that the GE trees were “riddled with unknown diseases and failed to grow”, or that Scion has been given “a generic approval to develop engineered plants and animals”.
The approvals for Scion’s GE work are very specific to only a few species, and we have approval for field trials of a single species (Pinus radiata) with trees modified for a small number of pre-approved traits. Additional modifications and field trials would need further approvals from the Environmental Protection Authority.
The trees at our field trial are healthy, and grown in accordance with the controls set out in the original approval from the Environmental Risk Management Authority. We monitor trees every month (fortnightly at particular times of the year) and are required to kill any trees that are showing signs of reproductive structures.
Debate and discussion on key issues is an important part of a functioning democracy, but it’s essential that those discussions are based on accurate information. One of the greatest challenges we face as a society today is the spread of disinformation.
New Zealand needs to embrace GE as a key tool for achieving important environmental and societal goals while also improving productivity. GE offers enormous opportunity for tackling challenges like reducing methane emissions from agriculture or reducing emissions and achieving net-zero targets.
Applications extend from developing bio-based replacements for oil-derived products like fertilisers, plastics, chemicals and pesticides, to improving crop breeding for higher yields and tolerance to climate stresses.
Other countries are taking advantage of this opportunity. By 2040, Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, projects a $19.2 billion benefit and 31,200 new jobs from GE in the food and agriculture sectors alone. Given the similarities in our agricultural sectors, New Zealand stands to reap comparable advantages.
We are already benefitting from numerous safe, thoroughly tested GE products. Rennet for cheesemaking is now commonly derived from genetically modified organisms. Life-saving insulin for diabetics and enzymes in laundry detergents are produced using GM microbes. The vast majority of soybeans and cotton – ingredients found across our foods and clothing – also come from GM crops.
I take issues with the article’s criticism of golden rice. Despite early yield challenges, this bio-fortified crop now has productivity on par with or superior to conventional commercial varieties. Its ability to help address vitamin A deficiency, which causes blindness in 500,000 children and up to 2 million deaths annually, is significant. Viewing this life-saving innovation solely through the narrow lens of yields undervalues its humanitarian impact.
While I respect those whose scepticism stems from reasonable religious or cultural, or different ethical perspectives, fear-mongering and blatant falsehoods can have severely damaging real-world consequences – just look at fears associated with the measles vaccine as examples.
GE regulations have kept New Zealand from taking advantage of the benefits from this critical and rapidly evolving technology. While opposition can often be the result of ideology rather than evidence, New Zealanders should feel reassured that GE is a proven tool whose economic and social value will only become more apparent in the era of climate change.
