United Future
Larry Baldock

New Organism and Other Matters Bill - Third Reading Speech

This legislation simply puts in place the legislative and environmental framework needed to deal safely and efficiently with the reality of genetic technology.

GE is here to stay. Denying the reality of GE is to forego all its potential benefits while we bury our heads in the sand and let it sneak up on us, incrementally, anyway.

I have spent the last 3 weeks in Europe, where, particularly during the last week, I met with various people in the UK and Holland to discuss the issue of GE and GMOs in Europe. Many of them were envious of our regulatory regime.

This legislation completes the process and gives us one of the most secure regulatory processes of any country in the world.

A number of people commented with envy that we could analyse applications on the basis of economic considerations, and they were certainly envious of the Minister’s call-in powers, which would give even more flexibility in handling cases on a case by case basis.

Many good arguments have been made here, and many good comments made in the debate. I want to focus on a couple that really struck me from my time in Europe.

Many here in New Zealand are quick to suggest that New Zealand could do well by selling its product as GE free, and by cashing in on being one of the few GE-free nations in the world. First of all, we have to ask ourselves whether we can promote ourselves as GE free.

While there is no certainty about any contamination of GE sweetcorn in the 2000 “corngate” affair, there is definitely evidence of contamination last year in sweetcorn grown here in New Zealand. So no one can, with any integrity, stand and declare New Zealand to be GE free.

It amazes me that those who are so opposed to the lifting of the moratorium, because of all the supposed environmental risks of releasing GMOs into the environment, are prepared to overlook the fact that we have already had some of it growing.

If it is so bad, it must have already spread beyond containment in this country.

If we have survived this, in terms of any effects to our markets, then surely we can also survive any potential consequences of approved releases on a case by case basis, where all care will be taken to avoid contamination of neighbouring crops.

The growing of potatoes or onions—if these are the first applications to be approved, perhaps later in 2004 or 2005—is, in reality, unlikely to create the kind of economic damage the doomsayers are predicting.

Where is the integrity of those who are running around with their clothes off, demanding New Zealand remain GE free, when we all know that it has not been GE free and therefore, technically, can never be again? [I agree with the member.

Over the last few weeks I have had many discussions with credible people in the UK and the Netherlands, and no one gave me the slightest impression that they believe opposition to the development of GMOs was likely to be successful in Europe.

It was not considered feasible, nor desirable. The people currently opposed—and I am glad to say they did have their clothes on—are likely to slow the introduction of GMOs in Europe, but when the reason for opposition is analysed, it has more to do with general mistrust of politicians and scientists, based on some recent experience with bovine spongiform encephalopathy and mad-cow disease, and even currently with the issues of the Iraq war.

This will change in time, as things often do. It is likely that, gradually, the majority of consumers will accept the facts about the technology and get on with life, as we have done with past controversies and current ones. There is controversy around cellphones, but we do not stop using them.

There is controversy around microwaves—and in some homes in Europe people still refuse to use them—but by and large they are an accepted technology. Results of the farm scale study —which involves the study, over 4 years, of four varieties of herbicide-resistant GM crops—will be released this week in England, and it will be of interest to all of us who are following the GE debate.

The results are being kept under wraps very tightly, and no one with any knowledge of what the report contains is revealing anything.

I tried my hardest to find out information, but was unable to. Those who do have knowledge, though, are pouring scorn on claims, reported in The Guardian and repeated by the anti-GE lobby, that leaks of information in the report indicated a negative result in the study.

The speaker before me, who claimed the report states that there were negative effects, did exactly what many of the opponents of GE are doing—acting without any integrity whatsoever—and tried to snatch a few headlines in the paper by saying that a report will be negative when in fact it has not yet been released.

I find that to be reprehensible. Many people only see the first headline; they do not see the rest of the story and the facts that follow it.

I am sure that those without much concern for the truth and the facts of the whole report in context will find something negative taken out of context to shout from the rooftops or spread on the Internet to continue the misinformation campaign.

We should all wait until we can read the report for ourselves, and know the facts. What I did hear from the Farmers Union executives I met with, just last week, was that the anecdotal reports from farmers who have been involved over the 4-year period of the trials were that their overall experience with the crops has been generally good.

A lot has been said about the refusal of the UK supermarkets to stop GE food because of the public’s opposition to GE food. The question that we need to ask is whether UK and European supermarkets will be able to keep GE off the shelves indefinitely.

While it has been easy for the major supermarket chains to respond to consumer concern over GE products, by refusing to put them on the shelves, it is my opinion that this will become increasingly more difficult to do.

The requirement for labelling of any food item that has more than 0.9 percent GM content makes life problematic for the retailers now in the European Union. The requirement to label will force suppliers to either identify the source of all their ingredients with absolute certainty or engage in the expensive process of testing everything.

The first option is problematic, as the percentage of GM crops increases worldwide. The possibility of some low levels of contamination occurring in neighbouring crops increases with it.

The recent revelations concerning the number of Brazilian farmers who had ignored their country’s ban on GM organisms and purchased GE soy seeds from neighbouring Argentina is a case in point of how difficult it is becoming for anyone to be absolutely certain about food being completely GE free.

In November the European Commission will have to vote upon whether it approves some releases of commercially grown crops in the European Union and any release in any one country that is approved will apply to the whole European Union.

Many I spoke to believe that that vote will proceed, and that the pseudo moratorium that exists in the European Union communities will no longer be in force.

Supermarket chain stores that value their integrity may be rather reluctant to risk the consumer backlash that would occur if they stopped and labelled products as 100 percent GE free, that may then turn out to have low levels of contamination. Instead I think there will be a growing tendency to take a safe and more pragmatic approach, and attach labels that state this product may contain GM at less than 0.9 percent. Consumers who want greater certainty than that may find it more and more difficult to source their desire for guaranteed GE-free products.

They will find them costing considerably more, not just because of the savings made by growers, by the efficiencies gained by GM organisms that could reduce the cost of GM produce, but also because of the increased cost that will be passed on to the consumer, the cost of tracking the source of products, and the testing of the products, as I have stated earlier.

There may be a positive spin-off for some conventional farmers and organic farmers, for a time, as people are willing to pay higher prices for what is guaranteed to be GE-free food. But it is likely that without any forthcoming proof of any dangers to health from consuming GM organisms, the percentage of consumers who will pay more will decrease.

After at least 7 years of consumption of GM organisms by many millions in the US, Canada, and Argentina, there is still no evidence of any negative health effects. That does not mean that there are none or that there may not be in the future, but there is no reliable evidence of any negative side effects yet, so far, and none on the horizon, either.

The question is, for how long will consumers refuse products when their choices may cost them more at the cash register. We know that smoking is harmful, but 20 percent of New Zealanders continue to smoke, and Europeans seem to even on a higher percentage.

We have been told of the negative effects of eating too much fast food, yet we continue to consume it. It is not credible to suggest that, in the absence of any proof of negative consequences, European consumers will boycott New Zealand agriculture products in the long term.

Even in the short term, potential consequences of any economic consequences seem remote, in my opinion.