4 - Gaps and Issues

There are some gaps in the existing regulatory system

(relevant to issues 2, n of the Warrant)

  1. The HSNO Act does not recognise any pre-release assessments or post-release controls provided by other legislation. An amendment to the HSNO Act to recognise these provisions during ERMA's assessment could avoid duplication and provide reassurance about post-release control.
  2. Although MAF enforces the controls set by ERMA for the containment of GM organisms, MAF's responsibilities only start after the ERMA approval is given. The Ministry for the Environment is considering an amendment to the HSNO Act to list MAF as an enforcement agency for all activities dealing with new organisms. However, this may not extend to ensuring that researchers have ERMA approvals before genetic modifications occur.
  3. In a recent decision to approve an application to field test GM sheep, ERMA concluded there was a jurisdictional gap in the Animal Welfare Act in relation to foetuses that are less than halfway through their term. The Animal Welfare Act specifies that ethics approvals are only required for foetuses more than halfway through their term. The legal argument was raised that the potential for suffering and deformity would have been created at the time the embryos were modified by knocking out a particular gene (myostatin), which preceded the point at which ethical approval was required.
  4. Stockfeeds that are not GM organisms but are GM products may not require an assessment and registration under the ACVM Act. This is because they may not trigger any safety or risk thresholds. For consistency with food regulation, it could be argued that GM stockfeeds should undergo a mandatory safety assessment. While it is possible to require a safety assessment of GM stockfeeds, it could then be argued on technical grounds that there is equal or greater uncertainty about the safety of conventional products for which safety assessments are not mandatory. This may cause problems with consistency and transparency under the regulations unless the safety assessment was specifically provided for in legislation, such as in ANZFA Standard A18.

Border control alone could not guarantee that New Zealand could remain non-GM

(relevant to issues 1, i, k, m of the Warrant)

  1. While it is illegal to import unapproved GM organisms into the country, border control alone could not prevent accidental or deliberate introductions of GM organisms.
  2. Should New Zealand decide to commit to non-GM primary production, there would need to be agreement about what is meant by `non-GM'. Definitions range from exercising `due diligence' to avoid GM inputs and mixing, to an absolute GM-free requirement proved by audit trails and/or testing for modified genetic material. Some degree of GM mixing from other countries may be beyond New Zealand's ability to control but may be identified in testing, so a practical definition of non-GM may have to reflect what standards are realistically attainable and enforceable.

Genetic modification, like other breeding processes, may have environmental risks and benefits

(relevant to issues c, j, k, m of the Warrant)

  1. An OECD9 report relating to the environmental risks from GM crops states that:

It is recognised that the safety of an organism is independent of the process of genetic modification per se...it is the characteristics of the organism, including new traits (however introduced), the environment and the application that determine the (likelihood of) risk of the introduction.

  1. The issue of cross-pollination between sexually compatible plant relatives is not new. Only with genetic modification is it possible to track the spread of specific genes, and to accurately control the transfer of genes when breeding.
  2. Genes could be transferred to related plants via pollen in suitable circumstances. The types of genes most likely to be transferred to other plants in the short-term are those conferring herbicide tolerance and pest resistance. For example, glyphosate-tolerance genes in GM canola could be transferred to other species of Brassica. However, this could also occur with genes conferring tolerance to the herbicide triazine, which have been selected with traditional breeding processes. Such transferred genes could confer some selective advantages on those plants exposed to the specific herbicide, but without selective pressures they tend to be lost from the plant population. The consequences of such gene transfers would be considered under ERMA's risk assessment processes for approving any GM organisms.
  3. There is potential for genetic modification to provide cost-effective environmental benefits. One example that MAF is involved in concerns the biocontrol of possums.

Biological Control of Possums

Successive governments have identified possum control as one of the highest priorities for pest management in New Zealand and MAF supports research into the biological control of possums. The research follows two main directions: finding ways of disrupting possum-specific physiological pathways, and finding ways of delivering a control agent.

Most of the physiological research focuses on the reproductive system. At this stage much of it is fundamental research that involves studies on gametes, fertilization, embryonic development and endocrine control of reproduction.

Delivery systems could possibly be genetically modified to enable disruptive genes that interfere with health or reproduction to spread among the possum population. For example, a number of potential viruses have been identified, including a possum-specific adeno virus, although it has not yet been grown in the laboratory. The possibility of using a horizontally transmissible virus to immunise a population has been proven in a number of situations10.

The research programme has received $2 million a year since July 1993 through Vote: Agriculture. There is now complementary funding through the Public Good Science Fund so MAF's contributions currently account for only 37 percent of annual investment in possum biocontrol research.

MAF recognises that any new biocontrol technology needs public acceptance before it can be introduced. This may be difficult to achieve for agents that can be transmitted without human involvement, but it appears to depend on how it is delivered. For example, a possum-specific nematode carrying a sterilising agent appears to be more acceptable than a GM virus carrying a gene that expresses the same agent. If such an agent was effective when eaten there would be other possibilities such as using GM carrots to express it or using a GM plant virus that caused infected plants to produce the agent.

However, possum control in the foreseeable future will depend on a number of technologies used in an integrated manner, with 1080 as the cornerstone.

Maori views

(relevant to issues c, j, k of the Warrant)

  1. MAF understands that genetic modification has raised issues of significant cultural concern for some Maori, e.g. whakapapa and tapu. On the other hand, MAF is aware that Maori stakeholders in agriculture and forestry consider that the potential economic benefits from genetic modification should not be overlooked.
  2. MAF does not seek to pre-empt the role of the Federation of Maori Authorities and other Maori representative organisations in conveying Maori views. However, based on our contact with Maori in agriculture and forestry, the ministry considers that Maori, like other New Zealanders, are still weighing up the various implications of genetic modification.

Perceptions of risk and ethical concerns

(relevant to issues 1, j, k, m of the Warrant)

  1. MAF understands that perceptions of risks can be very different from actual risks. Public perceptions about risks from genetic modification depend on how the technology is being used. For instance, there appears to be a greater acceptance of genetic modification in medicine than in food. This may be because there is a defined benefit to the users of genetic modification in medicine that outweighs any risk, whereas there is less obvious personal benefit to the consumers of food modified to alter agricultural production.
  2. Ethics are considered in MAF's regulatory activities, primarily in approving codes of ethical conduct for research involving animals, on the basis of recommendations from the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee. However, animal welfare generally reflects the community's ethical position on harm to animals.
  3. Regulatory systems based on perceptions of risk or ethical considerations could have unintended consequences unless there were a clear societal consensus and decisions were made having regard to all known consequences. It would not be possible to use scientific assessments of risk or economic assessments of costs and benefits. Also, since perceptions vary among people and change over time, it could create uncertainty for industry and consumers and discourage investment. Finally, other countries could regard it as an arbitrary trade barrier.

International trade agreements benefit New Zealand

(relevant to issues h, l of the Warrant)

  1. Access to overseas markets is critical for the prosperity of New Zealand's primary industries. New Zealand gains access by operating within the trading framework provided by bilateral and multilateral agreements applying to New Zealand and its trading partners. These are outlined in the background paper11 and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade submission.
  2. The integrity and reputation of New Zealand's regulatory processes are central to gaining market access through these agreements. These processes are highly regarded internationally and many countries see them as examples of best practice. As a result, New Zealand exports of animal and plant products have earned a level of safety recognition from foreign regulators that has been often denied to our competitors. For example, our bilateral veterinary agreement with the EU accords `equivalence' to New Zealand's regulatory system. New Zealand's regulatory regime for genetic modification may have implications for our trading relationships.

There are likely to be economic opportunities for both GM and non-GM primary production

(relevant to issues 1, c, h, i, j, k, m of the Warrant)

  1. Around 90 percent of New Zealand's agricultural produce and 70 percent of forestry production is exported so external consumer demands and regulatory requirements will play a significant role in the profitability of these sectors.
  2. Over the last 20 years, agricultural reform both in New Zealand and around the world has attempted to remove distortions to market signals. In New Zealand, this has been achieved by progressively removing government intervention and regulation. If New Zealand were to make a national commitment to support certain forms of production over others, it would reduce the ability of producers to react to changes in consumer attitudes, market prices, or failure of particular technologies.
  3. There can also be hidden costs from regulatory barriers that are set too high. Such barriers would make border control more expensive than it needs to be and take up regulatory resources that could be better spent controlling other risks. They can also encourage illegal activities. Finally, they can discourage investment in research, stifle innovation, and result in skilled people leaving the country.
  4. MAF believes there are likely to be opportunities for New Zealand in both non-GM (including organic) and GM agriculture. There may be economic benefits from a national commitment to non-GM production in terms of product promotion in some international markets. However, there may be economic benefits in using GM technologies to maintain our competitive advantage and to supply emerging high value markets for GM products. Opportunities would be lost if products are unable to be sold in the markets for which they were intended (e.g. if they were accidentally mixed). The future value of these opportunities will depend on consumer demands and cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. This is precisely the situation in which markets work best to allocate resources.
  5. Some people believe that New Zealand's image as a `clean and green' source of safe, high quality products may be undermined if GM technologies are permitted in primary production. On the other hand, using biotechnology to reduce the reliance on pesticides and fertilisers or to reduce the environmental impacts from pollution and pests could enhance this reputation.

Can GM production and non-GM production coexist?

  1. Given that there are likely to be opportunities for both non-GM and GM products, and that the value of these opportunities is difficult to predict, the issue becomes whether a choice of one precludes the other, ie whether both forms of production can coexist. A 'mixed strategy'12 that includes product labelling would allow producers and consumers to choose between non-GM and GM products, as they currently do between organic and other non-organic products. Producers could earn returns from either method and there may be no economic grounds to support or restrict one or the other.
  2. The key to coexistence is keeping GM and non-GM products separated. Different production and processing systems already coexist in New Zealand, particularly for market access where countries may have different requirements, but GM crops have the added complexity of pollen movement.
  3. Pollen movement would not be an issue for different species of crops, e.g. GM corn and non-GM apples. For producers of non-GM crops for which a sexually compatible GM counterpart was being grown, or for honey producers who wished to avoid GM pollen, there would have to be mechanisms to minimise cross-pollination and mixing. Buffer zones and separation distances have been used to ensure purity in seed production13, and could possibly be used for GM and non-GM crops14. A number of technologies are emerging that could help to biologically isolate particular crops, for example by controlling flowering or fertility15. During harvest, processing or distribution there would need to be either segregated supply chains or cleaning of shared equipment at potential mixing points.
  4. The costs and feasibility of segregation depends on the level of guarantees demanded or tolerances allowed. In some cases it may be impossible to prevent accidental mixing so a zero tolerance for GM material could make coexistence unfeasible. Even where segregation is both technically feasible and financially viable, consumers must have confidence in the integrity of supply chains. Establishing a credible labelling or certification system is one way to facilitate consumer choice. New Zealand and Australia have jointly developed an approach to labelling GM foods that delivers such a system. It is based on the presence of novel DNA and/or protein and is underpinned by documentation or testing where feasible.
  5. Second and third generation GM plant products will require different production and marketing strategies than first generation products. They will need to be segregated and identified from production through to sale in order to capture the value added by the genetic modification.
  6. In several countries (Argentina, Australia, Canada, USA), organic production coexists with GM crops, although organic producers question whether this is realistic or sustainable. The International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements is currently debating whether organic standards should allow for the accidental presence of any GM products.
  7. If it were not possible to segregate non-GM supply chains from GM production and its effects, then it may be necessary to decide whether to remain non-GM or to permit GM technologies. This decision would not necessarily have to be at the national level but could be at a regional level based on what is required to ensure separation to the satisfaction of consumers. For example, some regions of New Zealand are declared to be free from certain diseases for export purposes.

9  OECD, Safety Considerations for Biotechnology: Scale-up of Crop Plants, 1993.
10 Torres et al, Vaccine 19 (2001), 174 – 182
11 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, International Aspects of Genetic Modification – background paper for the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, August 2000. Available at www.gmcommission.govt.nz.
12 Wright J C, The economics of genetic modification Background for the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, August 2000. Available at www.gmcommission.govt.nz.
13 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Seed Certificaiton 2000-2001 Field and Laboratory Standards, Wellington 2000.
14 Moyes C & Dale P, Organic farming and gene transfer from genetically modified s, John Innes Centre, May 1999.
15 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (UK), Guidance on best practice in the design of genetically modified crops, October2000. Available at www.environment.detr.gov.uk/acre/bestprac/consult/guidance/bp/index.htm.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Contact for Enquiries

Dr Sharon Adamson
Manager, Innovation Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: +64 4 894 0618
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0741
Contact this person

 
Print this page Print this page




WebSite survey