sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Guy Trafford looks at the state of current attitudes to genetic modification of the food chain. With clear parallels to the recent vax/anti-vax debate, and evidence accumulating since the 1990's bans, change may get new impetus

Rural News / analysis
Guy Trafford looks at the state of current attitudes to genetic modification of the food chain. With clear parallels to the recent vax/anti-vax debate, and evidence accumulating since the 1990's bans, change may get new impetus
Modifying corn genetically

In a recent article there was a brief reference to genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) in China, and it pricked an interest to have a look and just see what the current state is worldwide, and in New Zealand.

New Zealand to date has defended its status of not allowing GMO’s in except as experimental or at research status. (When farming in Gisborne I was involved as the manager of a property involved in a mistaken release that fortunately got nipped in the bud). Some farming groups have been calling for access to GMO’s generally so some gains in productivity can be made. This attitude is not necessarily to be scoffed at with increasing climate extremes and costs in production due rising challenges from pests and disease.

The regulations within New Zealand firstly defines GMO’s in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act as an organism that:

  • have been modified by in-vitro techniques, or
  • are inherited or otherwise derived from any other genes or genetic material that has been modified by in vitro techniques.

"In vitro techniques" refers to using test tubes, cell culture plate or other methods outside a living organism.

Further regarding imports: It is illegal to import GM (genetically modified) seeds and nursery stock into New Zealand without approval from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). GMOs are classed as new organisms under the HSNO Act. MPI is responsible for enforcing the HSNO Act at the border, through the Biosecurity Act 1993.

So quite clear here about where New Zealand regulations stand. Australia and New Zealand Food Standards regulators (FSANZ) are still actively seeking to widen the range of genetically modified (GM) foods accepted in the region despite related amendments to the food code being postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. Currently 10 types of foods are approved for use. They are; soybean, potato, rice, wheat, sugar beet, canola, lucerne, safflower, corn and cotton.

Attitudes within New Zealand appear to be slightly shifting towards being more liberal. Surveys’ conducted between 2000 – 2009 were generally negative over the board.

However, more recent survey’s have shown that while there are still negative attitudes to GMO’s in the food chain, where they can be shown to benefit human health then there is growing tolerance. This level of tolerance also depends upon the level of the ‘modification’. Much of the reason for the negative attitudes stem from distrust of the ‘safety’ claims and ethical concerns regarding the modifications. I.e. putting animal genes into plants.

There is also a strong feeling in sectors that New Zealand’s safe food image could/would be diminished by introducing GMO’s into our food chain. However, a Plant and Food paper found that a ‘panel’ they conducted research with could see some benefits. A range of potential applications were identified including preservation of endangered species of plants and animals, new health related therapies, protecting biodiversity, creating health and food security, sequencing of rare threatened and endangered endemic species (and their medical chemotypes), human health, environmental restoration, sustainable enterprise, pest control, and pest eradication.

A 2019 study showed that two-thirds of Kiwi’s believe it is safe to eat with less than one third saying it shouldn’t be sold in New Zealand.

The farming community, judging by anecdotal news articles, appears also to be divided and seems to be a reflection of the rest of society. However, there is little to be found showing comprehensive survey results. Federated Farmers certainly appear to be onboard with a review of the regulations and can see benefits as do some who have been offshore reviewing other countries operations.

Most of the GM crops in the world food chain come from the Americas (from Canada in the north right through to Argentina) and India and China also appears to be adopting it more in their crop plantings. In the EU the planting of GMO crops is banned however they import by the millions of tonnes mostly to be fed to chickens, pigs and dairy animals. To date there has been no discernible difference found in either the meat or milk from these animals when compared to ‘conventionally fed’ animals.

There is also little evidence that GM foods are discounted to any great degree versus non-GM foods. In fact, there is some evidence that spray free crops (be they fruit or arable etc.) can extract a premium and some of these can achieve this through being GMO’s.

Closer to home in Australia, which has only two states which don’t allow GMO crops there is no difference in the price of wheat between the states.

A relatively recent report from the New Zealand Productivity Commission 2021 entitled ‘New Zealand firms: Reaching for the frontier’ implied that New Zealand is well overdue for a revision of the regulations around GMO’s. The report proposed 10 recommendations of which six were:

  • consider the emerging regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions, particularly New Zealand’s key product destination and competitor markets;
  • consider the trade and regulatory enforcement impacts from different treatment of GM technologies in different markets;
  • assess consumer attitudes in New Zealand and internationally;
  • consider the potential impacts on New Zealand firms that wish to retain GM-free status, and on New Zealand’s reputation and brand more generally;
  • assess the fitness for purpose of the current regulatory oversight and enforcement arrangements;
  • consider the merits of separate legislation and/or a standalone regulator for genetic technologies.

For those that are interested in reading a comprehensive study of both the world and New Zealand view (arguably from a positive stance) is a paper by John Caradus et al while for those who are hesitant about the claims, there are articles similar to this link which believes that not enough time has passed to fully assess the impacts.

In some respects, the ‘debate’ is similar (science versus scepticism) to what has occurred over the vaccine debate with Covid-19 and as with that it is the developing nations in this case with poor food security that are missing out. No doubt with Covid almost behind us (we hope) and climate and the environment coming to the fore the GMO debate will begin to grow legs again.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

20 Comments

Once the cat's out of the bag, where do we draw the line? Do we actually understand what the environmental impact of creating glyphosate/chemical resistant crops is on our environment? Or do we just stick to our guns and shoot for quantity and feed as many people as possible?

"However, the adoption of genetically modified soybeans correlated with a negative impact on the environment as increased herbicide use also increased contamination of local ecosystems. We find clear evidence of increasing herbicide use by GT variety adopters over time for both soybeans and maize, a finding that we attribute in part to the emergence of glyphosate weed resistance".

Should we not do a better job of marketing our existing & upcoming products with the non-GMO market growing at 16.5%?

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600850

 

 

Up
5

That's one type of modification - genetic modification of the environment is a feature of human development since the first days of agriculture. I'd separate modification into 3 categories - gene splicing, where genes from a different genome are introduced, forced mutation, where radiation is used to try to force mutations that would have occurred naturally, just much faster, then gene editing using CRIPER Cas-9 and other techniques, which 'snip' DNA in particular places to get a desired modification.

Making glyphosate resistant plants belongs to the first category. It depends on your opinion of glyphosate (from the evidence it's pretty safe, especially compared with alternatives). Then there's the bt producing crops which kill bugs that eat the plants, but contain nothing toxic to humans.

The second type has been done for decades and decades and involves a lot of things you probably already eat. It's a sped up version of what humanity has done for millennia (using radioactive cobalt etc to speed things up).

Then there's the CRISPR-Cas 9 type of modifications, which involve no splicing of different genomes. The I'd support full deregulation of gene editing (versus gene splicing), and less regulation of the second type. The first type, which you seem to be focussed on, could continue following the PC recommendations.

The genetic literacy project website has some interesting commentary on this subject.

Up
2

GMOs pretend to care about environment/health etc. yet they are all about patent protection and herbicide sales.  They started out roundoup ready then weeds became resistant.  Solution? Stack on dicamba tolerance (the drift of which kills all other crops, orchards and vineyards included).Yet weeds now resistant again.  Answer add 24D for a triple stack.

Farmers do not own the seed or crop just a lease agreement from the chemical company/seed proprietor.  You cannot save the seed.

Thanks to ever increasing monopoly over seed supplies the cost of leasing the seeds keeps increasing. 

As for the quality of the food you have to wonder what eleements they are comparing as there are often 20000 plus compounds in a typical food.  Has human health improved for their introduction?

Up
8

Farmers do not own the seed or crop just a lease agreement from the chemical company/seed proprietor.  You cannot save the seed

I'm not sure I buy this argument - if you agree with it, you're saying all those people who took cuttings of gold kiwifruit and planted thousands of hectares of them in China weren't stealing the intellectual property of Zespri. Alternatively, you're saying it's ok to take one of your miracle cancer cures to a local lab to find the recipe then make it for yourself instead of paying for it from the pharmaceutical company that invested billions of dollars into developing it.

Has human health improved for their introduction?

Google Golden Rice. It was developed and is made available for free. Its colour hints at its ability to produce vitamin A, a common nutrient deficiency in developing countries. It has the capability to prevent millions of deaths and cases of blindness in the developing world that arise from vitamin A deficiency. 

Up
0

We have laws against spray drift but it is difficult to prove , however the drift of gm pollen is also problematic to organic growers. Many of the articles I have read on gm indicate that the profitability to farmers is often marginal. Consumers should have the right to have it on the label of produce to be able to choose however this is fought tooth and nail by the gm lobby as they know it would result in a loss of sales .

Up
0

The novel The Windup Girl is a truly fascinating consideration of a future in which side-effects of such GMO usage affect food supply and overall society. Includes takes on how for-profit businesses might view heritage seed banks as targets for new material when things have gone wrong. 

Up
0

The GMO ban shows that we're a village of anti-science virtue signallers .... everything we eat , every plant or animal product is genetically modified over centuries , millennia , to feed us .... nothing is as it was originally found in nature ...

... we suck on Coca Cola , hoover up junk foods by the bag or bucket ... fill our bodies with highly processed crud , have rampant obesity & diabetes 2 , yet go ape-shit  at the thought of GMO ...

Weird !

Up
5

Many are cutting down on Coca Cola...partly because they are consistently the world's number one plastic polluter.

Up
0

GM crops have a higher yield. And lower pesticide is needed. Saves time too.

After some twenty years, is there any evidence that GM corn is harmful?

Up
3

GM crops have a higher yield. And lower pesticide is needed.

eh? have you heard of roundup ready crops?!

Up
0

Roundup is not a pesticide if that's what you are getting at.

There are alot of GM crops grown in cold climates now that you never could before due to the growing season been far too short. Having different crops that are profitable helps reduce the need for pesticide because you can have a true crop rotation to reduce diseases therefore, reducing the need for pesticide use.

Up
3

There are many aspects to GM technology that would concern me two examples come to mind unfortunately I don't have the links . One was a Canadian farmer about8 years ago he was taken to court by Monsanto for using their seed , it seems he never used gm seed but saved his own seed but his neighbor used gm which cross pollinated his crop monsato sued him for it I don't recall the outcome but it seemed unreasonable if that was the case they should be countersued for pollen polluing his crop . The other case was in WA where a farmer growing an organic crop lost his organic status when his neighbor used gm , as there was no way he could continue his claim to be organic. This also ended up in court but I don't know what the outcome was .

Up
1

GMO is about volume and we aren't a volume seller

Up
0

Not sure who to hitch my wagon to; gmo ryegrass or synthetic agriculture. https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/128185542/is-this-the-technology-to…

 

Up
0

Rust never sleeps.

 

Up
1

I think we should be GM free for the economics, rather than the science.

- If we are known as a GM free country globally, our produce maintains/improves it's existing premium space in the market

- Feeds into "Clean green NZ" brand (it's not true, but perception is reality)

Up
2

Officebound your view obviously comes from a “well fed on cheap food’’ position. Have you considered what the less fortunate populations think ?  

Up
2

Really his whole point though isn't it. We don't and never will have the ability to produce large amounts of cheap basic food for less fortunate populations. Claims to the contrary by farming leaders have always been bollocks.

 I certainly see very few advantages to NZ to open up to GM. 

Up
0

There is one GM plant that would benefit NZ immensely right now. It is the low methane ryegrass. The methane from cattle is supposed to be a major problem. So why aren't we allowed to use it? Could it be that it destroys the Green's argument that the only way to reduce our emissions is to decimate the herds? Impoverishing NZ is a bonus byproduct of the Green philosophy. yet they are never tackled on it by a sympathetic media.   

Up
0