If you are unfamiliar with this subject, click here first for a brief introduction.
|
News Cuttings If you are unfamiliar with this subject, click here first for a brief introduction. |
|
"The Press" New Zealand June 16, 1999 The fight against genetically modified food has moved into the supermarkets of New Zealand. People on all sides of the issue agree on one thing -- labelling is central. But having labels or not is not as simple as it seems. CHRISTOPHER MOORE reports. The campaign against genetically modified foods has now moved from the political arena and onto the supermarket shelves. This is a struggle for the hearts and minds of New Zealanders as the opponents of genetically modified organisms take the fight directly onto the country's tables. Spearheading the campaign is a coalition of groups ranging from Safe Food Campaign to Revolt against Genetic Engineering and Greenpeace. It is barely two years since the GMO question first surfaced in New Zealand. Today Safe Food Campaign convener Sue Kedgley feels sufficiently confident to equate its impact with the anti-nuclear movement and feminism. "The fundamental question is whether consumers have the right to take their own precautions and choose not to eat foods involving this technology. "People no longer trust the experts and the scientists. They want to make their own decisions," she says. Public relations preoccupies both camps. While Monsanto mounts its billion-dollar European campaign Let the Harvest Begin, New Zealand's anti-GMO food lobby recently shifted out of the political arena and into the supermarket aisles -- an echo of a similar strategy in Britain where five major supermarket chains have already stopped selling foods containing GM ingredients, and public opinion polls indicate a rising tide of opinion against GMOs. In New Zealand, the opponents of GMOs have approached the major New Zealand supermarket chains directly asking them to phase out genetically engineered food products. They recently reinforced their argument by holding a protest in a Wellington supermarket, filling a trolley and asking the manager to guarantee that each product was GMO-free. An earlier boycott of Quality Bakers brands such as Vogel and Molenberg led to a declaration by Goodman Fielder that its products were GMO-free. The giant multinational food company Nestle is now the focus of protest. The shelves of a Wellington supermarket recently sprouted orange stickers on the company's products each carrying two letters -- GE. The Food Manufacturers' Federation described the campaign as "reprehensible" but reassured consumers that there were no genetically modified foods on supermarket shelves and no foods containing any altered protein or DNA. "The only products that could be on shelves are ingredients of some genetically modified soy, canola, and corn oil but those ingredients are exactly the same as the ingredients that you would get from a non-genetically modified crop," it said. That is not good enough for Sue Kedgley. "A year ago, few individuals thought much about the packet of frozen chicken pieces purchased from the supermarket. Now they want to know what the bird's been fed and how it's been raised." Opposition to GMOs may also reflect a deep-seated public distrust of scientists and science. Even sectors of the scientific community concede that there is public apprehension about a technology that seems to tinker with evolution. "I'm not opposed to a scientific research in the laboratory," Ms Kedgley says. "I am concerned when scientists alter plants and animals in ways which haven't happened in billions of years of evolution and expect to carry on experimenting without proper controls or questioning. Some scientists do not even see the consequences as their responsibility. They want to pass the buck on to the Government and the politicians while those people who question their work are seen as renegades and Luddites. Bad science and bad corporate practice are creating a potentially lethal mix." Labelling of foodstuffs is a pivotal issue for both sides. While the Department of Health has received 1500 submissions on labelling, the Australian New Zealand Food Authority has proposed to classify GMO food into five main categories. Ms Kedgley meanwhile describes the Government's proposals as Clayton's labelling. "They sound plausible and reassuring but the fact is that most GM ingredients will not be labelled. The Government is proposing to exempt all food additives and processing agents, including all preservatives and colourings. "They will exempt refined oils and sugars, yet one of the most common uses for GM soy is as animal feed, while about 80 per cent of vegetable oil produced in the United States is soy oil. "The only way to solve concerns is to have mandatory labelling of all food products involving gene technology. Failing that, our supermarkets should follow the example of their counterparts in Britain and phase out these products. Any action by supermarkets would be dependent on their individual judgment and corporate focus. We've now asked them to make a commitment instead of continuing to reply that this is a highly complex issue." Professor Barry Scott, professor of molecular science at Massey University, is a member of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. He says public unease over GMOs stems from bad corporate practice rather than bad science. "People know so little about this technology. I blame companies who have imported this food into New Zealand without adequate consumer information and with an attitude of take it or leave it. "The New Zealand public feels disempowered with no current food labelling for GMO content. They feel that they have the right to know what is in their food and that their right to choose what they eat is being denied. While I agree with these sentiments, it is important to recognise that this disempowerment is more the consequence of New Zealand's open market policy rather than a genetic engineering issue. "Labelling is a central issue because it involves choice. I'd hope that we are working towards an acceptable solution. The new standards seem to contain a robust regulatory system in terms of assessing the safety of food products. Paramount to this is food safety. I think that we are moving in the right direction but just how far do you go with labelling? "It is rational to label foods that are whole organisms -- tomatoes, apples -- but food substances such as oils and pastes are much more difficult to identify for GMO content, as food production and processing will destroy the DNA, making any analysis impossible." As a scientist, Professor Scott views the possibility of a moratorium on GMO food trials as potentially harmful for New Zealand. Bodies such as ERMA and ANZFA oversee the introduction of new organisms and food products into New Zealand but they needed to establish a track record in this area to gain public confidence. "New Zealand has one of the best regulatory systems in the world. We have been at the cutting edge of regulations. It is important that we do not ignore the new procedures but take steps to build up an information pool and reliable regulationary procedures." Sue Kedgley sees underlying issues of scientific responsibility and big business. "This is all about patents and the potential to control the world's food supply. The basic fact is that not a single GM product holds benefits for the consumer. They all contain risks. "The proponents of GM foods are seriously miscalculating the depth of feeling about this issue." _______________________________ "The Press" New Zealand June 16, 1999 Politics of GM food Debate about genetically modified food could well be one of the sleeper issues of the election campaign. Already it has shown it has the potential to cause embarrassment both to the parties of the centre-left and also for the Government. Over the last three years the GM food issue has prompted allegations of bullying, big-business pressure, backdowns, and political treachery. In each of the last three years bills to do with GM food have been brought before Parliament -- by Alliance MP Phillida Bunkle. All would have required mandatory labelling of these products and the latest attempt -- last month -- would also have imposed a moratorium on developing GM organisms in New Zealand. None of these bills managed to pass even the first test by being voted to go to a select committee. The perception has been that many politicians have under-estimated the public concern over what goes into supermarket trolleys. National until recently tended to regard proponents of labelling as some sort of gastronomic Luddites. Several ministers, such as Associate Health Minister Tuariki Delamere and Biosecurity Minister John Luxton, were openly scathing of the bills introduced by the Alliance. That changed several months ago. Public opinion, reinforced by letters to local MPs, could no longer be ignored. That the British Labour Government had expressed its concern over GM food focused even more attention on the issue. The Government immediately removed GM food from Mr Delamere's stewardship and entrusted it to the safer hands of Health Minister Wyatt Creech. At the same time it announced it was setting up a new Independent Biotechnology Advisory Council chaired by medical researcher Professor Peter Gluckman. One aim of this new council is to heighten public awareness of such issues as GMOs. Yet although National is determined to at least neutralise the issue before the election, its own caucus's prime GMO critic Christine Fletcher has been less than impressed at her party's stance. Last year Ms Bunkle's bill failed because National block-voted on the issue -- despite early indications that Mrs Fletcher would support it. Mrs Fletcher subsequently claimed she had been "bullied" into toeing the party line. Earlier this year she condemned a shift in the deadline -- from May 13 this year to next June -- for which GM foods had to be assessed by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority to be allowed to be sold. The Government said companies had been slow to apply for assessment. Had the deadline not shifted, it said, some 500 products might have had to be withdrawn. Mrs Fletcher said that the Government lacked credibility and was losing its way on environmental issues. That, quite naturally, is a view shared by Labour, the Alliance, and the Greens. They believe that only public pressure forced the Government into a belated and token response to the issue. Yet any suggestion that there was consensus across these three opposition parties was suddenly blown out of the water on May 20. Labour GM food spokesman Mark Peck abruptly announced that his party was withdrawing its support for Ms Bunkle's bill. Instead Labour produced its own "white paper" on the issue. It has promised to set up a Royal Commission on GMOs within 100 days of taking office -- something that the Greens, the Alliance, and Mrs Fletcher have no problem with. Labour also supports a labelling system for GM food. However, Labour argued that the Alliance bill was badly worded and its proposal for a moratorium on GMO research was too inclusive. Mr Peck said the decision had been made reluctantly, because the moratorium would have stopped hundreds of perfectly safe scientific experiments. Rather than a moratorium, Labour would allow current research projects to continue until the Royal Commission had reported, but under tight guidelines. Nor would GM food be allowed to be grown in New Zealand until that report. Coming on the eve of a major debate on Ms Bunkle's bill, Mr Peck's announcement took reporters by surprise. It shocked the Alliance. Despite having assiduously tried to heal the rift that emerged with Labour during the Taranaki-King Country by-election, the Alliance had no idea that Mr Peck was about to drop his bombshell. The issue immediately broadened from GMOs to the state of the relationship between the two potential coalition partners. Labour and the Alliance had, for example, been toying with the notion of not standing a candidate against each other in Wellington Central to give a centre-left candidate the maximum chance of defeating ACT leader Richard Prebble. There had been speculation that the Alliance might step aside. After the defeat of Ms Bunkle's bill, all bets were off. Alliance leader Jim Anderton said a campaign would be run to see whether Ms Bunkle or Labour's Marion Hobbs was best suited to carry the centre-left banner. Underlying the issue was the suspicion that Labour, like National, had too long considered GMOs to be a fringe issue and wanted to claim ownership of the debate. One party that does believe it had led the debate is the Green Party. For the Greens, GMOs are part of a world view that includes globalisation and the power of major international chemical companies. They argue that political pressure from these companies is a prime reason why campaigns over food labelling have not succeeded to date. Last weekend Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons hinted at another aspect of the GMO issue. While she acknowledged that Labour had slowly responded to the issue, the pace of reform would be much faster if there was a government of "Labour spliced with the Greens". Both Labour and National doubt that widespread public concern over food labelling automatically will translate into GMOs being a major election issue. For the Greens, however, GMOs offer the best lifeline to boost their profile and to be part of the next Parliament. _______________________________________ "The Press" New Zealand June 15, 1999 Ethics of genetic modification The debate about genetic modification needs to be wide-ranging, argues Dr BARBARA NICHOLAS, in the first of four articles on GM organisms and foods. The media is full of discussion about genetically modified food and genetically modified organisms. Recently it has been suggested that we need to talk about the ethics of this, as well as the science. Science can look for the answers to questions. Science can tell us what is possible, and it can tell us what evidence we have (or do not have) about what physical risks and potential benefits there may be. But science cannot tell us what we should or should not do with that knowledge and evidence. Science cannot give us answers to questions like: if something is possible, should we do it? Questions like that, though informed by science, are about ethics. They are about the values that we place on different relationships. The potential consequences of the technology extend beyond immediate risks of an allergic response to a food or its possible toxicity. There are a number of other risks -- some biological, some social and economic. And there are benefits too. If we are going to discuss the ethics of risk and benefit then we have to decide what risks and benefits to consider. Our values will inform the choices we make about what we see as important to include in the debates, an d how we weigh the various considerations. One possible consequence of GM food is the risk to personal health from eating the food. Here we have a number of issues: How safe (and beneficial) is it? And how much evidence do we need to know we are safe? There is of course scientific review of the safety of food, but the evidence is still very limited. It only looks at some risk factors , and it has only examined the effects over a short period of time. What benefits may come from GM food, and what evidence do we have that such benefits will eventuate? Who decides, and how, that there is enough evidence to make a decision? Second, judgments about safety are not value-free. They are not obvious answers made clear by the results of research. Research is essential, but values are implicit both in the choice of what risks (or benefits) to inves tigate, and how we balance those risks and benefits in any decisions. Whose values and world view inform the choices that are being made about what research is being carried out and how, what foods are generally available, and whether or not they are labelled? Another possible consequence is risk to public health. Much of the food-safety discussion seems to focus on whether or not this food is toxic, or may cause an allergic response. But there are other potential risks that have been raised by scientists (and not by just the much- maligned activists). For instance, there is the potential for antibiotic resistance to be transferred across species. This would make us vulnerable to infections that were resistant to antibiotic treatment. There is the possibility of ecological disruption. We do not know what the downstream effects on the food chain may be, and it is hard to know even what effects to look for in an effort to anticipate possible problems. A third consequence is the risk to biodiversity. As food production comes to depend more extensively on GMOs, there is a threat of loss of biodiversity -- and hence future flexibility for development of alternative varieties. That difficulty may well emerge if we become dependent on GM seed varieties. There is likely to be very little genetic variation within those crops. If we then discover some negative feature of those strains, where will they find alternative strains of a plant to strengthen the crop if different strains are not being grown? At present, the big transnational biotech companies rely on the immense genetic diversity to be found in many developing countries, where there are many local varieties of foods, suited to local conditions, and kept by fa rmers from year to year. If the transnational companies succeed in their efforts to substitute GM seeds for local varieties, much of the variation will be lost. A fourth consequence is the risk of social disruption and increasing poverty, which takes us to the social and economic impact of these technologies, and the ethical issues this raises. The GM food industry is in the hands of very few players. A small number of companies now control the majority of the international food industry -- through a combination of chemical companies, seed production and biotech nology industries, and ownership of plant patents. Farmers are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the decisions of a small number of organisations. Once only GM soybeans (or wheat, or potatoes) are being sold, what else is there for the farmer to plant? The issues in the developing world have an added urgency. There farmers are being encouraged by the big companies to buy "superior" seeds to those the farmers have retained from earlier crops. Not only do they then lose the varieties that are suitable to their local conditions, they also find themselves caught in farming practices that are dependent on cashflow, and are unsustainable on small farms. This dynamic could (and does) happen with seeds other than those which are GM. But there is an ad ded cruel twist in the tale. The very farming communities that are being undermined by the large companies are those which are being "biopharmed" by those companies as sources of alternative genes. These genes are being identified by the large companies, patented so that no one else can profit from them, and then sold back to the communities that have sustained them for generations. The potential for benefit must also be considered. The technology is not restricted to food production. It is useful for instance in the production of pharmaceuticals. But if we just consider its use in food production a number of benefits can be identified. Some argue that it will lead to more food through bigger production with more efficient farming; that it will reduce the use of the more toxic pesticides; that some crops will have increased resistance to some pests; and that some food will be genetically engineered so that it will have a longer shelf life. So there are risks, and there may be benefits. But why talk of ethics? We need to talk of ethics because GM food is changing the nature of our relationships with the non-human world, and impacting on some important relationships between individuals and groups. First, genetic modification is a significant development in the effort of humans to control the "natural" world. We have always sought to do this to some extent -- we do it every time we use medicine to try to stop the pr ogress of a disease. We do not always let nature take its course. But with genetic modification we take it to a new level. We have found ways to work across some of nature's boundaries. We can take genes from one organism and put them in another -- genes that could never get there witho ut human intervention. We are not working "with" nature as we might in traditional breeding of new crops. Instead we are finding new ways of making nature do what we want. (Now, we have been doing that in medicine for some time -- and many benefit from medications that are produced using genetic technology. On the whole we have not had much difficulty accepting that. But food feels differen t; different values are at stake.) The implication is that in some way we are outside natural processes, that somehow humans have knowledge that gives us the right to override mechanisms that have developed over centuries of natural selection. Second, GM food is radically changing some important relationships between people -- and ethics is about which relationships are appropriate and which ones are not. Farmers are becoming increasingly dependent on a small n umber of inter-linked businesses. Consequently, consumers are also becoming vulnerable to the decisions of those same businesses. This is happening in a global context where governments are discovering that their commitments to free trade are leaving them without the means to regulate the foods that those companies choose to produce by whatever biot echnological methods. These changing relationships are not caused by genetically modified food itself. But GM food is the tool that is being used by big business interests, and associated political forces, to develop an extensive level of cont rol over food and agricultural industries, and associated trade. The concern of these big businesses is not to enhance our choice in food, to feed the hungry, or to minimise or overcome poverty. Nor are they concerned to protect the small farmer or sustain traditional communities and genetic diversity. The technology would be being used in quite different ways if that was the agenda. Their concern is profit. So when people argue about the labelling of food, it is partly about the ethic of individual choice. (In many ways this is the easiest ethical argument to make because we are most familiar with it.) But the decision about whether or not label or to eat GM food takes place in a wider context. Social and political ethics are also part of the conversation. Even if all our food was labelled and we were able to choose whether or not to eat GM food, other ethical issues would remain. Whose values inform any judgment or assessment of safety? What international relationships and use of power are driving this technology? Who is benefiting from the way the technology is being used, and who carries the bur den of risk? Tomorrow: GM agriculture. Dr Barbara Nicholas teaches ethics at Christchurch School of Medicine and is a research fellow at the Health Technology Assessment Clearing House. |
|
Home / Overview / News Cuttings / Other Related Articles / Contact |