NZ public want ZERO tolerance of GM contamination

[Guest guest]

ubject: GMW: NZ public want ZERO tolerance of GM contamination

" GM WATCH " <info

Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:01:08 +0100

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

FACTS & FIGURES

 

from NZ polls on public attitudes to GMOs

 

* 74.5% of New Zealanders support the nation's food production

remaining GM Free (polled August 2005)

 

* 2 years ago when GM was much more of a headline issue it was 70.1%

 

* another poll shows more New Zealanders lack confidence (45%) in the

regulator ERMA's ability to regulate GMOs than have confidence (40%)

 

* 79% of New Zealanders support the current policy of zero tolerance to

GM contamination of seed imports

 

* 77% support zero tolerance of GM contamination of crops in the field

 

* In 2003, one kiwi company lost close to half a million dollars

because of contaminated corn seed.

---

Rural NZ supports GM-free production

By: Simon Terry

http://www.ruralnews.co.nz/article.asp?channelid=141 & articleid=10001

 

The most recent poll on public attitudes to GMOs shows rural and urban

dwellers equally support the concept that New Zealand should remain a

GM Free food producer.

 

The overall result was that 74.5% of New Zealanders would support the

nation's food production remaining GM Free. Rural responses showed

fractionally higher support at 75.5% while urban respondents were

marginally lower at 74.1%. However, both are within 1% of the overall

result.

 

The DigiPoll random survey conducted for the Sustainability Council

first informed those questioned that there is no commercial production of

genetically modified food in this country.

 

These August figures compare with 70.1% support when the same question

was put two years ago during the heat of the moratorium debate.

 

Since then, the GM discourse has had a far lower profile – with not a

single application to actually release a GMO into the environment having

been made. There has not even been a field trial application in the

last eighteen months when before the moratorium debate, there were a

number each year.

 

In other words, even in absence of any recent trigger to galvanise

public opinion, support for New Zealand's food production remaining GM

Free

is a as high as ever.

 

GM issues are not high up in the news simply because GM developers have

chosen not to put projects before ERMA, the Government agency

responsible for assessing whether a particular GMO release should be

permitted.

 

As ERMA's former CEO Bas Walker said at his recent retirement function,

" that could all change in 24 hours " if something like a release

application came forward.

 

The large sums being invested by New Zealand GMO developers mean such

an application needs to be made eventually if the products are to go

beyond lab experiments in New Zealand.

 

At that point, the current decision-making processes leave the ERMA

board to make the call, unless the Minister for the Environment " calls

in "

the application from ERMA.

 

There are a series of problems with leaving decisions on GM release to

ERMA alone.

 

The first is that while ERMA has been regulating GMOs within the lab

with no obvious sign of disquiet, there is a lack of public confidence in

its ability to decide the crucial question of GMO release.

 

Polling conducted for ERMA in March shows more New Zealanders lack

confidence (45%) in its ability to regulate GMOs than have confidence

(40%).

 

Another is that there is no effective liability regime for harm caused

by an activity carried out in accordance with an ERMA approval. Any

costs arising from unexpected effects or inadequate controls tend to fall

on innocent parties – such as farmers growing the crops and their

neighbors.

 

Thirdly, any approval to release a GMO is a major national policy

decision. For a nation that earns half its export income from food

production, this is a fundamental branding and marketing call – quite

apart

from the broader high level issues it raises.

 

In Australia, states have the statutory right to regulate GMOs for

economic reasons. To date, six states have passed legislation allowing

them

to so designate on GM crops. No state has yet permitted a GM crop to

be grown for commercial food production and a number have designated the

entire state.

 

The net result is that Australia remains a GM Free Food Producer

because the state Governments have taken responsibility and made the

strategic call.

 

" Case by case " assessment of scientific and other issues particular to

the release proposal only makes sense once the higher strategic

decisions, such as the branding and marketing, have been explicitly

attended

to.

 

Consumer resistance to GM contamination remains very strong in Japan

and northern Europe. Any detectable level of GM content triggers product

rejection in these premium markets.

 

In 2003, one kiwi company lost close to half a million dollars when

routine testing by a Japanese fast foods producer showed just 0.05% GM

content that arose from contaminated corn seed.

 

As has been demonstrated by the most recent local contamination

incident in August, contamination can also arise through GMOs of one crop

(soy) mingling with a completely different conventional crop (maize)

during

transport and storage. This incident resulted in product rejection by

the domestic processor in order to protect export market reputation.

 

Public opinion in New Zealand is similarly aligned with this market

sentiment. The August DigiPoll survey also reported that 79% New

Zealanders would support the current policy of zero tolerance to GM

contamination of seed imports. It further found 77% support for zero

tolerance to

GM contamination of crops in the field, once informed that this too is

the current policy. Rural and urban support was again quite close -

within 2% of the overall result.

 

GM crop cultivation is thus a branding and producer liability culvert

unless and until consumer responses change substantially.

 

The Sustainability Council sees potential in the use of genetic

modification in medicine but believes New Zealand should remain a GM

Free Food

Producer at least until there is clear acceptance of GM products in key

export markets, and sufficient research has been undertaken on the

environmental effects of GMOs to properly assess their impact in New

Zealand.

 

Simon Terry is Executive Director of the Sustainability Council, a

Wellington based charitable trust. He also manages an economic

consultancy

that has reported on a wide range of resource issues.

 

 

 

---------------