Farmers must have right to choose on GE - Langford
Federated Farmers supports a review of the current genetic technology legislation but insists that a farmer’s right to either choose or reject it must be protected.
However, they warn that pockets of resistance remain, and about the need to hit the sweet spot and the need to allow for all types of farming.
DairyNZ science advisor Dr Bruce Thorrold says dairy farmers want choice.
While welcoming last week's government announcement, Thorrold suggests a regulated approach where everyone can work together.
"It is time to revisit the regulations governing genetic technologies in New Zealand as the science has advanced rapidly in recent years," he says.
"As farmers and growers look for solutions to sector-wide issues, we should explore all promising avenues that could help with the challenges we face. However, we need to tread carefully and ensure a regulated approach that considers the wide range of views, opportunities, and risks, and provides appropriately for coexistence."
DairyNZ has been engaging with farmers and Thorrold says that while there are a wide range of views, a clear theme that is emerging is choice, and the need to allow for all types of farming.
"While many are in support of changes for environmental and productivity gains, some oppose change to protect tikanga and markets.
"As a science-led industry-good body, being able to test these types of technologies within our unique New Zealand pastoral farm systems is important in terms of assessing both opportunity and risk."
Federated Farmers president Wayne Langford says Feds have been advocating for a national conversation about the use of technologies like gene editing for a long time now.
Langford notes that the last time New Zealand took a serious look at the potential use of these technologies was in the early 2000s, but the science has continued to develop at breakneck speed since then.
"Our collective understanding of some of the big global challenges we're all facing, like climate change and biodiversity loss, has also continued to quickly develop over that time.
"This announcement from the Government opens the door for us to consider all the potential benefits, weigh them up against any risks, and decide how we want to move forward together as a country."
The science community is also backing lifting the ban on gene technology but warns that divisions within the population will remain.
Genetics expert Professor Michael Bunce, University of Otago, says that asking if gene editing is 'good or bad' is like asking if the internet is 'good or bad'.
"We need to step past this binary state. It requires us to zoom in on a given application to make the 'call' as to what benefits society, environment and the economy, and what might be damaging or an unacceptable risk.
"This is a technical and nuanced conversation for New Zealand to have. It requires us to pick up our DNA 'game' a little, and park debates from last century when gene technologies were still in their infancy. We may also have to accept that the country may remain divided on this topic - some New Zealanders will remain opposed to gene editing."
AgResearch science team leader Richard Scott notes that in NZ there has been decades of inaction on regulations for genetic modification and gene editing.
"Much of the rest of the world has already made changes, or is in the process of making changes, to accommodate gene technologies that are now more precise and safer than they have ever been. In some cases, these technologies have been safely used overseas for decades now."
He points out that the approach proposed for New Zealadn, which excludes "low-risk and well-understood gene technologies" from regulation, is sensible.
