Are we in the coalition of science or cabal of fear?

New Zealand stands on the edge of a technology revolution. A revolution in the way we produce our food, manage our environment and treat our people. I say “edge” because what we, what our Parliament, decides in the next eight months will determine if we stay on the edge and watch the world pass us by, or stand on the cusp of this revolution.

I am talking about the Gene Technology Bill which is making its way through Parliament. There is a lot at stake. The world demands more food. Our customers demand better-quality food. They want us to reduce the impact we are having on the environment, they want us to reduce our greenhouse gases, they want food that is healthier. They are prepared to pay top dollar for these things.

Scientists in our uni-versities and CRIs have been working on pastures which help reduce methane emissions and nitrogen leaching, improve animal welfare by reducing the chances of bloat and ryegrass staggers and on animals themselves in the face of climate change. They have accelerated apple breeding and are working on kiwifruit.

Genetic modification is extremely popu-lar with farmers. Around the world each year more than 16 million farmers have planted more than 200 million hectares of GM crops across 26 countries. Uptake by farmers, where they are allowed to use it, reaches above 90%. Farmers can’t get enough of genetic modification.

But here in New Zealand we have no or limited access to genetic technologies. Applications to develop life-saving medicines like CAR T-cell therapy can be held up for months by a sclerotic system that favours doing nothing. Our scientists have to fly to the US just to taste the apples they have bred.

In the last speech I gave as president of Federated Farmers, I spoke about the tension between scien-tific evidence and public perception. One observation I made is that trust takes time to build. That is what has been happening over the last decade as scientists have been informing the public of their work in gene technologies. We have heard about Pro-fessor Dearden’s wasp gene drive programme, we have heard about AgResearch’s methane busting ryegrass and we have heard about sterile pines and fast breeding apples.

But it is another cliché that trust is hard fought and easily lost. We are seeing that play out in the rhetoric coming from those fundamentally opposed to gene technologies. We have heard that enacting the Gene Technology Bill will wipe $20 billion from our over-seas earnings, that the Bill is a radical regulatory departure putting us at the bleeding edge of GM liberalisation. Neither is credible. Recently, I heard an activist, using his professorial title, emotive language and imagery to spread fear and mistrust about the Bill. He should know better but it is lan-guage designed to erode that trust in our scien-tists and regulators so hard fought, and it is not without effect... Gene technologies are not a silver bullet but they are an increasingly important tool as we face those challenges. Those who seek to spread disinformation to achieve their political aims do the country an immense disservice.

William Rolleston.

But humanity has been here many times before. Resistance to technologies and ideas is not new

The dairy industry pushed back on margarine and, for the first half of the 20th century, it had to be dyed blue in North America. Until 1974, margarine in New Zealand was only available on prescription. Activists claimed it could make you go blind, but not just you, your children and grandchildren also.

The world has sepa-rated into two factions: those countries who are using gene technology in agriculture and conservation, and those who are proceeding at a more cautious pace. 

Those countries who use gene technology, like Australia, have regulatory systems that focus solely on the risk to human health and the environ-ment; they apply scientific principles; they leave issues of trade and market access to industry; and ethics to parliament and ethics committees. They have given farmers choice and trust them to work together to achieve coexistence.

Contrary to the rhetoric we are seeing in sub-missions, their exports have thrived and so have their organic sectors. For them collectively, gene technology has increased crop production by almost half a trillion dollars, reduced annual CO2 emissions by 39 million tonnes, reduced pesticide use by 749 thousand tonnes and saved 183 mil-lion hectares of land, conserving biodiversity. These countries have simply got on with it.

I expect to see more than 20,000 submissions opposing the Gene Tech-nology Bill. While many will not have moved on since the ‘Corngate’ days of the 2000s or are reacting to misinformation, I think the silent majority of New Zealanders see gene technologies in a new light. Gene technologies are a part of our everyday lives. Polling of farmers has showed a majority support reform and choice – for themselves, their businesses and their families. 

We have prided our-selves on being at the forefront of environmental stewardship. What we do matters to others. They follow our leadership in this space. The next eight months will decide if we have indeed moved from the edge to the cusp, if we are in the coalition of science or the cabal of fear.