GMO deregulation risky for farmers
OPINION: Recent progress in methods for gene manipulations suggests exciting new possibilities in medicine and agriculture, but significant risks remain and a lot could go wrong.
The message comes as more than 100 world-leading and award-winning scientists voice their support of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Federated Farmers' spokesperson Katie Milne says it's clear that the long-term stance opponents have against all GMO is well and truly outdated and lacks scientific scrutiny.
"Federated Farmers recognises GMOs can provide many positive benefits to farmers and it's up to individual farmers to decide whether to use GMOs or not. We have a neutral stance on this.
"Through GMOs farmers could have cows without horns or have the ability to not breed calves, there are many positive animal welfare outcomes for the industry," says Milne.
At the Federated Farmers National Conference last week delegates supported a remit that the Environmental Protection Authority should manage and makes all decisions relating to GMOs in New Zealand.
"This type of technology must be used responsibly and be appropriately regulated, so it's important all decisions around GMOs are managed at central government level, not regional council level," says Milne.
"There was also support to research the use of gene technology to control and eradicate pests such as rats, mice and rabbits, instead of the ongoing battle we have to try and eradicate using poisons.
"With more than 100 leading scientists asking environmental groups through an open letter to end their opposition to genetically modified food, the public needs to take notice."
The scientists' open letter states "scientific and regulatory agencies around the world have repeatedly and consistently found crops and foods improved through biotechnology to be as safe as, if not safer than those derived from any other method of production. There has never been a single confirmed case of a negative health outcome for humans or animals from their consumption."
"As a country we need to think carefully about how comfortable we are being against GMOs," says Milne.
"Is this purely emotional, when science has demonstrated they are safe?
"There are other potential benefits, with science showing the environmental impact from GMOs is less damaging in comparison to some traditional farming practices.
"GMOs are all about choices that could potentially provide the global food production targets we need to feed a growing population."
The scientists' letter called on Greenpeace to stop its uniformed opposition to golden rice, which has the potential to reduce or eliminate much of the death and disease caused by Vitamin A deficiency (VAD).
More than 250 million people suffer from VAD, estimated to affect 40% of children in developing countries. This can lead to blindness and more than half of those children dying within a year of losing their eyesight.
As the letter says, "Opposition to GMOs based on emotion and dogma contradicted by data must be stopped".
