THE ROYAL COMMISSION OF GENETIC MODIFICATION IN NEW ZEALAND
April, 2001

Critics of biotechnology have said that genetic modification is essentially a huge uncontrolled experiment. Another experiment, albeit one of a sociological and political nature, will be concluding shortly in New Zealand: the Royal Commission of Genetic Modification (RCGM). This unique consultative body was announced in April 2000 with the goal of having a comprehensive study of genetic modification completed by June 2001. The RCGM is comprised of former Chief Justice, Sir Thomas Eichelbaum; Dr. Jacqueline Allan, a medical doctor and Maori representative; Dr. Jean Fleming, an animal scientist who is professionally familiar with biotechnology; and the Right Reverend Richard Randerson, an Anglican Church Bishop.

It is well known that New Zealand (NZ), an island nation of 3.8 million people whose major industry is agriculture, has been a hotbed of controversy over genetically (GM) modified plants and animals. New Zealand is, of course, not novel in this respect, but is set apart from other countries by its image of being "Clean and Green"; a label that extends to its products, for both NZ markets and for markets abroad. Organic food production and export, especially the export of organically grown meat, dairy, and fruit (80% of organic exports are Kiwifruit or apples), have been touted as significant players in the economy during the discussion at the RCGM. Total NZ organic exports currently constitute $60 million (NZD) out of $25 billion (0.24%) of total exports, or 0.48% of total agricultural exports (half of NZ exports come from agriculture—this excludes fisheries and forestry). While ~75% of total agricultural production is exported, only 600 farmers, out of more than 20,000, are either certified or seeking certification as organic growers.

New Zealand prides itself on being a nuclear free nation, and Greenpeace and other activist organizations have large followings. A significant green movement exists, and currently seven representatives of 120 in the Parliament are from the Green Party. One unique sociological factor in the current debate is the Maori influence. Maori settlement of NZ predated that of Europeans by 800 to1000 years, and today their population comprises about one-eighth of the country's total. The NZ Treaty of Waitangi mandates consultation with the Maori in situations like the one occurring now, where science, technology, and tradition clash. Some Maori say their religious tradition disallows tinkering with Mother Nature, as it is disruptive of the natural balance. To the Maori, the natural world and spiritual world are interrelated in such a way that provides boundaries of manipulations of plants and animals. Maori generally believe that GM technology transcends this boundary. All of these factors impact New Zealand's decisions about the role of genetic engineering in agriculture.

At the same time, NZ has a rich talent pool of molecular biologists and biotechnologists in universities, and research institutions of the highest quality. Some of these institutions, such as HortResearch, employ world leaders in cutting-edge agbiotech. In addition, a fledgling biotechnology industry is poised for flight, given a favorable review by the RCGM. By the time this article is published, the RCGM will have completed its public hearings, having run from October 2000 through March 2001, and will have heard testimony about GM technology, biosafety, economics, ethics, sociology, and politics. Presentations have been made by scores of expert witnesses from NZ and around the world, such as biotechnology champions Klaus Ammann and Tony Conner, and critics such as Elaine Ingham and Mae-Wan Ho. These witnesses presented briefs prior to giving oral testimony (http://www.gmcommission.govt.nz), and the RCGM has listened to testimony four days a week, for eight hours a day. The meetings have been open to the public, and various parties associated with the green movement and the agricultural community were given the opportunity for cross-examination. The members of the Royal Commission have had a very extensive and in-depth conversation on biotechnology!

In December 2000, I (NS) was invited to give testimony to the RCGM about the ecological biosafety of GM plants, which has been an important part of my research program since 1994. My brief was built around my research and a recent review article I coauthored about the current issues of GM plant biosafety.¹ Steve Hughes, of the Nuffield Council on Biosafety ( http://www.nuffield.org/bioethics/publication/modifiedcrops/ ), also presented information the same day. While my testimony was too long to recount in its entirety here (especially when trying to be considerate to our readers), a summary of it follows.

My opening position was and remains that biotechnology is a natural outgrowth of years of human intervention in plant development, which has taken place through breeding and mutagenesis. I presented an overview of the ecological risks of particular crop transgene combinations along with their benefits, and also talked about specific environmental applications of GM plant technology, such as bioremediation, and my own lab's work in landmine detection research. My recommendations were that biotechnology research continue in New Zealand; that GM plant field testing be allowed; that regulatory bodies such as ERMA (Environmental Risk Management Authority) examine GM plants on a case-by-case basis; that the government perform post-commercialization monitoring; and that risks be addressed as they are discovered and necessary steps taken to minimize them. These are the types of recommendations proposed by a number of witnesses to the RCGM during the hearings.

During my presentation, a stenographer recorded all testimony and conveyed it to the Royal Commission in real time. The Commission members asked very few questions, except to seek clarification on certain points. After I presented testimony, Dr. Hughes and I were cross-examined, predominantly by representatives of the Green Party and Greenpeace. The details of Dr. Hughes's testimony were questioned, and my statements regarding the risks of deploying certain transgenic plants were reemphasized, although they are facts that all biosafety scientists acknowledge. For example, though my cross-examiners stressed my point that in canola (Brassica napus) transgenes could be transferred to wild relatives, they ignored the more important ramifications of the crop-, transgene-, and environment-dependent nature of transgene flow.

The formation of the RCGM was initially viewed by many biotechnologists as a bad omen for biotechnology. An additional apparent bad omen for biotechnology was the voluntary moratorium of field-testing of GM organisms that began June 14, 2000, and ends on August 31, 2001. However, this moratorium was actually considered by all interested parties as an opportunity to exercise a spirit of cooperation until the RCGM had completed its work.

The RCGM was designed to conduct the most thorough and comprehensive investigation of GM crops possible in order to make informed judgments regarding their future use in New Zealand. My impression was that the Commission was completely dedicated to achieving that end and that they appreciated the science-based risk assessment presented during my day in court. The absence of agriculturalists or additional scientists on the RCGM was initially considered by biotechnologists to have negative implications for the possible future of biotechnology in New Zealand. However, the questions posed to Dr. Hughes and me were science-literate and thoughtful, and I believe that the Commission will utilize the wealth of information amassed during these months of hearings to make the right decision for NZ with regard to GM biotechnology. Francis Wevers, the Executive Director of The New Zealand Life Sciences stated, "The Royal Commissioners have done an enormous amount of work to ensure everyone in New Zealand, and not a few from around the rest of the world, have had an opportunity to be heard. They have listened to hundreds of expert and not so expert witnesses; read literally thousands of submissions and papers about scientific, economic, cultural, ethical, and educational perspectives; and visited small towns, cities, and Maori meeting houses around New Zealand."

I also believe that the thoroughness and the open nature of the proceedings will assure both proponents and critics of biotechnology, as well as the general public, that the ultimate findings and recommendations are legitimate and fair, no matter what the outcome. By June, the New Zealand Royal Commission will have assembled an unparalleled database about GM biotechnology that can be used by any country to make an evaluation about its own agricultural development. Most importantly, New Zealand will be in a position to proceed into the future with confidence.

Source

Stewart CN Jr, Richards HA, and Halfhill MD. 2000 Transgenic plants and biosafety: science, misconceptions and public perceptions. BioTechniques 29: 832-843.

C. Neal Stewart, Jr.
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
nstewart@uncg.edu

Sarah K. Wheaton
University of Rhode Island