|
Skip to comments |
Skip to comment form |
 Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
17 December 05
Local
government the new GM battleground
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View >>>
Having
been rejected by central government, GM radicals are now
putting pressure on local councils to further their cause.
Their
efforts come at a time when the government’s Bioethics
Council has recommended that animal to human transplants
should recommence. These procedures used to take place in
New Zealand
, but following concerns raised about the techniques by
researchers in
Britain
in the mid nineties, they were banned.
The
Council’s decision now opens the door for
New Zealand
science and innovation to play its part in developing
treatments at the leading edge of transplant technology.
Just
as electricity was a key driver of progress in the early part
of last century, with information technology taking a lead in
the latter part, it will be biotechnology that plays a key
role in the future.
According
to Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, a body
established in 2000 to consider the future of GM in
New Zealand
: “Technology is integral to the advancement of the world.
Fire, the wheel, steam power, electricity, radio transmission,
air and space travel, nuclear power, the microchip, DNA: the
human race has ever been on the cusp of innovation. Currently
biotechnology is the new frontier. Continuation of research is
critical to
New Zealand
’s future. As in the past we should go forward but with
care”.
The
Royal Commission which sat for fourteen months, received
10,000 submissions and consulted widely, came to the
conclusion that
New Zealand
should embrace GM technology, but proceed with caution. Click
here to view
report.
The
result was the establishment of the Bioethics Council, and a
requirement that all GM applications be carefully examined on
a case- by-case basis by the government’s Environmental Risk
Management Authority acting under the Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act. These requirements
were in addition to regulations regarding biosecurity,
medicines, animal products, agricultural compounds and food
labelling.
Not
content with the stringent regulatory regime imposed by
central government and having lost their battle against
science and common sense at a national level radical
environmentalists with a GE Free mantra are now attempting to
push their agenda through at local body level.
Five
councils – Waitakere, Rodney, Kaipara, Whangarei, and
Northland with some support from the Northland Regional
Council and Local Government NZ – have already spent $75,000
on a report, peer review and legal opinion investigating ways
to impose local government regulation on GM applications. The
anti GE radicals are putting pressure on local councils to
become a regulatory authority, in addition to the regulatory
authorities that presently exist.
If
they succeed in their orchestrated campaign, then GE consents
are likely to be decided on issues of politics and local
constituencies rather than science. Just imagine if local
councils of the 19th century had required everyone
who applied a new science called “electricity” to obtain a
resource consent!
Dr
William Rolleston, the Chairman of the Life Sciences Network,
a group formed to promote a scientific perspective on
biotechnology, is the NZCPD guest contributor this week. His
response to this anti-GE local body initiative can be found on
the website Forum (click here to view his opinion piece).
Genetic
modification, a
technology which alters the characteristics of living
organisms enabling them to perform differently, was introduced
into
New Zealand
thirty years ago, making a total mockery of the claims by green
activists that this country could ever become ‘GE Free’.
Major
advances in the treatment of diabetes were made in the 1980s
through the production by bacteria of genetically engineered
human insulin. Sufferers of cystic fibrosis, multiple
sclerosis and human dwarfism have all benefited from similar
technologies in which human genes are grown in bacteria.
Similarly, a copy of the gene for chymosin, a protein enzyme
from the stomach of calves, which has been widely used in
cheese making since the eighties, is also grown in bacteria.
Potential
benefits of GM in the future, include advancements in
medicine, the development of disease and pest resistant crops
to reduce reliance on agricultural chemicals, foods that
contain essential vitamins and minerals and have greater
nutritional value, the production of pharmaceuticals from
plants, and better methods of controlling pests such as
possums (leading to the eventual elimination of the need for
1080 poison).
In
researching this article, I came into contact with an
Idaho
farmer, Duane Grant, who received an Eisenhower Fellowship in
2003 to study the difference in approach to GM between the
United States
and the European Union.
In
his report (click here to view)
he noted that: “
US
producers have enthusiastically endorsed the biotechnology
age.
US
consumers have given barely more than a polite yawn to claims
by opponents of genetic engineering. Today experts estimate
that up to 80% of the processed or packaged food in the
typical
US
supermarket contains at least one ingredient that is derived
from a genetically engineered source. European society has
responded in a diametrically opposite direction – almost no
GM crops are produced within the EU”.
I
asked him what progress has been made since 2003. He
responded: “The EU is moving towards accommodating
biotechnology at a somewhat glacial pace, but that movement is
indeed occurring. Some polls are indicating a degree of
‘crisis fatigue’ amongst EU consumers, especially in the
UK
. I am cautiously optimistic that systems will evolve to allow
reasonable trade in both conventional and transgenic products
between the EU and her trading partners. With
China
,
India
and the western hemisphere largely aboard, any country that
persists in nonsensical trade barriers is placing their future
trade-dependant prosperity at risk. I believe the calmer heads
in
Europe
understand this”.
Printer
friendly version (PDF)
View >>>
This
weeks poll. This week's poll
asks: Do
you believe local authorities should become a regulatory
agency for GM applications, in addition to the regulatory
controls already imposed by central government?
To take part in our online poll
>>>
Skip to top |
Skip to comment form |
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
They do not have
the technical skill. Look at the debacle with contaminated
soils.
Councils are easily captured by zealots and there are no
checks and balances as there are at the Parliamentary level
– so anything goes.
I have said yes,
but I want to say yes and no.The fear of Central Government
having total control of something which fiddles with the
fragile balance of Nature fills me with dread. The
driven need that big companies and individuals have for profit
at any cost, regardless of risk must cause caution in the
hearts and minds of sane citizens.
Absolutely not.
I have a tertiary qualification in botany and zoology, and
worked for some time at the (old style) DSIR research station
in Lincoln, where a considerable amount of GM research and
crop modification was being carried out. I believe that the
research staff were and are responsible people, and the
results of their work most certainly benefited NZ, New
Zealanders, and the world. The Luddite attitudes of the
anti-GM lobby should be consigned to the rubbish-bin of
history, and promptly.
Definitely not.
I am a first term District Councillor and as each
day goes by it becomes more and more obvious that the powers
that be in Wellington have numerous associated bodies dreaming
up ridiculous schemes for Councils that only impact on costing
ratepayers excessive rates.
I do not believe
Science knows enough about what it is doing to justify placing
New Zealand's unique flora and fauna at risk, by adopting a
leading-edge/bleeding edge approach. Leave that for
other countries. Once it becomes a stable, credible
science, then New Zealand should adopt GE - but even then,
very carefully.
Genetic
modification began when man first planted crops and raised
domestic animals. The best were selected as seed stock. Now
the selection is much more scientific and any country that
puts it head in the sand will be left behind.
Why add yet
another layer to the process, particulalry one which will not
be driven by national interest but by a parochial one.
One competent
authority is quite enough.
We desperately
need more informed information on the GE issue to be released.
GM is a fact of
life, like it or not. It has power for good and bad, as do all
technologies. Having it regulated all over the place, often by
people who do not understand it, is counterproductive. We are
busy destroying our environment as fast as we can already - GM
may be the only way we can save ourselves and our fellow
living organisms from the havoc we are wreaking.We should be
working with it and not against it.
Another downside
of granting general competence to Councils - another area of
interference while the pot holes grow.
Local Bodies are
there to serve the ratepayers who fund them. I am sure that I
echo the large majority that they have too much power and have
entered arenas they have no place in. We have one body for
ruling our collective lives, (one too many), and that is our
parliament. Local Authorities should do what they are paid to
do and not try to influence the ratepayers.
I find it
incredibly selfish that a small group of people are trying to
prevent the development of techniologies that could possibly
save thousands if not millions of lives world wide, simply
because they are scared of embracing new technologies.
Ignorance
generates fear and fear generates anarchy.
If central
Government has approved GM, that decision should be universal
throughout New Zealand. Otherwise, people will move away
from places where their rights are restricted.
GM is unproven
as to safety and efficacy. Local bodies know what's best for
their areas.
If the Wheel was
invented today, the Greens and others would have it banned.
GM regulation is
a matter for central government. It is important that any
control be applied in the interest of the overall public and
that it be handled by a competent authority acting on an
informed and consistent basis. The mechanism of local
government is incapable undertaking such a task as it would
inevitably result in ad hoc and inconsistent regulation.
Councils become
captured by people with agendas. As a result, North Shore for
example, won't let you touch a tree you planted without
permission from a qualified arborist - at a price! As if
you really need a qualified opinion to cut down a
tree you planted yourself!
I wouldn't trust
a local authority with my pocket money, let alone something as
important as GM applications.
I am cautious
about the advancement of GE & believe the advocacy of GE
enthusiasts should be received sceptically as much as one must
be sceptical about the anti-GM 'doomsayers'. However, there is
absolutely no doubt local government is NOT the agency to
regulate or pontificate on these issues. They have neither the
competence, money or structure to involve themselves and the
Labour Government was extremely silly to have given them
general powers of "competence" to tempt them into
thinking they might get involved in such debatesLocal
authorities usually will not have the scientific knowledge
required. Emotion will rule the day.
Local
authorities are involving themselves in too many issues at
significant cost to ratepayers, outside their mandate and
which are adequately and properly covered by Central
Government.
It is hard to
think of a better way to ensure that uninformed individuals
can influence this debate. Antagonism is fuelled by the
"green" lobby which persists in half-truths,
innuendo, gross extrapolation beyond the facts, and downright
lies.
We are grossly
over regulated already. It is virtually impossible to go
through say a six month period without UNKNOWINGLY OR
UNWITTINGLY infringing a law or by-law. Keep Councils out,
Parliament makes enough screw ups on their own, we don't need
to compound the situation.
Increasing
regulation is stifling this country and in some instances
driving away innovation and potentially beneficial
technology in so many areas of human need.
Scientific
argument is way beyond the capability & understanding of
Local Government, perhaps even central government.
GM free status'
main benefit would be as an international marketing plus so to
legislate on a region by region basis in a country the size of
NZ borders on farcical.
No harm in 2
checks. However I doubt if either can be trusted when palms are
greased by Multi Nationals as has happened in the past.
A Capital...
NO. Goodness me we must be the most 'regulated society'
in the Western world. PC thinking and PC acting. Next I'll
have to go through a censor to write to you!!!!!
Skip to top |
Skip to comments | Skip
to this weeks poll
Skip to comment form
Send this
page to a friend:
|
