There are times when you want your government to be in a greater hurry. When reforms are urgently needed, like the moribund RMA, you just wish the leadership would get on and deliver change.
Occasionally, you need them to slow down or stop because the matter is complex, has not been adequately risk assessed, needs more research or longer time for public submissions or expert advice.
National dominated governments over the years have been cautious, even timid on reform so it comes as a shock that our usually risk averse Prime Minister is leading a strong charge to deregulate the law controlling Genetically Modified Organisms. It is a matter of grave concern affecting all Kiwis.
What is being proposed and rushed through will institute the most unrestrained and least regulated regime in the world. The problem is that much of the modifying process is a very tight one-way street. Make one mistake, have one minor breach, fail to consider one aspect and it is possible to be in a situation where there is no recovery, no going back, no way to get a genie back into the bottle.
National wants economic growth. Opening up the agricultural sector to less regulated gene editing and the more wholesale use of GMO’s could be a quick way to get quantum leaps in production. But there are no guarantees and the evidence for increased production from gene manipulation is scant. ACT wants to deregulate, when possible and NZFirst seem stuck in the headlights, concerned but not yet reaching for the handbrake. Yet the changes are being hustled through.
The rush to force changes to the regulations by a typically reform-shy National is raising questions in the farming community. Why the indecent haste? Is there another agenda?
Some in the scientific community, spurred on by green interests, see GMO’s as a major mitigation tool for reducing ruminant methane emissions although the proof is very disputable. Rather than face the reality that our ruminants are not causing any problem and that decisive boldness to state that clearly is required rather than more taxpayer funding thrown at research, we are getting a potentially dangerous backdoor mechanism. It’s shortsighted.
Our leading methane researcher admits our sheep and cattle are responsible for a warming of 4 millionths of one degree a year. Hang around for 250,000 years and you will see a whole degree of extra warmth. You can see hands going up in Southland for that! And even 4 millionths is considered, by other climate scientists, as being too extravagant.
The politics involved raises huge concerns.
- The reform Bill’s Regulatory Impact Statement said clearly that there was insufficient time to properly assess risks inherent in the proposed changes.
- All the main farming organisations expressed strong caution and wanted more analysis
- Urgent requests from all farming organisations for more time to investigate were turned down flat – an insult to our major exporting sector.
- MPI, the most affected and involved department expressed strong reservations, opposing some intended changes quite vigorously.
- The lack of any robust economic analysis including cost/benefit work is alarming
The practical issues are worrying and remain unanswered:
- What are the possible costs and who will bear these costs?
- What are the implications and practical outcomes of a contamination ‘failure’?
- Who is monitoring field work involving GMO’s and at whose cost?
- What are the potential risks and costs in our export markets where there is growing consumer sensitivity to anything deemed ‘not natural’?
Mr Prime Minister, this is the most important decision made in agricultural circles in decades, maybe ever. Gene editing and the introduction of GMO’s is most likely a one-way street – there is no going back. Such a momentous decision involving such complex and fraught science where there are vested interests that need exposure and where there are significant reservations stated by industry, by consumer groups, by scientists who have an in-depth understanding of the issue is ringing loud alarm bells.
As the leader of our nation, it should weigh heavily on your conscience as to whether your rushed introduction of these changes is going to not just return to haunt you, personally and your Cabinet team, but have history record you as the Prime Minster who made a fateful decision.
All it takes would be to establish a full and proper, open enquiry process, led by independent, reputable persons that systematically traverse all the issues, listened carefully to all sides of the debate and reported back in due time.
Our farmers implore you to slow down. We are with you on wanting progress. We want to see growth. Our sector thrives on and leads on many fronts to the nation’s gain.
But this is too hasty. Indecently hasty.