The Risks of GMO Deregulation to NZ Farmers
The government is planning on removing regulations that oversee GMOs. It is doing this without any balanced discussion. Instead, there has only been rhetoric touting suggestions for which GMOs might be useful, but without any research-based evidence to support the suggestions. There has been no discussion of the limitations of GMOs, their checkered history, and the risks that their deregulation in New Zealand would pose to farming.
A GMO, Genetically Modified Organism, is a plant, animal, or microorganism that has had its DNA modified using genetic engineering.
I grew up on a sheep and beef farm on Banks Peninsula. Nowadays, I am working on gene therapies to treat inherited human diseases, at the University of California Los Angeles. I have also participated in global discussions about GMOs in agriculture, such as a workshop at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, to which I was invited along with several other scientists from around the world to help the FAO develop policy and to meet and work with leaders of developing countries.
Recent progress in methods for gene manipulation have made it easier (and faster) to make GMOs. New methods, such as gene editing, have been described as more precise, because they may involve smaller changes in the genome. However, precision doesn’t equate with less risk. The newer methods still involve the introduction of foreign genetic material, and they still carry the risk of unintended changes; e.g. making alterations to other genes in addition to the gene being targeted. Small changes in genes can be just as devastating as large changes. Hence, current GMO methods mean it’s also easier (and faster) to cause harm, making regulation of GMOs even more essential – not less.
An important part of regulating GMOs is to have third party oversight of the production of GMOs, making sure that the intended genetic alterations – and only the intended genetic alterations – have been made as designed. But, regulation of the safe handling of GMOs is also important. This is a biosecurity issue.
As methods develop, it will become even easier to generate GMOs. But, again, this will not correlate with increased safety. Without sound regulations, who is going to regulate the ability of your neighbor to experiment with GMOs in his or her back paddock? Making a GMO is one thing, avoiding unintended consequences is much harder, and containment would be next to impossible.
Yet, the government’s proposal to deregulate the production of GMOs means no specific safety tests, no requirement to set up methods for segregating GM crops within supply chains (and so preserving non-GMO production), and no legal liability if there is cross-contamination that results in rejection in an export market.
We all want to solve problems like exotic pests and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as improve farm production. Yet there is no sound evidence that GMOs have delivered any sustainable net benefit to farmers, or will do so through easing GMO regulations. NZ farmers are definitely not being left behind; in fact they have a golden opportunity to respond to growing market demand for natural foods (see below).
Over the past 30 years, just three GM crops (corn, soy and cotton) have accounted for nearly all GMO production. The GM corn and soy were designed for resistance to roundup and other herbicides. They do not have higher yields than conventional crops (most reports indicate a yield drag), and extensive use of roundup with the GM corn and soy has resulted in widespread weed resistance to the herbicide, as well as cancer in farm workers.
Even if newer GMOs could be designed to have an advantage, such as an increased yield under drought conditions, would there be a market for them? It seems unlikely. Currently, there is so little consumer demand (or even feedlot demand) for GM corn that nearly half of the entire crop grown in the US is used to make ethanol, which is mixed with petrol to fuel automobiles.
An important issue for many NZ farmers is access to premium overseas markets. Many of these markets are demanding GMO-free products. As a consumer in the US, I have noticed that verification by the Non-GMO Project, which is North America’s main third-party certifier, appears to be growing rapidly in US supermarkets. Interestingly, organic food producers are seeking GMO-free verification in addition to the USDA Organic label. This often results in food with both labels, even though to obtain USDA Organic verification the item cannot contain anything from a GMO. In other words, GMO-free verification has a marketing value that is worth paying for, even though it is actually redundant.
NZ farmers should remain alert to the safety and market risks from GMOs and not let enthusiasm for remote possibilities extinguish the premiums the marketplace currently offers NZ produce.
David S. Williams Ph.D.
Professor, UCLA School of Medicine
