Thank you for the opportunity to explain the government’s position on genetic modification.

I expect that you will have a broad range of opinions on the subject.

Some of you may distrust the new technology, fearing that it may affect your markets. Others of you may welcome the opportunities that the new technology may bring and be frustrated at what you see as unnecessarily restricted government regulations. I hope I will be able to allay the concerns of members of both camps and demonstrate how the government has chosen to steer a middle course between a total ban on genetically modified organisms on one hand, and unrestricted release on the other.

The government’s policy on the release of genetically modified organisms, including seeds and crops - is in line with the findings of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification was set up by the government in 2000 to provide independent advice on how to manage genetic modification in New Zealand. After a series of formal hearings lasting 13 weeks, after receiving more than 10,000 written submissions and submissions from around 300 people in person, and after deliberating for 3 months, the Royal Commissioners came out in favour of a cautious approach to genetic modification in New Zealand.

What this means in practice is that any application for release of GM seeds or crops has to be assessed on its merits, taking into account any risks to human health, safety, the environment or the economy, and also taking into account possible benefits that such an application may bring. This is because each application is unique and carries its own unique set of potential risks and benefits. The government understands the risks inherent in introducing new organisms, including genetically modified organisms, but at the same time we understand that we cannot afford to turn our backs on the possible economic, environmental and health benefits the new technology may bring.

The government has therefore set up a robust regime to manage the introduction of genetically modified organisms. Anyone proposing to release a genetically modified organism has to apply formally to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and go through a rigorous assessment process, which includes public submissions. An approval will only be given if a proposal meets stringent minimum standards designed to protect health, safety and the environment, and if the benefits of the release outweigh any adverse effects. Furthermore, where there is scientific or technical uncertainty, the law requires ERMA to err on the side of caution.

If ERMA receives an application for a genetically modified crop, it must examine the possibility for adverse effects on the surrounding environment – this would include the potential for physical or economic damage to neighbouring organic crops. Some crops are more likely than others to spread pollen and cross-pollinate with other crops, so any GM crop application received will be assessed individually.

When making a decision on costs and benefits ERMA needs to take economic risks into account. ERMA will need to consider not only the net economic gains and losses in dollar terms, but must also consider how these gains or losses are distributed. This means that the impact of losses on small businesses will need to be taken into account.

While this regulatory regime was being strengthened in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the government imposed a restricted period – or moratorium - on any applications to release genetically modified organisms outside containment. Our regulatory framework is now in place, and as a result there has been no need to extend the moratorium beyond October 2003.

Some growers have expressed concern that GM material may become mixed in with their own non-genetically modified crops or seed, and this would damage their sales and markets. To guard against this, amendments to the HSNO Act recently passed by the government allow a new category of conditional release.

This means that ERMA may impose conditions on a release to mitigate possible risks of unwanted GM presence. There are no restrictions on the type of conditions ERMA can impose. Farmers may be required for example to site their crops well away from conventional or organic crops of the same species. They may be restricted in when they allow their crop to flower. They may be required to ensure that any machinery used in handling the crop is confined to their own property. They may even be required to change their footwear when leaving their property to prevent accidental release of seeds.

And there are strict penalties for breaking these conditions. Companies can be fined 10 million dollars or more, and individuals up to half a million dollars if they breach the conditions imposed by ERMA, either deliberately or through negligence. In addition, if a breach occurs, individuals can seek compensation, without needing to prove negligence. The State can also initiate civil penalty proceedings whether or not any harm has occurred. These provisions should certainly provide incentives for those involved in growing genetically modified crops to comply with the law.

There are those who state that coexistence is not possible, and point to the United States and Canada as examples of places where coexistence has not worked. To these people I say that coexistence of different types of crops is not a new concept to New Zealand agriculture. Conventional, organic and integrated pest management systems are successfully operating side by side and as many of you will be aware. The production of high purity seeds in some parts of the country also requires strict adherence to separation distances. While there will be additional challenges associated with any commercial introduction of GMOs, I am confident that our regulatory system will be able to address these issues.

New Zealand is carefully monitoring what is happening overseas, and we will continue to be vigilant to ensure that our regulations remain appropriate and at the forefront of international best practice.

Another concern is the inadvertent or illegal introduction of genetically modified seeds. As an agricultural country, New Zealand has always had a strong interest in protecting our borders against unwanted pests and diseases, so we already have a rigorous biosecurity capability in place. The government has a zero tolerance for the unauthorised presence of any genetically modified material. This includes material that crosses our borders, and material resulting from a breach in conditions stipulated by ERMA on a conditional release.

The zero tolerance policy is consistent with our policy on other unwanted new organisms. For example, New Zealand has a zero tolerance on fruit fly. This means that if fruit fly are discovered in a shipment, or if there is a good chance they could be present, then the shipment must be re-exported or destroyed. Similarly, if tests show that unauthorised genetically modified material is present in a shipment of seeds, then the shipment is not allowed into the country.

Our zero tolerance policy has come in for some criticism on the basis that it is unworkable. Some are even saying that we should accept some background level of GM presence.

I should therefore explain what zero tolerance does not mean. Zero tolerance does not mean zero risk. Zero tolerance also does not mean that we can always guarantee that imported seeds are totally free of unwanted material. The only way to ensure that no unwanted material of any sort enters the country would be to close our borders to both trade and tourism. We have protocols in place for detecting and preventing the entry of unapproved GM seeds. As rigorous as these protocols are, however, they cannot guarantee that every GM seed in a non-GM shipment will be detected. The only way to do this is to destroy every seed.
There is ongoing work on GM seeds and coexistence issues that will be of interest to you. First, government agencies, led by MAF, are working on some broad policy issues on seed imports following our experiences to date, including protocols for detecting GM seeds. Officials will report back to ministers before the next planting season on these issues. Secondly, as part of ongoing work on broad coexistence issues, MAF is leading work that includes:
·developing a code of practice for labelling seeds and nursery stock to ensure the growers can choose whether or not to grow any GM plants that may be approved in future
·investigating the need for and issues surrounding a code of practice for encouraging the effective coexistence of GM and non-GM productions (including separation distances, and post-harvest handling practices), and
·monitoring international developments in coexistence.
Officials will be reporting back to government on these issues in October 2004.

In conclusion: GM is a global issue. All countries are grappling with it because GM provides opportunities but also has risks that need to be managed. I would like to assure all of you that the government policy on genetic modification is not one of undue regulation, but nor is it one that will allow the floodgates to open on GM release. Our aim is rather to preserve opportunities.

In the context of agriculture and horticulture, this means that growers who wish to continue with conventional production methods, growers who wish to take advantage of the niche market organic agriculture could bring, and growers who see opportunities for growth in adopting the new technology of genetic modification, can all do so without interfering with each other. This will ensure that all types of production can contribute in their own way to the greater good of New Zealand and New Zealanders.