By Marian Hobbs

Genetic modification is a complex and developing technology that offers enormous potential benefits, but also raises a host of environmental, ethical and economic issues. Decisions involving GM must be made on the basis of careful consideration of the facts, constantly taking into account scientific evidence and public concerns. This is exactly the approach taken by the Labour/Alliance government, firstly through the establishment of the Royal Commission, and then in the government’s response to the Commission.

Labour is following a policy in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission - that is "proceed with caution". This is a safe, smart and sensible approach to GM. It is safe because we have strengthened the rules on field trials so that even Jeanette Fitzsimons, in her speech to the Greens' conference, said they are the safest in the world. We also introduced a moratorium on applications for release of genetically modified organisms to allow the research and changes that the Royal Commission recommended. It is smart because it acknowledges that there are potential benefits to medicine, agriculture and horticulture from GM, and it keeps safe work in these areas going. It is sensible because it rejects the extremes of the GM debate, and focuses on making decisions based on science and rational debate.

Let’s dispel a few myths that are being put around:

The government has made the irreversible decision to let GE out of the laboratory and into our environment and food chain.

No such decision has been made. We put the moratorium in place so that we could undertake research into social, economic and environmental issues surrounding GM, so we could set up the Bioethics Council and fully investigate other Royal Commission recommendations on issues like liability for accidents and changes to legislation. That work is still progressing, and we cannot prejudge its outcome. At the moment the moratorium expires at the end of October.

Release of genetically modified organisms in New Zealand has been possible since 1996 (apart from the current moratorium). No applications have been made and, as far as we know, no applications for release are expected in the near future. If and when applications are allowed, the Environmental Risk Management Authority will assess them on a case-by-case basis, just as it does for research and testing. Each application will be open for public submissions and hearings. ERMA has to follow strict criteria as laid out in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The authority could approve an application only if the positive effects of release outweigh any adverse effects. If there were not enough information to make a decision, the application would have to be declined. Food would also require approval by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority and this would not be granted until the food has been tested and found safe.

This underlines the Labour-led government's approach to ensure that the health and safety of New Zealand and New Zealanders is paramount.

The Labour party does not support New Zealand's environment remaining GE free.

We are not GE Free now. GE, including field tests outside the laboratory, has been used widely in New Zealand for most of the last 20 years without destroying our clean, green image. We are not complacent. Our marketing strength is that image and we are doing all we can to protect that. But we cannot afford to turn our back on technology that offers potential benefits such as a chance to reduce the amount of pesticides we use. This would enhance our clean green image.

A European Union study on GE crops and organic farming confirms the fears held by environmentalists, farmers and ordinary New Zealanders.

The EU researcher said on Radio New Zealand's Morning Report that the research was inconclusive and that we should keep an open mind, carefully monitoring the situation and fostering research. We are doing just that during the moratorium, investigating issues like co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and some of the recommendations of the Royal Commission such as conditional release. In many ways the work of the Royal Commission has put New Zealand well ahead of other countries.

The Green Party has taken a principled, bottom-line position on GM by promising to withdraw confidence from the government when the moratorium expires.

There is no problem with the Greens having a different position to Labour, but the notion that a government can be held to ransom over a single issue is one that should concern all those interested in stable government. By taking this approach the Greens risk putting the country into a perpetual electoral cycle and halting the very work they urged the government to undertake. This is illogical and irrational. They did vote for the moratorium as the HSNO Bill proceeded through the House but then absented themselves from the final vote.

We have acted on the Royal Commission's thorough and balanced report. We all care about our future and the legacy we will leave to future generations. We want to leave a safe and healthy environment, but we also want to be able to benefit from advances in technology. To do this we must take a precautionary approach and keep an open mind. That is what Labour is doing.