The genetically modified food industry has received a double boost in the past week or so. A Royal Commission in New Zealand brought down findings more favourable to the GM food industry than had been expected and a survey in Australia showed more people are supporting GM technology.
The New Zealand Royal Commission is significant because it was the first thorough judicial inquiry in the world on GM technology. The commission did not advocate a laissez-faire approach, but did not advocate an outright ban on the technology as was expected. The commission said a ban on GM technology would have an adverse effect on farmers, consumers, and in medicine. In the case of medicine, the commission said that a ban would mean that existing medical uses, especially the use of GM insulin by diabetics, would have to cease. The commission also expressed concern that with a ban on GM food in New Zealand there would be an exodus of scientists and other skilled people and the economy would contract.
The New Zealand approach was quite different from that taken in Tasmania. In Tasmania, the Minister for Primary Industries, David Llewellyn, is supporting the extension of a 13-month moratorium on GM crops. In Tasmania GM crops are declared a noxious weed under the state’s quarantine powers. The Tasmanian approach seems to be one of promoting a clean, green island and trying to get international competitiveness that way. New Zealand, too, has an international image as a green clean place, but its Royal Commission has found that the benefits of a GM technology are likely to outweigh the benefit of promoting the nation as a GM-free zone.
One of the major difficulties for the GM industry is it that early on in the piece they did not do enough work to educate the public about what genetic modification is and what benefits it can bring. The industry was guilty of a certain amount of arrogance, or certainly a misunderstanding of the length of time it takes for public education. Those in the industry can grasp quite quickly what it is about. But a they foolishly imagined that the public would see their point of view instantaneously. Moreover, in Tasmania there were instances of companies defying bans on genetically modifying crops. In the face of that, it was small wonder that governments had to respond to calls for greater regulation.
Though the survey last week indicated growing support for GM technology, particularly in the medical field, it showed a large amount of ignorance as well. Many people imagine that GM fruit and vegetables are being sold in the supermarkets at present. Conversely, more people understand the benefits of genetically altering crops to fend off insects so that fewer insecticides are required. Nonetheless, whether there is an absence of danger of that genetic alteration spreading to weeds and therefore being self-defeating has not been properly dealt with by the industry.
It is obvious the industry still has a long way to go in convincing the public that the benefits outweigh the possible dangers or that precautions have been put in place to minimise danger. In the meantime, consumers have a right to know whether the food they are eating contains any genetically-modified elements. It is true that no one has died from the influence of genetically modified food whereas many die of food poisoning which can be reduced by genetic modification, but that in itself is not enough to allay public fears. The industry must either do more in educating the public to accept GM food as normal or wear cost of greater detail in labelling when the labelling regime comes into force later this year.