The Royal Society’s dispassionate summary of the potential benefits and risks of planting crops of GM forage for farm animals to feed on makes for interesting reading, thought its lack of recommendations on a way forward for GM in New Zealand may leave you wondering what the message from science actually is.
At the Science Media Centre we held a briefing today for journalists, featuring three of the co-authors of the paper. You can listen back to their presentations and the Q&A with journalists at the end here. Bottom line is that the scientists believe that after 10 years of intensive farming of GM crops around the world – 143 million hectares of GM crops were planted last year alone – the overwhelming scientific evidence suggests that genetically modified crops are safe to grow and consume. But that hasn’t really seen industry and public perception of genetically modified organisms shift dramatically in favour of the technology being used.
Source: Pastoral Genomics
As Lincoln University’s Caroline Saunders pointed out in her presentation, opposition to GM at an industry level is on the increase in the US and the European Union where the high-value premium sectors of the market are anti-GM, because animal meat reared on GM crops often sells for less. As an example given by Professor Saunders, she points to GM corn-fed beef going for eight per cent less than its non-GM equivalent.
Research also suggests that what consumers are willing to accept when it comes to GM is complex – if GM traits make food healthier or reduce the impact on the environment they are more accepting of it than if GM traits reduce prices. Some New Zealand research referenced by Professor Saunders suggests a fairly high level of rejection (40 – 45 per cent of those surveyed) of products with beneficial GM traits, say butter with less cholesterol or insect resistant sweetcorn. As such, whatever justifications scientists can put forward for genetically modified crops, in this case, GM forage crops, won’t necessarily hugely influence whether consumers are accepting of it.
There was much discussion in the briefing of the difference between cisgenic and transgenic modification, which guest blogger Jack Heinneman recently examined in a series on Sciblogs. Pastoral Genomics’ Dr Michael Dunbier outlined the reasons for pursuing research into GM forage crops (see his presentation below). One striking image he put up on his slide shows GM ryegrass engineered to be drought resistant. The plants are visibly much better off that those unmodified plants. But if many scientists are keen to get moving here on GM crops most are realistic that due to the issues mentioned above, a commercial release of a GM forage crop which could become the basis of feed for millions of cows and sheep, is still some way off. In Dr Dunbier’s estimation, the earliest commercialisation could be in 2017 – 2018.
The Listener out this weekend, features an interview with Dr Nina Fedoroff, who was in the country last week talking agricultural science and genetic modification and covers the other side of the GM argument with Green MP Sue Kedgley also featured.
It is worth a read, particularly the interesting side bar by writer David Lomas which points out that Kiwis are already eating GM food mostly without their knowledge but that GM isn’t really in demand here because we are not big producers of commodity crops like rice, corn and soy.
Sarah Barnett’s main piece expands on Fedoroff’s assertion that attitudes to GM food are changing:
The New Zealand Listener, Jan 30 2010
I’m currently two-thirds into an exceptionally good book called Enough, which examines the causes of famine and food shortages in Africa and which is written by a couple of Wall Street Journal reporters.
I haven’t even got to discussion of genetically modified crops yet, but the overall impression so far is that the US and Europe, with lavish protectionism of its farmers, haphazard approaches to food aid and mixing of humanitarian assistance with geopolitical objectives has done the African continent considerable harm over the past few decades, while at the same time teaching African nations new farming techniques and shipping excess supplies of grain to feed Africans when crop fails.
It seems a large amount of the suffering and starvation endured by African nations could have been avoided had the Western world been more genuine about its efforts to really help Africa, rather than being seen to do so.With that sort of track record, you can understand why there’s a good deal of cynicism that GM crop technology, developed by the West, is the answer to hunger in Africa in the face of climate change – generated largely by those of us in rich countries.
I’ll post a full review of Enough in the next few days.
It was fairly predictable that Dr Nina Fedoroff’s comments about genetic modification during her visit to New Zealand this week would raise the hackles of anti-GM group GE Free NZ.
Nina Fedoroff - GM advocate
It was also ironic that Fedoroff, Hillary Clinton’s science and technology advisor, arrived just as GE Free New Zealand went back to court where Crown research institute AgResearch was seeking to overturn a decision that last year saw its applications to undertake GM research across a range of species withdrawn.
Fedoroff is an expert in plant genetics, author of a book on genetic modification and an unabashed advocate of the technology. This New York Times piece gives Federoff’s take on GM, which can be summed up with this quote from her:
“There’s almost no food that isn’t genetically modified. Genetic modification is the basis of all evolution.
“Things change because our planet is subjected to a lot of radiation, which causes DNA damage, which gets repaired, but results in mutations, which create a ready mixture of plants that people can choose from to improve agriculture.
“In the last century, as we learned more about genes, we were able to devise ways of accelerating evolution.
“So a lot of modern plant strains were created by applying chemicals or radiation to cause mutations that improved the crop. That’s how plant breeding was done in the 20th century. The paradox is that now that we’ve invented techniques that introduce just one gene without disturbing the rest, some people think that’s terrible.”
Fedoroff’s presentation Rethinking Agriculture in a Changing Climate (see a version of it below – minus the video clips) formed the basis of her public lecture at the University of Auckland on Wednesday and also forms the bones of her pro-GM justifications, which focus on food security and the challenges faced by the world of feeding more people using less arable land.
It is the “accelerating evolution” using genetic modification that has been such a touchy subject in New Zealand, and while it wasn’t top of the agenda as Fedoroff met some of the country’s top scientists in a series of high-level discussions, her message will certainly be getting sympathetic nods from scientists she has met this week who are extremely limited in the GM research they can do and who have been unable to get a commercial release of a GMO of any kind in New Zealand, after decades of effort. AgResearch chief executive Andrew West went as far this week as to suggest scientists have a moral obligation to pursue GM technology.
“If genetic modification can create more food from fewer inputs, I think we have a moral obligation to use it. With our current product mix, New Zealand can feed 17 million people,” Dr West said.
Fedoroff is well aware of the antipathy to GM in New Zealand. But she believes public sentiment on GM may shift as rising demand puts pressure on food prices. She told the Herald:
“Stay tuned … dug-in positions can change quite rapidly.”
[UPDATED: An ERMA spokesperson got in touch to clarify that ERMA isn't party to the appeal - "In the High Court, GE Free challenged ERMA’s right to receive the applications from AgResearch. AgResearch appealed the High Court decision, and we were in court yesterday to assist in any way we could and to seek clarification of ERMA’s powers under the Act."]
It was a decidedly slow day at Wellington’s cavernous Court of Appeal today.
Wellington's Court of Appeal which is hearing the GM application case
The single case scheduled on the court noticeboard: GE Free NZ vs Agresearch and the Environmental Risk Assessment Authority.
In Court room 1, lawyers for Crown Research Institute Agresearch and ERMA, the Government body that vets applications for imports and trials of genetically modified organisms, aligned themselves on the left side of the court. Lawyers for GE Free New Zealand took their positions on the right.
If the few onlookers gathered to observe proceedings were expecting a legal argument on whether genetic modification trials should be allowed to go on in New Zealand, they’d have been pretty disappointed. What followed was a day of rather dry but occasionally vigorous and interesting legal discussion that focused on how the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act applies to ERMA’s process of receiving applications from organisations seeking to import or develop genetically modified material. Nevertheless, the outcome of the appeal could decide the direction and extent of genetic modification trials in New Zealand for the next few years. The stakes for everyone concerned are high.
Agresearch and ERMA are appealing a High Court ruling from last June which saw the anti-GM organisation GE Free successful in having withdrawn Agresearch’s applications to import genetically modified material and undertake GM trials in New Zealand on several species of animals. Justice Clifford ruled back then (see his full judgement at bottom) that:
…the applications are simply too generic to enable the risk assessment called for by HSNO to be meaningfully undertaken. In reaching this conclusion I have carefully considered whether I am trespassing on to a question which should be left to ERMA’s expertise. I have concluded that I have not.
In other words, Justice Clifford was saying that the scope of the GM applications, which according to NZPA sought approval for “laboratory testing of human and monkey cell lines and smaller species of GE laboratory animals, and the development of GE cows, buffalo, sheep, pigs, goats, llamas, alpacas, deer and horses”, was far too open-ended, the information contained in the applications, much too generic to allow a proper assessment of the risk it may pose to the country. His interpretation of the law is that given the lack of detail in the applications, they shouldn’t even be heard, which would have the effect of throwing out Agresearch’s applications before the substance of them has been looked at in any meaningful way by ERMA’s team of experts.
ERMA obviously took exception to its authority being undermined in this way, which is why it was part of that High Court case and is part of the appeal against the judgement.
Agresearch’s lawyers today outlined the intent of the applications in relation to cows, which is to undertake GM research and breeding to allow the production of high-value proteins in milk. They said that the applications were for “extraordinary small modifications”:
“The idea that some fantastic creature can be made as a result of these processes just doesn’t hold water.”
They argued also that the HSNO Act doesn’t specify that organisms have to be identified in a particular way in an application, nor where trials are proposed to be carried out. In effect, Agresearch’s lawyers are arguing that the CRI’s applications complied with the law and should have been processed and considered by ERMA.
ERMA’s lawyers suggested Justice Clifford’s judgement was inconsistent with a 2003 court ruling in the so-called Madge case, where a group calling itself Mothers Against Genetic Modification and headed by ex-Thomson Twins pop star, Alannah Currie, was unsuccessful in attempting to overturn an application approved by ERMA that allowed Agresearch to undertake GM trials that involved inserting human, rat, mouse and deer genes into cows. They said there was no legal requirement specified in the HSNO Act to assess whether an application to ERMA was valid. In effect, ERMA’s scientifically-qualified staff would do the analysis later in the process.
GE Free NZ’s lawyers for their part, suggested the applications were far too broad and slight on detail, indicating what species of host animals were intended to genetically modified but not what “source donor” animals would be used and where the material would be imported from.
They said that if the specific intentions of the GM research had been outlined in detail, such as a desire to find a way of reducing methane emissions from cattle, GE Free NZ may have been been more understanding about its applications.
“[They are] effectively saying Agresearch can go off on its own now and not come back,” said one lawyer of the applications.
It has been suggested to me by people in the scientific community that Agresearch’s applications were indeed broad in nature. There are valid reasons for that – Agresearch doesn’t know with certainty where the science is going to go in the coming years, so wants as broad a remit as possible to experiment. Applications can also be expensive to lodge and have investigated, so the broader you go in terms of species an application covers, the less cost incurred in going through the ERMA process. But was Agresearch too ambitious, especially given the anti-GM sentiment in New Zealand?
Crossing the line?
The three Court of Appeal judges presiding over the appeal had plenty of curly questions for the lawyers that illuminated the key points the case hinges on. Justice O’Regan seemed incredulous that Agresearch would lodge an application that was so generic and broad in nature.
“You don’t apply for building consent to build any kind of building,” he remarked.
Justice Chambers on the other hand thought it nonsensical that an application, that didn’t “flagrantly” contravene the HSNO Act, would be thrown out before even being assessed by ERMA
“How can they decide the impact of an application on the environment without going through an assessment at an early stage?” He asked.
“The question is the time in the process that they make these assessments.”
The case raises several questions that will be important to be sorted out ahead of other applications to ERMA (which processes around 240 per year).
- As a matter of law, can an authority give legal approval for something that can’t be fully described?
- What must ERMA do to satisfy itself that it has a valid application?
- Is there a line that’s crossed when an application becomes too broad, and if so, where is the line?
From the legal discussion I witnessed this morning, it is hard to know which way the court will go. It seems that GE Free NZ has a good argument that the Agresearch applications were too broad, but Agresearch has a point in arguing that the applications shouldn’t be thrown out at such an early point in the process. ERMA would seem to have a compelling case that its scientists should have the opportunity to assess credible applications.
Court of Appeal judgements often overturn previous judgements, and there’s a chance of that happening here too. Agresearch last November lodged new submissions with ERMA for a narrower range of GM trials to conduct research “on goats, sheep and cows in containment at its Ruakura research facility”. Public submissions on those applications closed in December. So the CRI is pushing ahead in its bid to undertake GM research, albeit in a more cautious way. In that respect, maybe something constructive may indeed have come out of GE Free NZ’s win last year. But the pursuit of the appeal by Agresearch and ERMA suggests both organisations believe broader applications should be considered.
A Court of Appeal decision could be months away, though I understand the matter has been put into urgency so a judgement could be released in a matter of weeks.
It hasn’t been a great year for New Zealand’s genetic modification research efforts, even if viewed from a purely “PR” point of view.
Last December, the anti-GM environmental group the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand had a poke around Crop & Food’s GM brassica trial going on at the company’s campus at Lincoln near Christchurch and found a flowering kale plant where it shouldn’t have been. As a result of the ensuing investigation, the 10 year trial of broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage and forage kale was abandoned in February, around 2 years into its consent period. A lot of investment that ultimately came from us the tax payers, came to nothing.
Soil & Health’s Steffan Browning later told me the discovery was a bit of a fluke, but it showed that an unofficial, self-appointed watchdog was studying GM trials in New Zealand like a hawk, and quite rightly pointing out where containment wasn’t 100 per cent airtight.
Still it was a set-back for the scientific community’s efforts to progress GM research here. The perception is that the New Zealand public is incredibly wary of GM and a determined group of activists including Browning and his comrade-in-arms, Claire Bleakley of GE Free NZ, are determined to prevent the commercial release of GM organisms.
It means that any minor transgression in GM research is amplified by these groups, adding to the perception that GM is something we need to keep a lid on. So a second probe by MAF Biosecurity into a GM plant breach at Lincoln is pretty worrying news for scientists working in the field.
What third party?
On the face of it, this breach looks less serious – scientists approached by the Science Media Centre said the risk of these self-pollinating plants spreading quickly over large distances is low. But seedlings discovered by Plant & Food staff and tested by MAF were indeed found to have genetically modified “constructs”. That means they shouldn’t have been there.
Plant & Food’s chief executive Peter Landon-Lane told The Press:
“It is unclear how these seedlings came to be outside the facility as they do not match to any work Plant & Food Research has done. There is evidence suggesting they have come from a third party.”
So where did they come from? The arabidopsis plants analysed by MAF are very commonly used in genetic studies – a colleague at the SMC was working with them at university while completing her microbiology degree, so perhaps they originated from studies undertaken by researchers at Lincoln University, which shares a campus with Plant & Food.
There are other research campuses in the area, but its unlikely they are involved in GM research involving these types of plants.
Close the glasshouse door!
If the plants definitely do contain GM constructs, as subsequent testing will confirm, it will be important, for the integrity of containment programmes underway at research institutions based at Lincoln and the rest of the country, to find out exactly where they came from and how they came to be growing outside of a containment facility.
A lot of containment facilities used in GM trials here and abroad are no more than glasshouses – the photo below is of a glasshouse at the John Innes Centre in the UK I visited earlier in the year where scientists are splicing genes from the snapdragon flower into tomatoes. Taking a tomato or some tomato seeds out of the glasshouse, we were told, would have constituted a breach of the rules and caused all sorts of hassle for the researchers, but overall, the approach to containment was fairly common sense. We could have carried material out on our shoes but the risk from that was obviously deemed low.
New Zealand faces stricter containment rules than other countries when it comes to GM trials. Given the intense scrutiny of the current trials underway here by environmental groups its paramount that the organisations involved uphold these high standards. If they don’t they face more serious knockbacks on the road to commercialising their research.
The views expressed on this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the views of the owners of SciBlogs.co.nz, the Science Media Centre or the Royal Society of New Zealand
