Paul Bensemann is Press Secretary to the Green MPs' in
New Zealand.
Last month, Parliament threw out draft laws which would have allowed
consumers to know, for example, whether animal genes were in their
vegetables. Green Co-Leader and MP Rod Donald says New Zealand lost one
opportunity to protect itself from genetically modified food, but there's
still time to act.
Sometimes I wonder, with tongue firmly in cheek of course, if Parliament's
Bellamys restaurant is force-feeding MPs genetically-modified food.
I say this because I just can't understand why the country's leaders voted
out a perfectly logical and non-threatening piece of legislation recently,
which asked that labels be put on genetically modified food, so people
could have a choice on whether to buy such food or not.
The Food (Genetic Modification Information) Amendment Bill, drafted by
Alliance MP Phillida Bunkle, gained widespread support from individual MPs
but when it came to the crunch, after pressure from Prime Minister Jenny
Shipley on her MPs - and who knows what's in her muesli - the bill was lost
by just one vote.
With the Government now shoring up its support by doing deals with various
centre-right independents, the chances of Phillida's bill or a similar one
getting a second chance before the next election seem slim, without a
public outcry of support.
And there's a serious aspect to my seemingly-flippant comments about
Jenny's Bellamys' muesli. Without labelling, New Zealanders have no idea
whether they are eating genetically-modified products or not.
Last month British MPs banned genetically-engineered crops from restaurants
and bars in the House of Commons. I doubt whether we could do the same here
as Bellamys couldn't say whether its food came from exclusively
non-genetically-modified sources. In any case why should MPs get to eat
real food when everyone else has to put up with genetically tampered
organisms.
Many large international companies have denied selling such products, but
it is difficult without government help to determine how, for example,
seeds have been developed.
The problem for New Zealand is that without labelling at the retail level,
international firms can develop and peddle genetically modified seeds here,
and growers can use the seed with the knowledge that the resultant crop can
be sold secretly among naturally-developed equivalents.
At present, for example, Northern Hemisphere scientists are trying to
"improve and increase" fruit production by transplanting the cold-resistant
genes of an arctic fish into strawberries.
Meanwhile the Economist of June 13, 1998, hardly a rabid environmental
organ, explains in a feature article how two dozen varieties of genetically
modified seeds, with genes from who-knows-what animals, have been approved
for planting in the United States.
Another respected publication, the Guardian Weekly, said on August 16 this
year that four genetically-modified foods were on sale in Britain: tomato
paste, vegetarian cheese, maize and soya.
There's a serious lack of knowledge on how such genetically-altered
material could affect people in the long-term. But big international
companies responsible for genetically modified seeds have vocal backers,
including from within health and agricultural organisations in New Zealand.
I have witnessed such support before. We saw it with nuclear radiation. We
saw it with DDT. We saw it with 2,4,5-T. We saw it with thalidomide. In
each of those cases the authorities who were supposed to know and who were
supposed to have our well-being at heart put us wrong. Consumers these days
are more discerning and sceptical. They want to be able to make their own
decisions, and they have a right to the information to enable them to do
so.
There are environmental concerns as well. For example, natural vegetation
could be changed for all time by cross-fertilisation from
genetically-modified crops.
Yes, people have been genetically modifying plants and animals for
centuries by cross-breeding animals and plants that can naturally breed
together. That is a totally different technology from artificially taking
genes out of one organism and putting them into another organism - an
organism that could not possibly cross with that first organism in nature -
in a scatter-gun, random way.
An argument advanced by the Government against Phillida's bill was that
labelling is unworkable. But I can pick up food packets in the supermarket
which show what percentage of minerals, what additives, and what colouring
agents they contain. Why is it possible to label foods in that way, but it
is not possible to label as to whether they are genetically engineered?
We have been told also that labelling for genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) is a trade measure - that it is contrary to the World Trade
Organization's rules. In effect we are being told that food safety is a
trade barrier, and that if we have to choose between safe food and trade,
then safe food just has to go!
There are plenty of countries already in the process of making food
labelling a requirement. We ought to be joining those countries. We ought
to be one of the advocates for food safety to ensure that the World Trade
Organization recognises the right of nations to protect their citizens and
to give them the information they need, not joining the other side, as New
Zealand has consistently done, and arguing for free trade to be put ahead
of every social and environmental value that people in this country hold
dear.
New Zealand right now is probably relatively GMO (genetically-modified
organisms) free, but there's already some evidence, for example, of
tomatoes being sold here from genetically-engineered seed.
Before too many other genetically modified products arrive or are developed
here, there's a window of opportunity to loudly restate our clean, green
international image and to back non-GMO growers. We should, for example,
give more support to those behind our $24 million organic export industry.
We need to say no, as a people, and a parliament, to genetically engineered
food.
This article is reprinted from
Presto magazine (available on dead
tree in Christchurch) with permission from both Presto as publishers
and Paul Benseman as author.