Retorts

Label Genetically Engineered Food

I read with interest the August article in which three scientists stated that special labelling for genetically engineered foods is impractical and probably not necessary.

What it failed to mention is that at least some of the scientists involved in this assessment have, potentially, a financial stake in the acceptance of genetically engineered foods in New Zealand. Most of the research on producing genetically engineered foods in New Zealand is conducted by Crop & Food Research, who are developing potentially commercial products.

Since all Crown-owned research institutes (CRIs) of which Crop & Food is one, are being increasingly driven by financial ends, Crop & Food will be very happy if they can release their new genetically engineered food products into the marketplace without the public noticing.

What New Zealand needs if it is to apply science to the issue of labelling of genetically engineered food, is the opinion of experts from off New Zealand's shores who have no stake in the outcome. Since this issue is more of a political debate than a scientific one, ethicists and more importantly the New Zealand public should be involved. I am sure, for example, that mothers with young children and the Maori people would have an opinion on the subject.

I am not an expert with enough knowledge to debate the scientific side of the question but it seems to me that the public has a right to know. As to the argument of labelling being impractical, surely the same argument applies to fresh organic produce, yet this is labelled as such in my local supermarket. Canned foods also have labels full of detailed information.

What institutes involved in research on genetically engineered food products have done is abdicated their responsibility to educate the public that the risks associated with genetically engineered foods are low, or the same as equivalent non-genetically engineered foods.

This lack of pro-active social responsibility was no more clearly illustrated than by the recent efforts of an independent New Zealand television producer trying to produce a documentary on genetic engineering in New Zealand. Funding for the programme from the CRIs and other organisations was a great struggle, and eventually the proposal died because of the attitude of people at the top of television in New Zealand.

The issue of public acceptance of genetically engineered foods also has a wider aspect, with the linkage as synonyms in the public mind of the words biotechnology and genetic engineering. Most of the biotechnology conducted in New Zealand has nothing to do with genetic engineering, yet there exists the possibility that if genetically engineered foods became rejected, all biotechnology will be tarred with the same brush. This again is the responsibility of biotechnologists to educate the public.

By far the better strategy for those organisations involved in research on genetically engineered foods would be to label their foods and educate the public, through the use of independent experts, that these foods are of no harm. But the real problem does not rest solely with the researchers -- perhaps if government funding of research was not so limited, the organisations involved would be more willing to do this.

The potential for genetic engineering to put New Zealand agriculture and horticulture in a worldwide competitive position in the future is so great, it seems a shame to bungle its first introduction by hiding it.

I await the day when advertisers can proclaim genetically engineered foods, and the public understands and accepts them. The current strategy of opposing labelling to avoid the cost of educating the public does not seem to me to be a winning strategy in the long term.

Max Kennedy, Wellington