GM trial caution as debate evolves

AgResearch will undertake field evaluation trials of genetically modified drought-tolerant forage in the United States and possibly on Australia's East Coast before seeking approval for field trials in New Zealand.

Michael Dunbier, a scientist with Pastoral Genomics, a research consortium representing the agricultural industry, said more information and data were needed on the pasture before a field trial application could be made to the Environmental Risk Management Authority.

In a presentation arranged by the Science Media Centre last week, Dr Dunbier said the extra data was needed "because of the high standards we have for testing".

A discussion paper on genetically modified (GM) forages prepared by the Royal Society of New Zealand hinted at a new approach to winning over the public in the debate about genetic modification.

Its authors said improvements in forage performance could be delivered using cisgenic transformation, or using genes from the original species.

This could be more socially acceptable than transgenic transformation, or using genes from other species, the paper said.

"Cisgenic transformation may appear to conform more to the natural order of species isolation, and therefore may be more acceptable for that reason to the New Zealand public."

Speakers on the GM forage debate said consumer attitudes towards GM products had changed since the 2001 Royal Commission on Genetic Modification said New Zealand "should proceed carefully, minimising and managing risk".

The Royal Society discussion paper said consumer resistance was easing as concern about food production and food security took greater importance, and scientists looked to the technology to address issues such as the causes of climate change.

"In overseas markets some consumers retain a preference for non-GM products, but such opposition is decreasing," the paper said.

Lincoln University agribusiness and economic research unit director Caroline Saunders said consumer attitudes differed towards various gene technologies, depending on the benefits offered.

High-value markets were generally "anti-GM", while technology which enhanced attributes wanted by customers, such as being healthy or good for the environment, had more chance of being viewed favourably.

Gene technology that increased production in a given crop could require lowering prices to get sales and mean the possible loss of premium markets.

Prof Saunders said New Zealand should be targeting high-value, premium markets anyway, but reaction in Europe and the US was mixed and GM products generally sold at a discount.

Chinese consumers tended to be ambivalent.

Research showed the New Zealand economy would benefit if it were the only country to have a particular gene-technology, but if the rest of the world had access, then the economy would lose.

She warned increasing production did not equate with higher incomes, because when the volume of product increased, prices generally fell.

She said more research was needed on benefits to New Zealand from owning the intellectual property, saying scientists here had much to offer the world in addressing global issues.