Contributed
Elvira Dommisse
PhD (Biotechnology)
Your article "To GE or not to GE" (December 4), states the government announced it would end the 30-year ban on gene technology outside the lab.
There was no ban on field testing of GE crops and animals.
There have, in fact been many GE field trials in New Zealand,, dating back to the early 1990s. In each case, the GMO performed poorly, with no potential for commercialisation. What's worse is that GE animals farmed in trials here showed increased rates of gross birth defects, spontaneous abortions and sterility.
Judith Collins said gene technology deregulation would "improve health outcomes, adapt to climate change, deliver massive economic gains and improve lives of New Zealanders". How?
Can she name one example of a GE crop that is high-yielding, nutritious, resistant to pests and diseases, good for the environment and will “improve our lives"?
There is none.
The processes of genetic engineering and gene editing do not improve crops genetically. They change the plant's (or animal's) DNA makeup, so that these crops can be patented. The money that might be made off patents is the motivation for these wild promises.
Since the 1980s, millions of our taxpayer dollars have been spent on GE crop research. Is there a demand for these GMOs? Are our overseas markets asking us to change from non-GE to "better GE export crops"? No.
The evidence so far is that gene editing does even more damage to the genome and is even more unpredictable than the older genetic engineering. Gene editors may know exactly what the DNA was supposed to do, but they do not know what will happen in the organism or the environment afterwards as a result of their DNA changes.