Amid fears of unintended consequences, the idea of unleashing gene tech on pests ravaging our native wildlife has unsurprisingly found little Government appetite.
Some heavyweight conservationists, including the late Sir Rob Fenwick, have urged Kiwis to at least talk about it.
Several recent studies suggest New Zealand’s bold dream of being predator-free by 2050 won’t be realised without some kind of breakthrough wonder-tech, although this wouldn’t need to be GM.
[Editor’s note: This part II of a two part series. Read part one here: Viewpoint: ‘We’re moving away from a binary choice, GM-free or not’: New Zealand debates CRISPR gene edited crops and medicines 20 years after GMO scandal]
[NZ political party] Act wants a “wholesale review” of legislation, leader David Seymour calling our approach “superstitious and medieval”.“We can do amazing stuff in reducing methane from cows, but we have to go to California to do this outside [containment] … that’s just a shameful situation for New Zealand.”
National, too, seems eager for progress.
“We think our existing legislation is outdated, and prevents innovative technology that may be able to provide some of the solutions to the biogenic methane issue we have,” environment spokesperson Scott Simpson said.
“We’ve taken the view for some time that it’s time New Zealand had a sensible, informed debate.”
But is there a mandate?
Surveys to date suggest Kiwis remain divided on GM, if not mostly against it.
About a third of 9000 people polled in a 2019 Stuff survey thought GM food shouldn’t be sold here — and a similar proportion thought it safe to eat.
