Twenty years after the Corngate scandal [when illegal GMO corn may have been released to the New Zealand public] turned genetic modification into a political hot potato, leading science figures hope a new review will bring changes. Jamie Morton reports in the first of a two-part series.
In a 2019 briefing to PM Jacinda Ardern, [biochemist Juliet] Gerrard offered the colourful hypothetical scenario of a grandmother cured of cancer, only to find she couldn’t leave the lab because she’d become a GMO.
Three years later, she’s hopeful a new Government review will iron out some of the issues she and others have been urging action on.
This review doesn’t mean GM maize crops will soon begin sprouting across our countryside. Rather, its scope appears limited to the biomedical world, in lab-contained, health-focused science.
…
Gerrard says our legislation has aged around a “time-stamped list” of genetic tools, increasingly leaving legal and scientific definitions misaligned.
“The original debate was characterised as a binary choice, GM-free or not: It was always much more nuanced than this… It’s a bit like having an act which imposes a greater penalty on electric cars than petrol cars, because electric cars were not invented in 1998.”
[Editor’s note: Read part two here: Viewpoint: ‘Superstitious and medieval’ GMO beliefs inform New Zealand gene editing regulations, keeping country’s ‘predator-free’ goal out of reach]
