Call for Change in Research Funding as GE Fails where Conventional Breeding Succeeds.
Industry claims, that GE is a more accurate and successful way to alter crops than traditional breeding, have typically
ignored the fundamental scientific problems with the GE process, and ensuing contamination of the food supply.
Now even the biotech industry's basic claims for GE are being proven wrong, casting increasing doubt on the value of
public funding of biotech crops by the New Zealand government.
Recent experiments show conventional breeding of an indigenous sweet potato in Africa has created a virus free
high-yielding plant, whereas trials to develop a virus-resistant sweet potato, by genetically engineering the plant,
have been a dismal failure.
"The proof that conventional breeding research can more easily develop resistant varieties comes as no surprise." says
Claire Bleakley from GE Free New Zealand in food and environment. “Global seed companies need to be told that both
consumers and farmers are averse to any control of seed stocks by GE patented seeds.”
GE tubers weren’t resistant to the virus and were much smaller in comparison to conventional controls.
A recent study in the US also reveals overall yields in commercialized GE crops are lower than conventionally bred crops
and need more chemicals after the first few years.
“Evidence is mounting that public funding of GE research is not the best way for government to spend our taxes,” says
Claire Bleakley. “The benefits or organics and IPM are proven – not speculative: so why is money being gambled on GE
instead of being spent on these sure-bets for New Zealand? The government should listen to their citizens and put
precious research money into conventional breeding, organics and research into sustainable farming.”
New Zealand Apple growers have already benefited from a drastic reduction in sprays, new programs now produce high
quality fruit with less chemical inputs and residues. This has been achieved by quality research resulting in a mixture
of conventionally produced virus resistant trees, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and organic programs.
New Zealand onion producers have signaled that over the past two years, they too have trialled IPM programs, aiming to
reduce chemical applications and thus the cost to the farmer and environment. These methods are already solving the
problems which are the supposed objectives of Crop and Food's 10-year publicly funded GE onion research.
There are concerns that the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) listens selectively to the large body of
scientific information presented by submitters, many of whom have worked in GE science yet remain critical of
environmental release.
ERMA's reading of scientific details shows a bias towards permissiveness, rather than a genuine acceptance of the
precautionary principle, and the protection of the long term safety of humans, animals and the environment. ERMA’s staff
understanding of the US Benbrook report on increased pesticide use in GE crops does not even reflect the reports
findings.
New Zealand's agricultural Crown Research Institutes (CRI's) should be leading the way, as they used to, in conventional
and organic, animal and plant breeding. Many NZ scientists have spent their lives selecting and breeding the best traits
in animals and plants and have built New Zealand’s reputation in the agricultural world market. The push for GE is
undermining this. New Zealand cannot afford to lose any more scientists trained in those conventional techniques that
are now being found to be superior to GE experimentation. It is time to reinvigorate the expertise in natural breeding
area.