Viewpoint: Ideologically-based beliefs are preventing New Zealand consumers from experiencing the benefits that gene editing in agriculture can bring…

It is over two decades since the Royal Commission on genetic modification (GM) responded to the task of evaluating the technology within the context of New Zealand.

The major theme of the473-page reportwas self-described as preserving opportunities.

The authors went to considerable lengths to explain the different concerns and perspectives of New Zealanders who, by and large, were comfortable with GM for medical purposes, but were less so in food production.

Concerns were around the unproven safety and certainty of the science, the fact that world consumer preferences were against the use of genetic modification in food and that first generation genetically modified crops have shown few obvious benefits for consumers.

In 2001 some of the parroted statements from anti-GM websites were surprising. Two decades on and the statements are simply wrong.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

This month inScience, a team of researchers led by Fred Gould, Distinguished University Professor of Entomology and Co-Director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center of North Carolina State University, pointed out that the current approach to genetic engineering is foolish.

Much effort has been expended globally over the past four decades to craft and update country-specific and multinational safety regulations that can be applied to crops developed by genetic engineering processes while exempting conventionally bred crops. This differentiation made some sense in the 1980s, but in light of technological advances, it is no longer scientifically defensible.

Yet New Zealand is still trying.

Continue reading here:

Viewpoint: Ideologically-based beliefs are preventing New Zealand consumers from experiencing the benefits that gene editing in agriculture can bring...