Conservation Minister is said to be stifling innovation and conservation initiatives

The Life Sciences Network is calling on the Minister of Conservation to lift her ban on research into genetic alternatives to 1080.

While 1080 is currently our most valuable tool in the fight against predators, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has called for innovation in the development of alternatives to 1080 including genetic technologies, the network says.

But according to an internal letter obtained by the network, Conservation Minister and Green Party MP Eugenie Sage has used her ministerial powers to forbid Predator Free 2050 from undertaking any research which could lead to the use of genetic modification or gene editing. Continue reading

Gene editing upsets the GM applecart, says Dr Rolleston

“New Zealand will slip behind its competitors and forfeit opportunities to address climate change, water quality, pests and other environmental concerns if we reject the use of gene editing in our primary industries,” the chairman of the Life Sciences Network, Dr William Rolleston, said today.

A report released by the Royal Society of New Zealand explores the potential uses of gene editing in the primary sector such as removing allergens from milk, making mānuka disease-resistant, preventing wilding pines and accelerating apple breeding.

Gene editing enables more precise and targeted breeding than is available through traditional breeding methods but because it is considered genetic modification in New Zealand its use will be significantly limited.

The use of genetic modification has been difficult in New Zealand due to the current regulation and strong pressure from activist groups however the advent of gene editing has changed the stakes in the debate on genetic modification.

Dr Rolleston said only time would tell if gene editing would upset the anti-GM applecart,

‘” … but we are seeing encouraging signs that science, not fear, is coming to the fore in the debate on genetic modification as it already has in the debates on immunisation and fluoride.”

Genetic modification no longer was a hypothetical argument for New Zealand, he said.

The examples presented in the Royal Society paper showed there were tangible benefits to using gene editing technology which would  be obvious to farmers and the public.  He hoped they became involved in the discussion.

Source:  Life Science Network