Australasian Biotechnology (backfiles) AusBiotech ISSN: 1036-7128 Vol. 8, Num. 3, 1998

Talking about Gene Technology: a New Zealand perspective

Sue Muggleston,

HortResearch, Private Bag 92169, Auckland, New Zealand

(This paper is based on a presentation made to the 14th Australasian Biotechnology Conference, Glenelg, South Australia, on 21 April 1998)

Code Number:AU98024
Sizes of Files:
      Text: 17K
      Graphics:No associated graphics files

Today I am going to give you an overview of events and situations in New Zealand in the area of public perception. Some of these, particularly in public acceptance of the technology, are quite different in New Zealand from here in Australia. However, with CER and the increasing sharing of legislation such as food standards, we are likely to have a lot more in common in future. So I will outline for you some of the background to the New Zealand situation, and detail some specific initiatives that have been undertaken to address the need for an informed public able to participate in meaningful debate. The main focus will be on the Gene Technology Information Trust - its formation, operation and potential synergy with your GTIU.

Background

Back in 1996, two pieces of legislation were enacted in New Zealand which have implications for both the development and use of gene technology. I won't go into any detail about the legislation, but the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (or HSNO) Act covers all aspects of importing, developing, trialling and commercialising products of gene technology and is concerned with their effect on the environment.

The ANZFA legislation you will already be familiar with and this covers use of gene technology in food products.

At the end of 1996, RoundUp-Ready soya beans made their debut onto the market place, and while we nominally had these Acts, the legislation was not actually operating. In fact HSNO takes affect this coming July and the ANZFA standards will take effect 9 months after the Council makes it's decision - and of course NZ has the option not to go with the Council decision.

Whilst the lack of operating legislation doesn't mean that we are operating in the absence of any laws, it certainly gave cause for alarm for a number of Anti-GMO groups who began campaigns in New Zealand.

Public Perception

There have been numerous surveys of public perception conducted both in New Zealand and around the world, and generally show that perception is dependent on the specific application presented.

The survey results I am presenting here are from the 1997 Eurobarometer Survey in 15 European Union countries, Canada, Japan and New Zealand. The results of the NZ segment have only been released a couple of weeks ago. These are the key findings:

Attitudes

• NZers are pragmatic about the use of biotechnology and are generally more appreciative of the uses of specific applications such as for foods, crops and medicines than their EU and Japanese counterparts.
• While 2 out of every 3 NZers think that genetic engineering of crop plants for resistance to pests should be encouraged, just over half would encourage the use of modern biotechnology in foods and drinks.
• NZers are very supportive of the use of biotechnology in medicine, except for the use of xenotransplants (organs for human transplants).
• NZers generally have a higher background knowledge and understanding of biotechnology than most other countries including Japan, Canada and the EU.

Regulations

• Only about 1 in 4 NZers or Europeans are convinced that current biotechnology regulations protect people from risks. About 1 in 3 Canadians were more satisfied that regulations were adequate.
• In all countries of the survey, international organisations like the UN and WHO were considered better placed to regulate modern biotechnology than national governments. Self regulation by scientific organisations and ethics committees was also strongly preferred over regulation by national governments.

Trust

• In NZ, universities or research institutes were trusted by most people to tell the truth about modern biotechnology. Consumer organisations were the most trusted in Japan and universities/research organisations in Canada.
• For NZers, trust is specific to the issue, i.e. we place high trust in consumer organisations for information on food crops but high trust in the medical profession more for medical applications of biotechnology.

Information

• NZers are more aware of information in the media on biotechnology than Japanese, Canadians or Europeans and they rate it highly in terms of importance as an issue.
• Television and newspapers are most frequently quoted as the source of information on biotechnology, but radio was significantly more important in NZ than in the other countries.
• The cloning debate may have filled the media but has not influenced the hearts of NZers in their perceptions of the use of genetic technology.

Regardless of the basis of any public concern, their perception is reality for them and these concerns must be addressed.

There is a need for more public information, but this must take the form of an effective dialogue: two-way communication rather than just one-way provision of information.

Need for more public information

In 1996, a very good start was made along the path of ensuring 2-way communication through the use of a Danish-style consensus conference. For those of you unfamiliar with this model, I'll quickly go through what was involved. A panel was selected of 16 members of public who had no involvement in biotechnology. They spent a weekend with "experts" explaining the technology to them, and a further weekend with "experts" discussing the issues and formulating key questions. A public conference was held with experts from both "sides" addressing the questions posed by the panel. The lay panel at the end of its deliberations decided that plant biotechnology had a lot of benefits to offer, but there were issues still needing to be addressed.

However, with all due respect to the organisers, very few of the general public attended the conference (probably less than a dozen) and very little media interest was generated over the event itself or the results of the panel's findings. So whilst 16 members of the New Zealand public have been extensively involved in dialogue, most of the rest of NZ public are unaware that it even happened.

In early 1997, a number of events happened that heightened the need for better information on gene technology:

The ANZFA Draft Standards for GM foods attracted a huge amount of interest in NZ - 2000 of the total 3000 submissions came from NZers. Whilst many of these were petitions and form letters orchestrated by Anti-GMO groups, there were still high levels of public interest and concern.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (or ERMA) was established to administer the HSNO legislation. Through out 1997 they released a series of consultation documents and held public meetings to discuss them.

There was a continuing one-sided debate in the media. Individual companies and scientists were generally not prepared to respond as they were wary of personal attacks. Most were following the "let someone else make the first move" approach.

The response from the Ministry of Research Science and Technology and other government committees when approached was "that's not our role" and "it's an Industry problem, they should be doing something about it".

Establishment of the Gene Technology Information Trust

So with this background of events, a small group of us (from the Crown Research Institutes and Industry) got together to develop the concept of a Gene Technology Information Unit along the lines of your Australian unit, but knowing that we couldn't expect financial support from the government.

With a basic concept in place we were able to secure seed funding from the CRIs for a 3 month pilot and appointed a PR company to act as our secretariat.

The key need was to establish a Trust to operate as a NEUTRAL entity, whilst providing a collective industry voice and a focus for gathering and disseminating information.

Operating through a Trust gives distance from its financial support - this is important as industry money is often seen to be tainted.

The Deeds of the Trust clearly spell out the focus and role of the organisation, providing some transparency to its function.

The Trustees are respected members of the community across a range of fields, which in turns adds credibility to the Trust.

Gene Pool was established as the operating group for the Trust's activities.

The main aims of our Strategic Plan are:

• to improve the community's understanding and knowledge of the applications of and issues surrounding the use of gene technology.
• to form the hub of a network of key stakeholders to share information across a range of issues.
• to undertake a core "information brokerage" role, using existing information where possible and taking care not to reinvent any wheels.
• to facilitate effective 2-way communication by maintaining a group of spokespeople who are willing to speak to interested community groups.
• to develop quality resource materials and undertake targeted activities to raise community awareness.

Another important aspect of establishing Gene Pool was its marketing or branding. The name "Gene Pool" has been registered as a trademark and a distinctive logo, letterhead, brochure and website have been developed to brand it as a professional entity.

Letters were sent to potential stakeholders introducing the Trust, its aims and objectives.

And equally importantly, media monitoring was initiated to help understand the environment we were operating in, and we had interaction with key stakeholders to better understand their needs.

We made a presentation of the Gene Pool concept to major food companies at a Food Industry Forum meeting and 23 out of the 25 companies represented indicated positive support.

Buoyed by this level of support, we sent out letters to organisations and companies across the food industry, to agricultural, chemical and seed companies, and to pharmaceutical companies seeking financial support.

Response to letters has been very slow, and we have had to make personal approaches to individual companies and make presentations to them. Whilst most of the companies have been very keen to use our services, they have been reluctant to part with their money to support Gene Pool.

Gene Pool Activities

Soon after Gene Pool's formation, a petition was made to the Parliamentary Select Committee on Health by a number of anti-GMO groups to ban genetically modified foods.

In response to this Gene Pool wrote to the Select Committee offering a team of expert technical people to present a balanced discussion of the issues. Presentation was made at a hearing of a counter-petition by the Food Industry Forum. We were also invited to give briefings to two other groups of MPs.

We had to be very careful at this stage to stick to the stated role of Gene Pool which was that of information provision only. We had to emphasise to the Food Industry that whilst we could support their petition, we could not take the active lobbying role for them. This was important in maintaining the credibility of Gene Pool.

There are a number of core activities or services that Gene Pool provides, including it's website which contains a range of materials, references, links to other sites and current news items (these will be updated on a regular basis once we have more secure funding). Gene Pool has a dedicated phone line to handle queries from the media, organisations and the general public.

We have established a group of spokespeople who are willing and able to speak particularly to the media on their specific areas of biotechnology. The media can ring into Gene Pool and they will be put on to the most appropriate person to speak with. This pool of spokespeople will be expanded so that there is a regular circuit of people speaking to community and other groups, helping with the 2-way communication.

Other activities that will be undertaken immediately once further funding is secured include a regular newsletter covering current issues, developments and news that will be sent to all stakeholders, politicians, schools, libraries etc. And the development of a series of in-depth fact sheets.

Other activities that Gene Pool have been involved in include providing support in the form of ensuring good distribution and media cover for the launch of a Royal Society discussion paper on "Genetically Engineered Crops: Environmental and Food Safety Issues". Similarly we assisted with publicity for a Royal Society Conference on "Gene Technology: Benefits and Risks".

This conference was another attempt at establishing a dialogue about gene technology. Whilst it was very successful in getting scientists to discuss the many issues involved, it had limited effectiveness in engaging the general public in the discussions.

When the ANZFA Board released their recommendations on Food Standards for GM foods, Gene Pool was able to organise a Media Briefing Session to coincide with this and was successful in diffusing any strong negative emotive responses to the proposed standards.

We believe our activities to date have established Gene Pool's credibility as an authoritative information provider with MPs, government ministries and groups such as ANZFA; and with the media: providing balanced objective factual information rather than emotive responses.

And despite the fact that we have undertaken no active promotion of Gene Pool other than in trying to secure industry funding, our services are being regularly used and requested. We are certainly well on our way to achieving the goal of being a focus for gathering and disseminating information.

We will certainly be trying all possible avenues to secure future funding, but gaining strong industry support is critical in achieving this. In New Zealand, the contestable public good science funding system relies on industry support to demonstrate Relevance - a key criteria for government funding.

Future Synergy with Australia

Once we have secured a stable funding basis, there are a number of activities we plan to undertake. And all of these, I believe, would gain enormous synergy through a joint Australia- New Zealand approach.

CSIRO have already developed a quality print and video based educational resource. Gene Pool is currently developing a web-based resource. Relatively small additional funding would be required to combine resources to develop fully interactive web-based activities that could be used by different educational levels.

Through our examination of other resource materials available around the world, there is a plethora of scientific information and of very basic information. What is missing is in-depth factual discussion in lay terms of issues such as world trade in GMOs, barriers to trade, environmental and health issues. These would be a very valuable resource to many groups associated with or with an interest in gene technology.

Up to date discussion of current news issues would be a valuable resource for schools, universities, libraries and politicians. "Frequently-asked questions" sheets for retailers are also a much requested resource.

Pooling of scarce resources would seem a sensible approach to achieve high quality material to meet these common aims. Particularly in an environment where the links, similarities and common legislation between NZ and Australia are increasing.

So my question or challenge to you is let's discuss how we can work towards a co-ordinated Australasian approach to achieving the goal of providing authoritative gene technology information to enable the public to participate in the debate and make informed choices on the use of the technology.

Copyright 1998 Australian Biotechnology Association Ltd.