|
|
 |
Date: 19 Mar 2005
From:
Subject: Jim Andertons response to Terminator Seeds email
|
Thank you for your message of 10 March expressing your concerns about what have been termed “terminator seeds”.
As you will possibly be aware the Progressive Party has in the past taken a different and more cautious approach to matters concerning genetic modification than that taken by our Labour colleagues, and so my staff monitor matters of this sort with some care.
In this case I also welcome the opportunity to respond because following discussions with the office of my colleague the Hon Marian Hobbs, Minister for the Environment, there appear to be a number of misconceptions in circulation concerning this matter.
There is no “international moratorium” in place regarding the production of such seeds as some have claimed, although I agree that there is reason to be concerned about some of the potential implications of developments like these. International responses have ranged over a number of options.
In this particular case the Bangkok conference which has brought this matter into focus was considering a United Nations report, one of the recommendations of which was to impose a blanket moratorium on the exploration of this sort of genetic modification.
It should be noted in that connection, by the way, that no-one has so far succeeded in producing such seed crops genetically, and certainly not on a commercial basis. Sterile hybrid seed crops are, however, already available through non-genetic techniques which have been practised for many years.
The New Zealand government approach to this issue in general has been to eschew blanket approaches in favour of a step by step approach as specific technologies develop. This was also the approach adopted by Canada which New Zealand supported.
While, as I remarked above, the Progressive Party has reservations about the approach of our Labour colleagues to some of the issues surrounding genetic modification, we do not have any absolute difficulty about adopting such a cautious approach as that which informed New Zealand’s Bangkok stance.
This may not be a perspective which finds favour with you, but on that we might have to agree to differ. I certainly appreciate your contribution to this important and continuing debate.
Yours sincerely
Jim Anderton
M P for Wigram and Leader of the Progressive Party
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|