This issue of AgScience contains papers and edited transcripts of presentations to the forum ‘Genetic Modification Revisited’, organised by the Canterbury Section and held at Lincoln University last year. Following the forum I attended the Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference (ABIC) 2009 in Bangkok, where a substantial quantity of GM science was presented. It is unlikely we lead the world in the volume of GM work being undertaken in New Zealand, doubtless reflecting matters other than the abilities of our scientists, but we do discuss the pros and cons of GM at a level rarely seen elsewhere. This is a good thing. What makes this country great is that those who are both strongly for and against GM can sit in the same room and maintain a quality dialogue on the topic. While I am reluctant to single out individuals for praise, over the years Jeanette Fitzsimons has always been prepared to front up for us and challenge the way we all think. I thank her for that.
This stated, it still surprises me that a small, yet vocal sector of the community wants to ban all GM research in New Zealand. It is the proverbial "country-mile" from undertaking scientific research, to having GM crops or animals in our paddocks providing food or products to the market. The banning of GM research would leave us the poorer and it would not stem the tide of GM products coming into the country. But if we don’t have scientists who understand the science, then we will not be in a position to make any informed decisions as to the value of the GM being used by our trading partners, including that being undertaken by scientists in the apparently discerning and "clean and green" responsive markets of Europe.
At ABIC food quality and security underpinned many of the arguments on why we need GM. There was, for example, talk of the "need" to produce iron-fortified rice to address the issue of having at least 1 billion anaemic people on earth. This challenges us all to think again about the technology. That stated, several speakers at our forum cited GM as a way of feeding the worlds’ population and – it seemed – to justify its use in New Zealand. I don’t think this is useful, given the high value (and not volume) export markets we serve. Equally, whether there is currently a world food shortage is debateable – it is odd that as thousands die daily from starvation, we in New Zealand are in the throes of an obesity epidemic, courtesy of the extraordinary availability at little cost of calorie-rich, nutrient-poor "foods". The politics of food are complex.
But the proportion of consumer expenditure on food has fallen for many years in New Zealand. In 1920, 38% of household expense was on food and there is little doubt that the range of products available was somewhat lower. While we all grumble about food prices, the June 2009 median weekly household income was $1,234. In 1920 terms, we would be spending $470 per household per week on food. With the possible exception of my family (three growing boys), I doubt whether this is true.
In many of our primary industries, however, the income levels of producers is disconcertingly low, partly a result of the high value of the New Zealand dollar, but also reflecting the considerable power of supermarkets and their propensity to drive down what they pay farmers. Many of our producers may falter financially unless something changes soon. Food (GM or otherwise), farming and the science and technology that underpin them must gain more prominence in what we do in
New Zealand.
Politics
We are more than one year into the term of a new government. I remain optimistic that for agricultural and horticultural scientists things are about to improve. They need to because a recently released survey of New Zealand scientists and technologists made for sorry reading. We are seeing the symptoms of over 20 years of systemic neglect, especially in agriculture and horticulture.
On the positive side, the CRI Taskforce report has been released. The recommendations are generally positive and should if implemented lead to considerable improvement in our science system. It would seem that CRI scientists will be in a better position to get on and do what they do best, and with greater funding security and less needless bureaucracy. Our major concern revolves around CRI governance. It is good that "at least one eminent scientist" will need to be on a CRI board, but why not three or four? Why is it still believed that lawyers, accountants and business people know how to run our CRIs, when you don’t find many scientists on the boards of law firms, banks and companies? How do these non-scientists know what is achievable in science and what isn’t?
The PGP fund remains in apparent limbo. It was reported recently in the farming media that $5 million had been allocated to the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium, and $2.18 million (approximately 30% of spend to date) had been allocated to cover the costs of the Investment Advisory Panel. This leaves $22.82 million unspent and with no guarantee it will be rolled-over to the next financial year. While, the fate of the Fast Forward Fund was sealed after the election, its replacement does not appear to have filled the gap.
The Institute remains vigilant on your behalf in targeting the political issues of the day, and I remain positive, although I am now looking for cause to sustain that optimism.
2010 Forum
Finally, this issue announces our 2010 Forum. The date and venue are set: Lincoln University in early September to coincide with the 4th Australasian Dairy Symposium. The topic will be: "Where do we want our dairy industry to be in 20 years time?" I am now approaching a range of potential speakers, spanning Fonterra, the RSPCA, DairyNZ, conservation lobbies, Regional Councils, farmers, value-added industries, MAF, the rural banks, consumers and politicians. We all have good ideas of what the industry needs to do and this forum should provide a platform for creating a shared vision of the way forward.

Jon Hickford
President