Kedgley Sue: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20550] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. Despite all the rhetoric that we have heard this bill is essentially just a date change. It is an extension of the moratorium so that legislation can be more thoughtfully developed in order hopefully that xenotransplantation can be covered by the new human tissue legislation that is being worked on. 
Arguably the legislation surrounding xenotransplantation will be one of the more important pieces of legislation to come before this House so it is crucial that we get it right and do not rush into it. We are extremely pleased that the Government is spending more time on it and that we are extending the moratorium so that we can be absolutely certain that the legislation will not be rushed legislation that needs to be changed. Hopefully we will get it right. 
We have heard some extraordinary comments in this debate today which shows that some members have taken the issue of xenotransplantation extraordinarily lightly. But the truth is that despite all the attempts made by the bill’s opponents to dismiss the concerns about xenotransplantation it is an issue with profound ethical and safety considerations. It involves crossing the species barrier between humans and animals—a species barrier that has existed for millennia. Therefore whatever the opponents say that raises the possibility of the transfer of disease between species. As Barbara Stewart from New Zealand First has already pointed out it raises the possibility of the development of crossover diseases from for example pigs to humans and of the development of new infectious and possibly deadly viruses. 
There is no point in trying to dismiss those possibilities. There is experimental evidence that shows despite what opponents say that pig viruses have survived for long periods of time inside humans. Furthermore as the paper from the Ministry of Health points out there is the possibility that new infectious organisms that are not currently known will emerge and infect humans. The Ministry of Health points out that those emerging viruses would pose a particular problem because they would be difficult to identify. So there may not be effective therapies against them if they were to develop and had various routes of transmission. 
The ministry points out that the porcine endogenous retrovirus is present in the DNA contained in the nucleus of all pig cells. Its transmission from pig cells has been recorded in the laboratory and that poses a very credible risk to public health. There was no mention made by the speakers from ACT and National about the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. Barbara Stewart mentioned various others like HIV etc. but how about the BSE crisis when an animal disease crossed over to humans? At the time most scientists dismissed the idea when it was pointed out that there was a possibility of transferring that infection from animals to humans. It was utterly dismissed by scientists who as Katherine Rich said did not want to hold back the great scientific tide. They dismissed the possibility airily. They said that there was a purely theoretical risk that the disease could cross the species barrier and transfer to humans and that it was certainly not something that should be seriously contemplated. In that case the scientists certainly got it wrong. They denied the risks and we ended up with BSE—mad cow disease—which had a huge huge cost to the British Government and to human health. 
The reality is that there is huge scientific uncertainty surrounding xenotransplantation. For example if we did put pig organs into humans to try to solve the problem of diabetes which Katherine Rich has talked about and if we got it wrong and it resulted in the emergence of a new retrovirus it would be—not to put too fine a word on it—a disaster for humanity. It certainly could open a Pandora’s box. We are in the middle of a bird flu epidemic and we have heard the dire warnings of what could happen if the disease continues to transfer to humans—it already has—and to mutate. We could be in the midst of a huge epidemic. We have been told that by experts yet speakers in this debate airily want to dismiss those possibilities. They suggest that this bill is simply trying to hold back the scientific tide by providing for proper consideration and regulatory controls surrounding xenotransplantation. 
I was also rather alarmed by some of the remarks made by Katherine Rich. She pointed out quite correctly that we are in the midst of a diabetes epidemic. We in the Health Committee have been hearing that there is such an increase in people needing dialysis machines that there are shortages around the country. There is no doubt about that and at a cost of about $50000-odd per year to treat someone on dialysis New Zealand faces a huge problem. But her answer to that huge crisis seemed to be that we must all now get pig organs—set aside our concerns and set up I presume huge pig factories around New Zealand to grow pig organs so that we can all use them for problems such as failing organs as in the case of advanced diabetes. 
But hang on a minute! Why would we not look first at human donor organs? New Zealand has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the world and we are doing virtually nothing serious to increase it. There is a huge amount that we could and should be doing. Indeed the Health Committee has recommended strongly that the Government take far more action in developing a register and doing everything it can to increase the rate of human organ donation. 
But there is another issue. Yes we have an epidemic of diabetes—an estimated 120000-odd people with diabetes and the same number it is said with undiagnosed diabetes. But instead of looking at xenotransplantation and pig organs why do we not look at the causes of diabetes and take some simple steps—we could take them right now; they are under our noses—to prevent the epidemic of diabetes in the first instance? We are told that 90 percent or more of cases of diabetes are type 2 diabetes caused by—guess what—diet and inactivity. So why do we not take simple steps? Why is the National Party not suggesting simple steps like getting rid of the high-sugar fizzy drinks sold in vending machines in almost every secondary school in our land? A high-fat diet is another cause. Why are we allowing virtually all the schools in New Zealand to sell high-fat diets? 
We have just done a survey of 50 schools in which we found that in virtually all of them the staple diet sold in tuck-shops is pies doughnuts chips hot dogs and sausage rolls. A simple thing we could do tomorrow to deal with the causes of diabetes is to improve our children’s diet—to reduce the amount of fat and sugar they are being exposed to which we know is the cause of diabetes. Why do we seem incapable of taking simple little steps such as getting rid of the vending machines in our schools and asking the food industry to reduce the amount of high-fat high-sugar rubbish it is selling as food to our children whom it is targeting with manipulative techniques? Why are we not prepared to do something simple like that? Instead according to the National Party the solution to diabetes is in putting pig organs into humans—embracing xenotransplantation despite all of its huge known risks. Let us not according to the National Party do something simple like improve the food our children are eating and deal with the causes of diabetes; let us just get into high-tech solutions and set up pig factories all around New Zealand so that we can start putting pig organs into humans! How tragic how short-sighted and how lacking in vision!