Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5100] 
8.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why did Treasury advice to him describe the range of impacts on GDP from use of genetically modified organisms as being from a “best-case scenario” of plus 2.5 percent to a “worst case scenario” of minus 1.3 percent when an April 2003 BERL-AERU report on this topic includes scenarios with greater risks to GDP? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 BERL-AERU was asked to consider the full range of theoretically possible outcomes. Treasury in reporting to Ministers chose sensibly to focus on likely outcomes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Was he aware that US research on productivity from genetically engineered (GE) soya beans shows they produce on average across all states 5 percent less than conventional soya beans when he accepted Treasury advice that the scenario assuming zero productivity gains from a GE crop was not likely and should be ignored? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The reason for ignoring such an unlikely outcome is that it is very unlikely that farmers would continue to plant crops or use genetically modified (GM) stock that continues to show zero productivity growth. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: How is the Government planning to maximise the benefits and minimise the risks of genetically modified organisms? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government will institute an extremely rigorous case by case approvals process that will ensure that New Zealand can build on its strong biotechnology sector while maintaining strong environmental safeguards. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Given that the economic reports in question are based on fundamental assumptions about New Zealand does he consider that the New Zealand environment is in reality clean green and GM-free and what evidence has he to support his answer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly and this is quite relevant to the research the perception of people overseas is very strongly that New Zealand is clean and green but equally we all know there are many examples of where we are not so clean and not so green. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister agree with recent Treasury advice stating: “It is unlikely that overseas consumers would know or bring to mind at point of sale the GM attributes of New Zealand when deciding whether to purchase New Zealand’s export products.”; if so does he also agree that this shows any negative real-world effect of the release of GM organisms in New Zealand on gross domestic product (GDP) at least as far as export earnings are concerned? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed there is evidence in the report that demonstrates that people often did not recognise GM-free labelling and make decisions on that basis. There was also a tendency for people to say they would respond to GM free but would be less likely to do so in terms of paying the price increase in actual practice. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Was he aware of the international survey commissioned by Discovery Channel which showed that 58 percent of all those polled in eight nations are unwilling to eat GM food when he accepted Treasury advice that the scenario showing no adverse market reaction at all was credible and should be further considered? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware of such surveys. I am also aware the member claimed that the most likely outcome of GM free was 7.5 percent growth of GDP when in fact that extreme scenario was under the assumptions firstly that New Zealand was GM free; and secondly that either all other countries were not but nobody knew about it or were and had no productivity gains. Either way it seems extremely unlikely. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How could Treasury credibly conclude in its advice to him that it was highly likely GM-food exports would have no effect on market access or price when the European Union was about to introduce a comprehensive new labelling regime that will require identification of all food produced by GM technology and which will lower the threshold for GM contamination? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The European Union of course is also one of the largest producers of genetically modified food in the world and there are always questions around any action by the European Union as to whether it has got to do with a trade barrier or something to do with food safety. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: How can genetic engineering be in any way good for New Zealand’s economy when all realistic scenarios show negative impacts on farmers unless one assumes that GE has no negative impact on export demand—a scenario that has not occurred anywhere in the world? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No the last assumption is wrong. If I go back to the case previously noted—if the same scenario were tested on the assumption there were productivity gains from genetic modification the net benefit to New Zealand was not plus 7.5 percent but negative.