ERMA misinterprets HSNO Act

Press release - April 12, 2007
In proposing approval for genetically engineered brassica field trials at Lincoln College, ERMA has incorrectly applied the HSNO Act on a number of different levels, bringing its objectivity into question, Greenpeace said today.

Today is the first day of ERMA's four-day hearing of submissions on the NZ Institute for Crop & Food Research Ltd's application to undertake a ten year, four ha field trial of GE broccoli, cauliflower cabbage and kale at Lincoln. <>

Greenpeace's submission was presented by Duncan Currie, an international expert in genetic engineering law. He challenged ERMA's recommendation to approve the application, and noted that ERMA had never yet turned down a GE field trial.

ERMA has:

• Misapplied the Act and Methodology to assess both uncertainty and risk.

• Failed to properly assess the opportunity cost in the sense of lost funding to other non-GE research

• incorrectly scoped risks, costs and benefits according to the HSNO Act.

While ERMA has said that wider environmental impacts of GE brassica cannot be assessed in one small field trial, it then goes on to claim there may be wider scientific benefits. It then talks of "managing" the risk rather than giving an assessment of what the risks are.

Mr Currie argued that ERMA had concluded that the environmental effects of the trial would be negligible, because they were 'highly unlikely' to arise in the context of this field trial and if they did, they could be contained.

The potential environmental risks include contamination of non-GE crops, the development of insect resistance to the Bt toxin (one of the few pesticides available to organic farmers), effects on non-target insects such as butterflies, and the escape of the genes.

"ERMA can't have it both ways - they either make an assessment of the wider environmental risks and costs as well as the benefits, or they don't look any wider than this particular field trial at all."

"Moreover, saying that risk can be managed does nothing to assess what that risk may be. This is not the way the Act has been written, and ERMA has made a serious mistake in its interpretation," said Currie.

"Trials to test insect resistance to GE Bt brassica are a waste of both time and money. The research around the world for Bt Brassica already showed that insects build up resistance, the consumer doesn't want it; farmers won't grow it, and certainly can't sell it. Greenpeace calls on the Government to put money into productive research instead."

Greenpeace noted that ERMA had never turned down a GE field trial application and called on the Government to turn this one down.

"The appearance is that any application, no matter how misconceived, how pointless and no matter what level of opposition, will be approved. It is time to correct that apprehension," said Currie.

Other contacts: Contact: to get in touch with Duncan Currie call Cindy Baxter 021 772 661

Exp. contact date: 2007-04-12 00:00:00