Biosecurity slip casts doubt on GM watchdog

By ANNETTE COTTER*

Richard Randerson outlined four principles in his Dialogue article canvassing the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. But given the revelations of Nicky Hager's new book Seeds of Distrust, the context of these issues has shifted.

According to Hager, Government, business and two regulatory bodies - the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) - conspired to keep critical information about a major biosecurity breach from the public. As the Government learned about the contamination, it shifted the ground to allow a certain degree of GM contamination.

This was achieved by assuming a threshold for GM contamination so that any GM under that threshold was not officially a GM organism. All occurred under a veil of secrecy. Given Hager's claims, would the royal commission have made different recommendations?

The commission was charged with assessing all aspects of genetic modification, and held open hearings during the time of this cover-up. But the Government, which spent $6 million on the inquiry, delivered a sanitised version of events to the commission.

According to Hager, the head of Erma expressed concern over the Government submission, saying "this statement could be seen as misleading ... there is no way that [the 0.5 per cent allowance] can be construed as simply a continuation of existing policy. It presents a shift in policy, which (in my opinion) will probably require legislative change to formalise."

Seen as the most comprehensive inquiry in the world, the commission recommended proceeding with caution, yet did not pick up or question the apparent change in legislation to allow GM thresholds or what a 0.5 per cent contamination level would mean in real terms.

Can Erma, therefore, be trusted? Mr Randerson asks this question, and so must the public. Erma is the regulatory body used to justify a case-by-case approach to the release of GM. The rigour of Erma's regime is lauded as sufficient protection to allow GM field trials and future commercial releases.

However, the head of Erma changed from saying there were already several positive tests for contamination that can hardly be ignored to watching the planted GM- contaminated seed mature, flower and pollinate. The rest of the contaminated seed was also planted in the fields, according to evidence in Hager's book. That is hardly stringent or robust.

It appears that most of the members of this crucial regulatory body were not told about the incident until after the Government decisions. Members of Erma expressed their concern about these very serious events and complained that the Cabinet and officials were taking a less cautious approach to a release decision than Erma did.

Yet they did nothing to rectify the situation. Had Erma taken its remit seriously, an urgent clean-up would have been ordered immediately.

Mr Randerson's fourth principle is that of preserving freedom of choice for growers and consumers, and says that farmers and growers should have the right to use GM or conventional methods as they see fit.

What happens when that freedom is removed? The Government knowingly removed the choice for growers to grow GM-free corn. Thousands of GM sweet corn plants rapidly multiply when cross-pollination is considered. While the companies knew, one assumes that their growers did not. Neither did the neighbouring farms, including organic farmers.

Why did the Government bend to the demands of the United States-based seed company to allow thresholds, and why did Helen Clark not tell the public?

The Prime Minister is known for speaking out on issues, yet she yielded to the pressure from industry to not remove the crops, contrary to her initial position. The Government could have, and should have, acted yet it kept quiet and hoped no one would find out.

So where to from here? MAF, which is responsible for biosecurity issues, is considering a GM testing regime for the coming season, beginning next month.

It is following the European Union legislation by looking at zero tolerance within technical limits. Once dismissed as impractical, zero tolerance is now accepted as practical, achievable and consistent with overseas regimes.

Without zero tolerance, we will lose our markets for GM-free and organic produce and our highly lucrative clean, green image.

According to MAF, sweet corn exports are rapidly growing and worth $50 million. They depend heavily on export markets, especially to Australia and Japan. Japan refused shipments of American corn last year when it was contaminated by an unapproved GM variety, Starlink. Imports resumed only when the companies could guarantee the corn was GM-free. We need that same assurance here if our markets are to remain viable.

The revelation of GM contamination is not a justification for saying it is all too late and that New Zealand should accept GM. The Government must take every possible action to eradicate this contamination and ensure it does not happen again.

* Annette Cotter is a spokeswoman for Greenpeace.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

GE links

GE glossary