GE group's court route criticised

By ANGELA GREGORY

A group of mothers has been told it cannot stop researchers' work on growing genetically modified cows by attacking the underlying science.

Mothers Against Genetic Engineering (Madge) is hoping to stymie the controversial project through a judicial review of the way permission was granted to AgResearch.

But AgResearch lawyer Justin Smith yesterday told the High Court at Auckland that the group's evidence on the project's adverse effects amounted to an attack on an expert body's scientific assessment.

He said Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) members had considered the application at a hearing to which Madge had made submissions. Mr Smith said the only proper course for Madge to question Erma's assessment would have been by appeal, but the group had instead sought a judicial review.

"An applicant should not put in a large amount of scientific evidence that it did not adduce at the hearing at first instance, and ask the court to weigh this evidence against the authority's conclusions."

He said all possible adverse effects of the genetically modified organisms on the environment had been raised and considered in the application, a report, the hearing, and in Erma's decision.

"Madge's evidence amounts to an attempt to have another hearing on the effects of this application ... with respect Madge's approach is inappropriate in the context of a judicial review proceeding."

Mr Smith also argued that despite Madge's assertion to the contrary, the ethical and moral issues surrounding the application had been addressed.

He accused Madge of advancing "highly political" arguments.

"If Madge believes this type of work should not be conducted in New Zealand, or the structure for approving applications is inadequate, the proper recourse is to seek law change, not judicial remedies."

Mr Smith said AgResearch was taking the judicial review seriously as its research, already in progress, could be immediately affected by the result.

Earlier, Erma lawyer Mary Scholtens, QC, had said that to literally identify all possible adverse effects on the environment was impossible, and could not have been the intention of Parliament, as "environment" had a very wide definition.

When Erma came to consider the possible harm from the application it adopted a risk assessment and management approach as required by legislation.

"It does not require all risks or adverse effects to be eliminated, nor fanciful risks to be closely evaluated."

Mrs Scholtens said Erma was satisfied sufficient information had been provided to meet the requirements of a valid application.

The risks were able to be identified, assessed and managed.

The setting aside of the decision and directing a reconsideration could not be justified, she said.