Govt wary of GE liability laws

By FRANCESCA MOLD

The Government has sidestepped the issue of whether liability laws should be beefed up to deal with genetic modification contamination in a discussion document issued yesterday.

It gives options for changing the law governing genetic modification and proposes a host of changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

The 93-page report, issued by Environment Minister Marian Hobbs, describes how a new "conditional release" category would make it easier for GM organisms to be released.

The category was recommended by last year's Royal Commission on Genetic Modification.

It would create an intermediate stage between contained field trials and full release, allowing more open research and development of genetically modified organisms under certain conditions.

The report also discusses the issue of liability. It makes it clear the Government is not proposing any changes to liability in relation to GM organisms at this stage.

It said that if changes were needed, they could include requiring compulsory insurance or bonds, setting up a statutory compensation fund from taxes or extending ACC coverage.

The kind of damage that could be caused by GM organisms includes personal injury from allergies, property and environmental damage, and financial loss, for example the loss of organic certification through GM contamination.

Sustainability Council executive director Simon Terry said the document had failed even to mention the internationally accepted "polluter pays" principle in terms of liability.

Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said the paper proposed making victims and the taxpayer liable for any damage rather than the company or individual responsible.

She said the Government's reluctance to act on the issue was evidenced by a comment in the report that a move to a more onerous liability regime would have negative impacts, including creating a disincentive for investment in GM.

But Ms Hobbs said the Government recognised there was widespread debate about the issue of liability.

"We are asking questions in this document. We're not getting out there and proposing changes because we've had so many differing opinions on this," she said. "I think we are being quite even-handed."

The Greens also criticised newly proposed controls on conditional release, saying they were ineffective and would make New Zealand a fully fledged GM nation.

The Greens will vote against conditional release in the legislative amendments, which will go through before the GM moratorium is lifted in October next year.

The controls proposed by the report include stipulating who can use the organism, where and when it can be released and what monitoring is needed.

Researchers could be asked to limit the spread of genetic material from field research that is not fully contained, be required to put buffer zones in place and ensure any material is properly destroyed at the end of the research.

The document points out that any controls must be cost-effective, practical and enforceable.

But it says compliance with the conditions and enforcement will be a serious issue.

The enforcement agency, which could be the Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, Conservation Department, or regional or city councils, would have to inspect organisms and premises, check documents, audit systems, investigate breaches, obtain evidence and take any prosecutions.

Further reading
nzherald.co.nz/ge

GE links

GE glossary