Greens' fury at GE nod

By AUDREY YOUNG and FRANCESCA MOLD

The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification has rejected a GM-free future for New Zealand, plunging into doubt the Green Party's backing of the Government.

A furious Green Party is not yet threatening to withdraw its support for the minority Labour-Alliance Coalition but that cannot be ruled out.

The party is devastated that the royal commission has effectively given a big tick to the present approval system for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and food labelling.

"I find it very hard to think of anything further they could have recommended to take us closer to a GE future than what they have," disappointed Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said last night.

"The issue won't go away and the fight isn't over.

"We were quite prepared not to get everything we were looking for. We were quite prepared to work in a spirit of compromise. But, really, this goes too far."

Genetic modification issues have been the Greens' No 1 priority since the election.

The commission's $6.2 million report says it would be "unwise" for New Zealand to turn its back on the potential of GM technology, but urges caution.

"As in the past, we should go forward but with care," the report says, comparing biotechnology with such great advances as the use of fire, the wheel, steam power, electricity and the microchip.

Many scientists, research groups and business welcomed the report.

Auckland Medical School dean Peter Gluckman said: "It looks like a pragmatically sensible road map ahead for New Zealand."



Prime Minister Helen Clark described the report as thorough, measured and balanced and conducted by a group of people "with no axe to grind".

"It rejects the idea of New Zealand being free of all genetically modified material at the one extreme and the option of unrestricted use of genetic modification at the other."

She indicated broad support for the result of the commission's work over more than a year on over 10,000 public submissions, but dismissed the possibility of drastic action from the Greens. "What I can say is that any suggestion of an election between now and Christmas [2002] on issues of supply and confidence is completely ridiculous."

The commission wants to make it easier for low-risk research to be carried out by lowering compliance costs and allowing for approval on a project-wide basis rather than for each individual organism used, and to toughen up high-risk research.

The Greens will hold discussions with the Government as it works on an official response to the report.

Jeanette Fitzsimons accused the commission of having "chickened out and passed the buck".

She agreed it would be difficult for the Greens to support the Government if it embraced the 49 recommendations in their entirety. But added: "I don't want to explore options until I know what the Government will come out with, because it sounds like issuing threats, which is not what I'm doing."

Asked if she ruled out withdrawing support, she said: "There are a whole lot of degrees of support for the Government."

She would not elaborate on the option of the seven MPs. But non-cooperation with the Government or abstaining on confidence issues are possibilities, without endangering the Coalition, which commands 59 of the 120 votes in Parliament.

Jeanette Fitzsimons said the Greens had never given unconditional support to the Coalition.

"No one in our position is going to say to a government, 'Regardless of what you do, we will support you'."

The Greens say the worst aspect of the report is a proposed new category of "conditional release" of genetically modified organisms.

It would allow the Environmental Risk Management Authority to place conditions on the project, including a requirement to report back on a regular basis.

It would almost certainly liberalise the present regime, which is limited to a ban on release without controls.

No application has yet been made for the public release of a GM crop in New Zealand.

But the commission says the first case will be such an important event that the Minister for the Environment, Marian Hobbs, should use her statutory powers to make the decision.

It also wants Maori views considered on institutions' ethics committees and on a proposed Bioethics Council and it wants the Treaty of Waitangi section of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 strengthened.

The commission said organic, genetically modified and conventional agriculture could exist comfortably in the same environment - a claim rejected by the Greens and organic farmers.

It did not recommend any move to prohibit field tests.

The commission has virtually left the food labelling regulations alone, saying that the Australia and New Zealand Food Authority (Anzfa) is doing a good job.

Anzfa has agreed that food containing 1 per cent or more of GM ingredients must be labelled by December 1.

The commission said the Government should "facilitate" the voluntary labelling of non-GM food.

Industry and research groups agreed to a voluntary moratorium on field trials while the royal commission carried out its inquiry.

No decision has been made on what to do when the moratorium expires on August 31, but it is likely to continue during the Government's three-month deliberation on the commission's finding.

www.nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary