Law Commission report on GE liability says wider debate needed

3.00pm

Much wider debate is needed before any decision is made on genetic modification (GM) legal liability, the Law Commission said today.

The commission's report -- Liability for Loss Resulting From the Development, Supply or Use of Genetically Modified Organisms -- was released today following allegations from the Green Party last week the Government had delayed its release because it had something to hide.

But Research, Science and Technology Minister Pete Hodgson, releasing the report today, said the delay was because the Government wanted the commission to "expand its report".

It had been unable to do so and the minister therefore released it.

The report looked at whether the law was adequate to cover GM accidents.

"Our inquiry suggests that the current statute and common law will not ensure that all damage that could potentially be caused by genetically modified organisms will be compensated," it said.

"It is unlikely that any liability regime could guarantee this."

The difficulties for any liability regime stemmed from the special features of genetically modified organisms, including:

* their potentially "catastrophic levels of harm" and "irreversible damage";

* the difficulty in assessing the magnitude of potential damage;

* the difficulty in estimating the level of risk posed;

* the likely manifestation and spread in nature of some of the potential, negative effects of genetically modified organisms;

* the difficulty and expense for plaintiffs in proving the extent of damage;

* the ethical and spiritual concerns some parts of society had about genetically modified organisms.

Three policy decisions would be needed if a liability regime was developed, the report said.

They were the scientific and ethical ways GM organisms were different from other human activities or technologies, the extent to which those involved in GM should be held directly accountable should something go wrong, and the Government's possible role as guarantor.

"Such decisions should not be made by lawyers," the report said.

"The ethical and spiritual issues are beyond our mandate.

"Deciding who should be responsible for any adverse consequences of genetic modification must be widely debate and clearly agreed."

Mr Hodgson said the report's discussion of the shortcomings and possible perverse outcomes of a strict liability regime was informative.

"However, the commission has not gone on to explore the relationship between the liability regime and the regulatory regime and look at whether strict liability has a role," he said in a statement.

"As with releases of other new organisms to the New Zealand environment, the possible adverse effects from GM organism releases range from trivial to catastrophic.

"That is why it is important to clarify liability issues."

However, it was even more important to assess and manage the risks of release, Mr Hodgson said.

- NZPA

nzherald.co.nz/ge

GE links

GE glossary