Lawyers pass buck on GE

By VERNON SMALL deputy political editor

The Law Commission has refused to recommend a legal regime to cover liability for damage from genetically modified organisms, saying it is a job for politicians, not lawyers.

The commission said GMOs had the potential to "create catastrophic levels of harm" and "cause irreversible damage". But it was difficult to assess the risk.

The Government last week withheld the commission's report, saying it wanted it to do more work.

The commission refused and Science and Technology Minister Pete Hodgson issued it yesterday after talks with commission president Justice Bruce Robertson.

"Justice Robertson has advised me that the commission is unable to expand its report as the Government has requested," Mr Hodgson said.

The commission said the present law did not ensure all potential damage would be compensated, although it was unlikely any regime could guarantee that.

Some damage could be long term and "diffuse in nature". Those seeking compensation might find it difficult and expensive to prove the cause and the extent of any damage.

GMOs were also a source of ethical and spiritual concern.

The commission said three core questions had to be decided:

* Are GMOs different from other human activities or technologies and should they be treated differently?

* How much should those involved be held responsible, balancing protection against damage to a fledgling industry from a strict liability regime?

* Should the Government act as guarantor for any damage caused by the GM industry? In other words, to what extent should the losses be "socialised"?

"Such decisions should not be made by lawyers. The ethical and spiritual issues are beyond our mandate," the commission said.

The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification found no immediate need for a law change but suggested the Law Commission give the issue more intensive study.

Mr Hodgson said the commission's view of the drawbacks of a strict liability regime was informative. But it had not explored the relationship between that and the regulatory regime.

As with releases of other new organisms, the adverse effects from GMOs could 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.

He did not expect any further work to delay lifting the moratorium on commercial release next year. The Cabinet was likely to make its decisions by the end of this year.



The Greens have made an extension of the moratorium a condition of supporting a Labour-led Government.

Green co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons yesterday told scientists at the Royal Society that only a few multinationals would suffer if the moratorium was extended for three years. No organisms were ready for release that would benefit the country or consumers.

nzherald.co.nz/ge

GE links

GE glossary