 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have 7 guests and 0 members online
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
|
|
|
|
|
· HIGH COURT RULING ON GMOs SHOWS THAT COUNCILS OF AUCKLAND/NORTHLAND PENINSULA HA
(Jun 16, 2009)
· High Court ruling gives nod to ARC’s cautious take on GMOs
(Jun 16, 2009)
· HIGH COURT GE DECISION A VICTORY FOR NEW ZEALANDERS
(Jun 07, 2009)
· GM animal applications invalid – High Court appeal upheld
(Jun 07, 2009)
· Federated Farmers of NZ praise GM free grass
(Jun 05, 2009)
· LOCAL AUTHORITIES CONSULT RATEPAYERS ON GMO LAND USE
(Apr 09, 2009)
· GMO Views To Be Aired
(Apr 07, 2009)
· Stop acting like Muppets and cancel all GE trials
(Mar 12, 2009)
· FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL JOINS OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN REGIONAL SURVEY REGA
(Oct 09, 2008)
· FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL JOINS OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN REGIONAL SURVEY REG
(Oct 09, 2008)
· Far North Joins Regional Survey on GMOs
(Oct 07, 2008)
· Mayor backs ban on GMOs
(Sep 14, 2008)
· Report exposes Government inaction over GE
(Apr 17, 2008)
· Restore Moratorium: GE FailuresThreaten National Interest
(Apr 17, 2008)
· Proposed release of GE vaccine will be protested - Greens
(Mar 13, 2008)
· Demise of GE Sapling Trees.
(Jan 18, 2008)
· Credibility of Food Safety Regulation takes a Significant Hit
(Dec 29, 2007)
· Pamela Peters
(Oct 10, 2007)
· Simon Bliss
(Oct 10, 2007)
· Jimmy Daisley
(Oct 10, 2007)
· Warren Slater
(Oct 07, 2007)
· Vince Cocurullo
(Oct 07, 2007)
· Don Hedges
(Oct 07, 2007)
· Simon Vallings
(Oct 07, 2007)
· Stan Semenoff
(Oct 07, 2007)
· GE onus belongs with polluters, central Government
(Jul 31, 2007)
· LOCAL AUTHORITIES EXPOSE FLAWS IN THE HSNO ACT WHICH MEANS THAT RESPONSIBILITY F
(Jul 25, 2007)
· Responsiblity for GE clean ups would land on local government and local land own
(Jul 24, 2007)
· Former Crop & Food Scientist says GE Brassica field test approval lacked scrutin
(Jun 02, 2007)
· GE Brassica Approval Lacks Common Sense - But Nice Job For Some
(Jun 01, 2007)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Media Release 7 June 2009
Attention; Agriculture, NGO, Environmental, Trade, Science, Consumer, Local Body, and Government Reporters.
Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
(Est. 1941)
Publishers of ORGANIC NZ
HIGH COURT GE DECISION A VICTORY FOR NEW ZEALANDERS
ERMA Shown As Failing Parliaments Intentions.
The High Court has ruled against ERMA’s decision to allow genetically engineered (GE) animals, after an appeal by GE Free New Zealand. The appeal success against these bizarre and open-ended applications for GE animals by Crown Research Institute AgResearch supports the feelings of most New Zealanders, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.
The June 5 High Court judgement ordered that “ERMA’s decision to accept the Applications as applications under s 40 of HSNO is set aside and ERMA is to take no further steps towards hearing and assessing the Applications.”
Polling commissioned by Soil & Health and the animal advocacy organisation SAFE last year (1) confirmed that most New Zealanders oppose GE in animals. More than 1700 people submitted against the applications of AgResearch that potentially allowed 18 types of animal to be genetically modified with animal cell lines (including human and monkey) and E.coli and yeast, at Ruakura and other unidentified facilities. The animals included cows, goats, sheep, pigs, deer, llama, horses, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, chickens and the cell-lines from humans and monkeys.
“The AgResearch applications did not specify which GE constructs would be used, or on what animals, or where in New Zealand the GE laboratory experiments, or field trials, would take place, therefore making risk analysis by the public very difficult, and the High Court has agreed,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Our poll showed twice as many New Zealanders oppose GE in animals than support it, and like GE Free NZ, Soil & Health and hundreds of submitters to the AgResearch applications, the High Court has agreed that “the applications are simply too generic to enable the risk assessment called for by the Hazardous Substance’s and New Organism’s Act (HSNO) to be meaningfully undertaken.”
Judge Clifford had also stated, “that the information necessary for effective public input here has not been made available,” and … “To enable effective public participation, sufficient particularity is required at the application stage.”
“Every ERMA approved field trial, whether plant or animal, has fallen down on its conditions. For AgResearch to be loosely applying for a veritable zoo to play with, was risky, unethical and went against New Zealand’s point of difference in the world: clean green, 100% Pure and essentially GE Free,” said Mr Browning.
“AgResearch’s applications continued the arrogance displayed by other CRIs. Scion disregarded consent conditions originally imposed by ERMA with its GE pine tree field trial, and Plant & Food Research allowed GE brassicas to illegally flower at its Lincoln site. ERMA effectively ignored hundreds of submitters opposed to those trials and the submitters concerns were later realised with the CRIs flouting community concern and the few conditions imposed by ERMA.”
“We are very pleased that ERMA’s complicity with poor compliance of the HSNO Act has been showed up again by this High Court judgement. The high level of complicity with Scion last year by ERMA and MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, and slow action against Plant & Food Research following its December 2008 breaches, shows that the regulatory bodies in New Zealand appear to be manipulated by the pro GE science lobbyists.”
“The High Court decision noted the use of a Mr Slattery as a consultant providing advice to AgResearch on the applications and that previously he had been employed by ERMA as Applications Manager, and that his evidence did not differ greatly from that of the current Application manager. Soil & Health suspects an element of revolving door with Mr Slattery having appeared in another forum as an independent consultant and not declaring his genuine interest.”
The High Court also quoted Environment Minister Nick Smith from a 1996 select committee (2) discussing ERMA’s role, “Neither this Parliament nor the community should want an airy-fairy authority that will make decisions on the whim of the politics of the day. We want an authority
that will base its decisions on rigour and science.”
Minister of the day, Simon Upton was quoted from the same select committee notes, “So the likelihood of the authority making a mistake in terms of the facts of a particular approval is very remote. It is more likely that any mistake will be the result of inadequate or inaccurate information being provided by the application.”
“Soil & Health hopes that the current Environment Minister will ensure that New Zealand follows a clean green Brand New Zealand vision that has no GE in the environment, and that regulatory authorities are robust, making decisions on rigour and science, that are also precautionary and don’t allow high risk activities. AgResearch, Scion and Plant & Food Research seem hell-bent on continuing down a GE path, yet have demonstrably shown a lack of responsibility or capacity to manage,” said Mr Browning.
“Science is showing repeatedly that GE is not safe and the economic risk has not been taken into account correctly by ERMA. As shown by Scion and Plant & Food, Mr Upton’s vision has failed and the likelihood of the Authority making mistakes is no longer ‘remote’ but standard.”
There are no legally operating GE field tests in New Zealand currently with Plant & Food’s previously approved GE alliums on hold while the investigation of the failed GE brassica trial continues, and AgResearch’s GE cattle are unable to be experimented on as the trial consent has expired and now their next applications have been shown to be seriously wanting.
ERMA has indicated to Soil & Health that the penalty for Plant & Food’s serious breach is unlikely to be as severe as we would hope for.
“The consistent mess from the GE community and risks to our clean green image should ensure that Plant & Food do not proceed with any GE field trials. Euthanasia of AgResearch’s current GE herd and elimination of all GE field tests will be better for New Zealand’s environmental and economic future,” says Mr Browning.
Soil & Health promotes an Organic 2020 with food and environment free from GE.
(1) Soil & Health and SAFE GE Animal Poll media release. Text below
(2)Select Committee Quotes re ERMA. Text below.
Steffan Browning
Spokesperson and Co-chair
Soil & Health Association of NZ
021 725655
greeny25@xtra.co.nz
The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc
PO Box 36-170, Northcote, Auckland Phone: (09) 419 4536 Fax: (09) 419 4556
info@organicnz.org
(1) Soil & Health and SAFE GE Animal Poll media release.
12 October 2008
KIWI POLL REJECTS GE ANIMALS
Most New Zealanders are strongly opposed to the genetic engineering of animals in New Zealand, with farmers as ardently opposed as the rest of the community, a new survey shows.
A Colmar Brunton Omnijet survey of over 1000 people, commissioned by the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand and the national animal advocacy organisation SAFE, found that only 27 per cent of New Zealanders, and just 28 per cent of farmers, support genetic engineering (GE) of animals. However six out of ten farmers (61%) who stated an opinion in the survey said they do not support GE of animals, and almost a third of all farmers surveyed (28%) stated they 'don't know.'
The two organisations that commissioned the poll, along with GE Free NZ and the Green Party, mounted nationwide campaigns last month to vehemently oppose four applications submitted by AgResearch to conduct broad-ranging genetic research and the commercialisation of GE animals.
The groups warn the applications threaten New Zealand’s clean green image and could result in potentially catastrophic environmental disasters in addition to animal suffering.
“Twice as many New Zealanders oppose GE than support it,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “These AgResearch applications effectively threaten our entire nation by proposing commercial production, and go much further than just small-scale, contained research.”
SAFE campaign director Hans Kriek said today: “The majority of New Zealanders are opposed to GE animals (55%) and almost one in five (18%) want more information about what is being planned, the risks involved, the effect on the animals and who will really benefit. New Zealanders have an inherent distain for the genetic engineering of animals. When you consider the foetal abnormalities, deformities and congenital health defects of cloned GE animals, kiwis have very valid reasons to oppose GE.”
The survey shows two thirds (67%) of people who expressed an opinion are opposed. Opposition is equally strong across different ethnicities: among those with Maori descent who expressed an opinion nine out of ten (86%) are opposed.
For further details of the survey or for more information please contact: Steffan Browning, Soil & Health Association of NZ spokesperson: 021 725 655
Hans Kriek, SAFE Campaign Director: 027 446 2711
http://safe.org.nz/Campaigns/Genetic-engineering-of-animals/ OR http://www.gefree.org.nz/geanimals.htm OR http://www.organicnz.org
INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS FROM SURVEY
“The public and potential consumers need more information about the actual ‘modifications’ that will be undertaken. The potential to damage the already tarnished ‘green’ image of New Zealand is vast. The prospect of discovering some vague benefit ‘by accident’ is probably outweighed 100-1 by the chance of causing some unexpected harm ‘by accident’.”
“Many historical agricultural moves have been proven to work only for the company that developed them and have not necessarily increased production or profits for farmers”.
“These are the same type of people who said making beef feed from scrapie-infected lamb poses no risk, yet this is where BSE came from.”
“It is part of our ‘clean green’ image overseas to avoid the GE package and with a little-known economy like ours a reputation (even if it’s not true) goes a long way to identifying us.”
“In theory it sounds fantastic to be able to progress with potential medical advancements, however the risks of cross-contamination are unknown and that is why my view is ‘on the fence’.
“I would like more information on what they are doing and how safe it is so that if things go wrong we are protected. I would just want more information to be available as to the exact things they are going to do, not just a general overview. It could be worthwhile but it just doesn’t sound right towards animals.”
“It’s a waste of time and money; just cancel the plan.”
“It is short sighted, our focus should be protecting our clean green and unmodified image.”
“Let the international companies who are backing this research do it in their own countries.”
“It is not time to do this in New Zealand yet. Give it another ten years and try again.”
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The survey of 1007 people was conducted between the 23rd and 28th of September 2008 through Colmar Brunton's Omnijet and is a representative sample of the New Zealand online population.
The question asked:
“Do you support the genetic modification of animals in New Zealand?”
The following statement introduced the question:
Government research institute AgResearch has applied to develop Genetically Modified (GM)* animals at sites around New Zealand, including Waikato, Canterbury, and Southland.
AgResearch are seeking approval for an unlimited period of time, to genetically modify cows, goats, sheep, pigs, deer, llama, horses, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, chickens and cell-lines from humans and monkeys.
The intention is to recombine genes from the different species for research, as well as for commercial production of pharmaceuticals and milks with potential medical effects. The GM animals will be kept indoors or behind secure fencing outdoors. Food products developed from the GM animals will have official approval to be sold.
Concerns raised about the applications include the impact on New Zealand’s clean green reputation, animal suffering in the experiments, potential for new diseases or contamination of soil, and liability of the public for costs of clean-up if something unexpected goes wrong.
AgResearch believes it can be at the cutting edge of genetic modification of ‘transgenic’ animals and become a world leader. It has investment from overseas biotechnology companies which are interested in the cost efficiency of producing pharmaceuticals in New Zealand animals. AgResearch says other benefits may also be found by accident through the experiments.
*Sometimes called Genetically Engineered (GE) organisms.
<end>
(2)Select Committee Quotes re ERMA.
[28] The intended effect of these sections was discussed by the Minister of
Environment (the Hon. Simon Upton) in moving the Bill (as reported from the Select
Committee) for its second reading ((16 April 1996) 554 NZPD 11,899):
This Bill is all about managing the risks to human health, and the wider
environment of hazardous substances and new organisms. The management
of risks is not a science; it is an art. It involves making value judgments on
the basis of technical information that is frequently incomplete. At bottom it
involves judgments about just how risk averse we are. That cannot be
defined on the face of the statute. All we can do is develop institutions,
processes, and guiding principles that enable us to manage risk.
… [W]e have, in promoting legislation like this, implicitly signalled the view
that there is a minimum level of risk aversion in the community that means
we do not want to expose ourselves to an unlimited range of risks and that
sentiment is best captured through a regulatory system that imposes a
uniform standard of acceptable risks.
[29] As to ERMA’s role, the Minister commented (in relation to whether there
should be an appeal de novo):
ERMA, as an expert body, is likely to be as good as, or better than, any other
body or person in deciding on the merits, the facts, of a particular application.
[30] The Minister continued:
The [select] committee’s conclusion was that under the Bill as currently
drafted, much of the judgment to be exercised by the Environmental Risk
Management Authority will be predetermined by regulation. “The
regulations are developed through a public consultation process, and all
interested parties can make their views known. The authority will then
assess a substance or organism and, in the light of the regulations, make a
decision. So the likelihood of the authority making a mistake in terms of the
facts of a particular approval is very remote. It is more likely that any
mistake will be the result of inadequate or inaccurate information being
provided by the application. [Section 62(2)(a)] provides for reassessment on
the basis of new information. This will enable such mistakes to be
corrected”.
I think the select committee was correct in that.
[31] The Chairman of the Select Committee, Mr Nick Smith, commented (at
11,907):
… I think it is quite proper that Parliament expects from the new
Environmental Risk Management Authority a degree of rigour and a degree
of careful assessment of those applications—both for new organisms and for
genetically modified organisms, as well as for chemicals—that ensures both
consistency and a full degree of analysis of the effects of those chemicals.
That is why the select committee has amended the Bill and has introduced a
specific clause that states that the Environmental Risk Management
Authority is required to apply some rigour to the process. Neither this
Parliament nor the community should want an airy-fairy authority that will
make decisions on the whim of the politics of the day. We want an authority
that will base its decisions on rigour and science.
|
|
|
| |
|
| HIGH COURT GE DECISION A VICTORY FOR NEW ZEALANDERS | Login/Create an account | 0 Comments |
|
| | Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
|
|
This page was generated from a MySQL database using PostNuke, a web portal / CMS system written in PHP, and is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
|
|
|
