Posted 26th November 2001

CHH Abandons GM Trial Fearing Hit On Profits

A trial previously approved for genetically modified pine trees and sheep
has been abandoned by Carter Holt Harvey because the New Zealand
conglomerate does not want to be at the centre of a "political storm" at a
time when proposed new rules for GM experiments are to go before the
cabinet today and may be introduced to Parliament as an amendment bill
soon. Maori opposition to GM will be dealt with next year in a second
amendment. The new rules should not have affected Carter Holt Harvey's pine
tree field trial because it had an existing approval under conditions set
years ago. But it has pulled out anyway citing consumer resistance to the
process.

The NZ Royal Commission on GM said it was essential that all material
associated with field trials - any "heritable material" - be removable from
a site, a term as yet undefined (like much of the liberal waffle in the
Royal Commission report).

GM proponent the Life Sciences Network said that would mean the issue had
to be decided by the courts, which would be costly for any applicant whose
approval was challenged said spokesman Francis Wevers, who added the term
should be defined officially either in the law or elsewhere. "The
Government had always hoped this piece of legislation would be simple and
uncontroversial," Mr Wevers said. "The fact that it's taken several weeks
of intense political negotiations following the completion of the work by
the officials suggests it's not going to be."

Carter Holt Harvey environmental manager Murray Parrish said the trial the
company had planned to take from the lab into the field had no commercial
application, but would have helped test the success of scientific work done
so far. "We support the technology in principle and can see a range of
opportunities, environmentally and commercially, but if consumers don't
want it for whatever reason we would be pretty silly to produce it," he
said, adding CHH supported the Government's "proceed with caution" approach
to GM and saw a need for appropriate controls on research. But it did not
want to compromise its commercial viability or `community standing', a code
word for profit levels.

Meanwhile, a big question mark is emerging over whether field trials will
able to proceed because of fierce scientific and political debate over the
degree to which soil in which trees or other crops are planted becomes part
of any experiment. The other trials approved by the Environmental Risk
Management Authority but yet to start are two more involving pine trees
that the Forest Research Institute wants to do at Rotorua and one involving
sheep that AgResearch plans for the Waikato. Both abided by the voluntary
moratorium the Government called for while the commission sat. It lifted
the moratorium last month when it announced its response to the
commission's recommendations.

At that time, Forest Research scientist Dr Chris Walter was confident of
having GM trees in the ground by Christmas, but yesterday he said the issue
of how to secure the seedlings from vandals or protesters was troubling. He
described as "absurd" the suggestion that soil could be considered
heritable material and therefore need removing after any trial. He
interpreted heritable to mean the soil or organisms in it could produce a
new tree. Pat Clark, a consultant to GE Free Northland, disagreed. "There
is plenty of evidence to suggest that DNA, which of course is heritable
material, can survive [as the root material decomposes] and can exert a
transgenic effect itself even in the soil environment," he said.

The AgResearch trial may also not go ahead, but for a different reason. Dr
Paul Atkinson said the field trial to produce sheep with "bigger backsides"
and therefore more meat was not ready to progress beyond the laboratory and
he did not know when it would be. The all pervasive shadow of money lurks
behind every pro-GM comment, making a mockery of the argument that GM is
all aobut improving people's health and quality of life.