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.
|