Posted on 9-4-2002
Greens
Clearing GMO Policy
Intro by stu@ihug.co.nz
The following comes from Jeanette Fitzsimmons because of criticism
of the
Greens support for the HSNO Amendment Bill.
Because it might become more widespread, and perhaps a public
issue, its
necessary to air this widely in order to keep clear what the
issues are and
avoid unecessary division based on poor quality information.
Keep in mind
that there are a range of views expressed by various members
of the
Auckland and the National GE Free Coalitions, but that one focus
held by
all is for a GE Free NZ in food and environment. This allows
for views that
call for a line at the lab door (as per the Greens) and calls
for a
complete ban.
Groups haven't managed to work together up to now. I personally
think that
we should continue to work together, in support of each other,
which
doesn't necessarily rule out criticism or disputes and disagreement,
but
does necessitate consideration and respect for others' opinions.
..........
A perspective on the HSNO Amendment Bill From Jeanette Fitzsimons
(who sat
on the select committee considering the bill for the Green Party)
Summary:
1. On field tests, the bill makes the existing law no worse,
though only
slightly better.
2. On release, the bill imposes a moratorium which would otherwise
not
exist, but for far too short a time. However it gives time to
renegotiate
this at election time.
3. On xeno and human genetic engineering the bill provides a
ban where
currently there is no legislation to stop it. It also provides
a process
for exemptions which we don't like, but is much more restrictive
than the
status quo.
My assessment then, is that on every count the bill improves
the status
quo. It does not go nearly far enough, but there is no respect
in which it
takes us backwards. So in terms of improving outcomes, I would
vote for it.
There seems to be a growing feeling that the Greens should vote
against the
HSNO Amendment bill, and therefore against the establishment
of a
moratorium on release of GE. This puzzles me. I have replied
at length to
Tremane's earlier posting, explaining that if this bill doesn't
go through,
full commercial release of all GE plants and animals can proceed
immediately. This hasn't changed Tremane's view that the bill
somehow takes
us further from a GE Free future. If I believed that were so,
I would of
course vote against it. But I don't.
The Greens oppose any GE field tests because we believe GE organisms
should
be kept in a contained laboratory. However field tests have
been legal and
have taken place for nearly two decades. There have been 13
approved since
ERMA came into being and quite a number before that. We all
hoped that the
outcome of the royal commission would be a ban on field tests
but that has
not been the case.
This bill does not "permit" or in any way encourage field tests.
They are
already provided for in law. What it does is impose some stricter
conditions on them, as described by Tremane - compulsory inspection
and
monitoring conditions, ERMA required to consider HGT, (both
of these
because I fought very hard to get the bill changed in select
committee and
succeeded to this extent.) Tremane seems to think that because
I worked to
get stricter conditions on field tests I must be in favour of
them. That is
not true - if a ban is not possible, surely making them more
difficult is
still worth doing? But I'm puzzled as to why people are so obsessed
with
field tests and so unconcerned about full release. Surely there's
a
difference between half an acre of canola with no pollen or
seed allowed to
form and all the plants pulled up at the end of the season,
and thousands
of acres of it every year with no conditions at all? Of course
we don't
want either, but if a ban on field tests cannot be achieved
at the moment,
surely it is even more important to have a ban on release?
The only thing standing between our current more or less GE
Free status and
approval to grow GE plants and animals everywhere is the moratorium
put in
place by this bill. The old moratorium expired when the govt
made its
policy announcement last October. The new one only becomes law
when this
bill passes. If we vote against it, it may not pass. The only
other party
who might vote for it is NZ First and they would probably demand
other
changes as they don't support us on all aspects. Of course we
are totally
opposed to the clause that automatically lifts the moratorium
next year. We
will vote against it, as I did in the select committee, and
move an
amendment in the House, but we will lose. So in the end the
choice we have,
is to vote for a moratorium that ends in 18 months time, or
no moratorium
at all. The expiry date is after the election so there is the
opportunity
to negotiate when a new government is being formed if they need
our support.
I think Tremane's position rests on a misunderstanding of a
paragraph in
the select committee report, which states the Alliance and Green
parties'
minority view about the moratorium. It reads:
`The primary purpose of the constraint period is to allow research
on risk
to be undertaken and evidence of safety satisfactorily established.
They
(Greens and Alliance) believe that the generic and strategic
issues for New
Zealand in respect of GM are such that it is necessary to prevent
any GM
release until it has been firmly established that there is no
prospect of
harm to New Zealand s environment, economic or social well-being
from GM
organisms. The Alliance and Green Parties recommend that the
date for the
ending of the restraint period be removed, and the period be
extended until
evidence of safety is established.'
This reflects the fact that the govt has let contracts for a
great deal of
research on GMOs and various aspects of safety, including HGT
and they say
these will report before the moratorium is lifted. However there
is no
provision to consider the results of this research before allowing
release
of GMOs which makes a mockery of the whole thing. Tremane then
goes on to say
`As such, both parties support GMO field trials to try and prove
their
safety.'
This is a complete misunderstanding. There is no connection
between the
field tests and the research into safety. The work that is being
done on
safety is theoretical and laboratory based - contracts totalling
$800,000
have been let by FORST but they do not involve field tests.
Field tests are
not being allowed so they can prove safety - they are being
allowed by the
govt, against our strong opposition, so scientists can comercialise
their
inventions. Neither the govt nor we are claiming we need field
trials to
prove safety - they want them for other reasons, and we can't
stop them.
Most of the rest of Tremane's report is an attempt to show that
field tests
can't tell you much about safety of GMOs - which I completely
agree with,
and have never thought otherwise. My statement in the report
is quite
straightforward and easily understood:
The Green Party does not agree that field tests outside a contained
laboratory should resume at this time. The Greens believe the
scientific
controversy over HGT and clean up of test sites is evidence
that the risks
are not yet sufficiently understood to control the ecological
risks of
growing GM organisms in contact with the environment. However,
in the
absence of agreement on this, the Party supports the greater
controls
introduced. What is unclear about this? Yet Tremane has misunderstood
it
because he thinks we are supporting field tests to demonstrate
safety of GMOs.
On the issue of the Treaty, the govt intends to pass legislation
to
strengthen the Treaty clause in the HSNO Act when it has consulted
further.
It is not possible to do this by amendment to this bill - it
is outside the
scope as introduced and would be ruled out of order by the Speaker.
The sections on xenotransplantation and germ line genetic engineering
of
human babies were introduced to the bill later as a supplementary
order
paper. You will see from my first reading speech that I voted
against this
because it allowed exemptions by ministerial discretion. I argued
hard to
get a public process into the bill so that the minister cannot
decide
without public submissions. I am not happy with the word "may"
which
suggests she could avoid such a process but our legal advice
is that if she
did she would be open to legal action through judicial review.
I intend to vote against the clauses allowing exemptions, but
I will lose.
I cannot then oppose these sections without opposing the whole
bill. So in
summary, these are the choices:
1. On field tests, the bill makes the existing law no worse,
though only
slightly better.
2. On release, the bill imposes a moratorium which would otherwise
not
exist, but for far too short a time. However it gives time to
renegotiate
this at election time.
3. On xeno and human genetic engineering the bill provides a
ban where
currently there is no legislation to stop it. It also provides
a process
for exemptions which we don't like, but is much more restrictive
than the
status quo.
My assessment then, is that on every count the bill improves
the status
quo. It does not go nearly far enough, but there is no respect
in which it
takes us backwards. So in terms of improving outcomes, I would
vote for it.
The only reason I can see to vote against it is to play politics
- one
could make some great campaign speeches about being totally
pure and
refusing to improve the system for field tests because they
should not
exist at all - but lose the moratorium.
I would really like to hear from others what you think. All
the members of
the GE Free movement want the same thing and we will all continue
to fight
for a GE Free future. It is a question of tactics and I believe
we should
work for the best outcome, rather than the one that will make
us feel good.
The bill is likely to be back in the House in thesecond half
of April.
|