Posted 09th August 2001

Risk Without Reward

The New Zealand Society for Risk Management has responded to the report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, expressing disappointment that the inquiry did not follow recognised best practice in risk management. Formed late last year, and with a membership of over 200 professionals from the private, government and academic sectors, the Society aims to improve the knowledge and practice of risk management in New Zealand. For more details, see the Society's website at www.risksociety.org.nz.

The Society's spokesperson, Karen Price, says that genetic modification clearly has the potential to deliver benefits to society but there are uncertainties as to the extent of those benefits and the extent and likelihood of adverse effects. "GM poses risks. As with any risk, it is important to understand the context in which it occurs, which includes the wellbeing of present and future New Zealanders and the environment. There are recognised methods through which those risks can be identified and treated so that socially preferred outcomes are more likely and less desirable outcomes are avoided or reduced. We are disappointed that an explicit risk management model was not able to be used. This has reduced the potential usefulness of the inquiry and leaves a range of issues still to be resolved."

The Society notes that the Royal Commission was an eminent panel and has produced an extensive report, however, it has done so within the constraints of the Terms of the Order in Council provided by the Government. The Society has doubts about how far the principles of risk management were specified in those terms of reference and applied by the Commission. "It is unfortunate that the Order in Council did not require the Commission to adopt an explicit risk management process, as set down in the Australia/New Zealand Standard 4360:1999 for Risk Management. This would have exerted greater rigour in the work of the Commission for example requiring the panel to state the criteria they were using and the weightings applied to different risks." Technological developments, such as GM, are best managed after identifying the full context of possible effects, both positive and negative and the risks of those effects. In this case, the context is the wellbeing of all New Zealanders and the future viability of our ecological and agricultural systems. It clearly includes a wide spectrum of interests. The Commission has made efforts to evaluate and reflect those viewpoints but it has not identified the extent to which it has captured the full balance of social objectives.

Risks cannot be assessed or treated unless there is a clear understanding of both likelihood and consequences; the uncertainties involved; and how those risks rank with other risks already accepted by the community. The Commission has recorded information from submitters on the risks of GM but has not always provided sufficient analysis of the risks eg for the environment and human health. The Report has discussed one of the more significant risks from genetic technologies, that of legal liability for both foreseeable and unanticipated damage but the Society considers that there are still many important issues to be resolved.

The Report of the Royal Commission should be seen as a beginning and not an end in this process. It has set ambitious targets for the Government and in fact the whole community. The Society hopes that in considering the Report the Government will more explicitly adopt a risk management framework. This would include: Identifying the risks posed by different forms and uses of genetic technology Assessing those risks in the light of uncertainty and consequence - and considering levels of social acceptance Prioritising the risks involved, including those that should be either avoided altogether or accepted subject to appropriate management Identifying appropriate treatment for specific risks Actively involving the community in discussion and education on the nature of the various risks and their management...