GE Free Northland - HOME Page

GE Free Northland
( In food and environment )

- for our sustainable future -

Recommended Article

UNRAVELING
THE DNA MYTH
- The spurious foundation of genetic engineering -

"DNA did not create life; life created DNA..... The irony, of course, is that the biotechnology industry is based on science that is forty years old and conveniently devoid of more recent results, which show that there are strong reasons to fear the potential consequences of transferring a DNA gene between species. What the public fears is not the experimental science but the fundamentally irrational decision to let it out of the laboratory into the real world before we truly understand it."

Barry Commoner,
Harper's Magazine Feb 2002

Quote

"Just as all forms of life are interdependent upon each other for survival and growth, no gene works in isolation from all other genes. Genes evolved to exist and work in families, but genetic engineering severs these tight links. It is the imprecision in the manner in which the genes are combined and the unpredictability in how the introduced gene will interact within its new environment, which results in uncertainty. The resulting risks are evidenced both in food and in the environment.

Unlike other past hazards like agrochemicals and BSE, genetic pollution will be passed on to all future generations indefinately."

-Dr. Michael Antoniou (molecular biologist and geneticist, London UK, Witness Brief for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Genetic Modification)

GE : Another form of bioterrorism

"The basic tools and materials for making bio-weapons are the same as those used in 'legitimate' GE applications.

There is little or no defense against bio-weapons, and GE may be worse.

While Bio-weapons are made under strictly contained conditions, many dangerous GE experiments are being done without adequate safety precautions, and hazardous GE [food] products released into the environment as if they were safe.

We urgently need to bring both GE and Bio-weapons under peaceful international control"

-Dr. Mae Wan Ho, geneticist.

Farmers Beware : Insurance and Liability
"NFU Mutual consider that any liability relating to GM farm-scale crop evaluations should rest with the bio-technology companies rather than with the individual farmer. Any farmer thinking of entering into such an arrangement should ensure there is a contractual agreement in force making it clear that all liability resulting from the tests is picked up by the relevant bio-technology company " "NFU Mutual will not indemnify the Insured in respect of any liability arising from the production, supply of or presence on the premises of any genetically modified crop, where liability may be attributed directly or indirectly to the genetic characteristics of such crop. In particular no indemnity will be provided in respect of liability arising from the spread or the threat of spread of genetically modified organism characteristics into the environment or any change to the environment arising from research into, testing of or production of genetically modified organisms". -statement in the National Farmers Union (NFU) insurance policy document. Click to read the whole article..

GE FREE NORTHLAND (in Food & Environment)
is affiliated to:

· GE FREE NZ (in Food & Environment)

· Physicians & Scientists for Responsible Genetics - NZ (P.S.R.G)

· www.sustainabilitynz.org

· www.gefreeregister.co.nz

Genetic Engineering (GMO land use) has no place in QUALITY
primary production and puts our economy, key markets and environment at risk.

Those who wish to engage in controversial GE applications or releases should not have the right to impose unacceptable risks, costs and liabilities on to others.

GE FREE NORTHLAND H.Q.

Secretary
GE FREE NORTHLAND in food & environment
PO Box 1439
Whangarei
Northland

For more info: 09 4322155 (Whangarei) email: zlg@xnet.co.nz

How can you help?

1. JOIN US: subscriptions $25
(send to GE FREE NORTHLAND as above)
so we can continue to do the work that we do.

2. Join GE FREE NZ (in Food & Environment): $25
Postal address: PO Box 693, Nelson South Island
Email: susie@tasman.net http://www.gefree.org.nz

What else can you do?
Become active and let central and local GOVERNMENT and NORTHLAND MP'S know that you don't want GE organisms released into the environment or Genetically Engineered ingredients in the national food supply.

*USE YOUR CLOUT AS A CONSUMER TO ONLY SUPPORT COMPANIES THAT ARE COMMITTED TO BEING GE FREE

THIS IS EASY : USE THE GREENPEACE TRUEFOOD GUIDE -
http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/truefood or ring 0 800 223343

Educate & Inform (yourself & others)

You can start by reading this excellent educational webpage by Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST):
Genetically engineered food Safety Problems, and follow the links.

To understand how tumour causing bacteria and viruses are used to produce Genetically Engineered plants and animals, read "How are genes engineered?".

The material on this website is written so that everybody can understand the essential problems without prior knowledge about genetics.

THINGS YOU CAN DO ON A NATIONAL LEVEL:

- PRESSURE THE GOVERNMENT (including key Ministers)
- regulatory authorities, such as ERMA (Environmental Risk Management Authority
- MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry)
- Ministry for the Environment (MFE).

The Labour led government made a flawed political decision to lift the moratorium on release of GMOs last October, despite the concerns of many eminent scientists, primary producers and the majority of New Zealanders.

Recent polls indicate that 70% of New Zealanders oppose the lifting of the moratorium on GE release (16 August Colmar Bruton poll, August HERALD Digi-Poll)

See Sustainability Council of NZ 16 August 2003 Media Release:
http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/news_item.asp?sID=123

Now is the time to act to reinstate the moratorium further and also block any further GE field trials in Northland. Support the Greens Private Members Bill to reinstate the moratorium on release of GMOs.

Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill

Explanatory Note

This bill reinstates the provisions of sections 6 and 9 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms) Amendment Act 2002. Those provisions expired on 29 October 2003.

The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms) Amendment Act 2002 inserted a new Part 5A into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. Part 5A placed a restriction on the consideration of applications to import new organisms for release or to release new organisms from containment if those organisms were genetically modified organisms.

The bill also provides for the reconsideration of applications received between the expiry of the Part 5A inserted by the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms) Amendment Act 2002, and its reinstatement on the commencement of this bill.

Let our lawmakers know that you don't want GE. Just fill in a few details on the Greens website to send this e-card to all the MPs.

http://www.greens.org.nz/ge/ecard_pmb1.asp

Express your general concerns about GE and point out that Northlanders have already had a bad experience with the inadequately contained GE tamarillo trial (HortResearch) at Kerikeri and ask:

" who will be liable in the event of unintended or unforeseen adverse impacts from GE field trials or release ? "

Demand to know why the government has failed to fund soil testing and cleanup at the HortResearch Kerikeri site.

Demand to know why government lifted the moratorium on GE release last October, despite the fact that:

- they have failed to put in place a truly strict liability regime

- they have failed to make a credible case for the “coexistence” of GE and nonGE crops (transgenic pollution can be caused by wind/pollen/seeds/soils/machinery and other vectors)

- research recommended by the Royal Commission into gaps of knowledge and known risks (like horizontal gene transfer – HGT- in soils) is not complete. The FRST Biotechnology Symposium (5-6^th September 03 in Wellington) confirmed that key research results will not be forthcoming for several years at least.

Contact GOVERNMENT MINISTERS :

Hard copy letters are best, FREEPOST to:

[minister]
Parliament Buildings
Wellington

Helen Clark
Prime Minister
Email: pm@ministers.govt.nz
Phone: 04 471 9998
Fax : 04 473 3579

David Parker
Acting Minister for the Environment
Email: dparker@ministers.govt.nz
Cc. to David.clark@parliament.govt.nz
and sue@davidparkermp.gen.nz and oamaru@davidparkermp.gen.nz

Annette King
Minister for Food Safety
Email: aking@ministers.govt.nz
Phone: 04 470 6554
Fax : 04 495 8445

Pete Hodgson
Minister of Health
Email pete.hodgson@ministers.govt.nz
Phone: 04 470 6558
Fax : 04 495 8449

Chris Carter
Minister of Conservation
Email: ccarter@ministers.govt.nz
Phone: 04 470 6568
Fax : 04 472 8034

Mark Burton
Minister of Local Government
Phone: 04-470-6564
Fax : 04-495-8465

Tell the Minister local regions in NZ want the right to remain GE free in primary production. We believe Northland is a prime candidate for REGIONAL EXCLUSION ZONE (for GE) designation, due to the serious risks to our economy and environment and our unique geographical isolation.

Local government needs adequate provisions to respond to community needs, protect finite resources and avoid transgenic pollution. Last years "New Organisms and other Matters" bill/ legislation and central government have failed to address these needs.

We support an international 5-year moratorium on GE releases as called for by:

Sustainability Council of NZ http://www.sustainabilitynz.org
Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics (PSRG)http://www.psrg.org.nz/
Union of Concerned Scientists (USA) http://www.ucsusa.org/agriculture
Physicians and Scientists for the Responsible Application of Technology http://www.psrast.org/
Independent Science Panel (the Case for a GM-free Sustainable World)http://www.indsp.org/index.php

and other eminent scientists.

LOBBY LOCAL MP'S

Telephone their secretaries for an appointment and send letters freepost c/o Parliament Buildings, Wellington. Urge MP’s to support the

Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill

We have a free "Lobby your MP" kit (GE) available- please ring 09 4322155 or email: zlg@xnet.co.nz to obtain a copy

Whangarei: NZ First MP Brian Donnelly
            15 James Street
            Tel. 09 438 3895
            Fax. 09 438 4082
            Email: bdonnelly@xtra.co.nz

            Labour MP Dover Samuels
            25 Rathbone Street
            tel. 09 430 3616
            email: Dover.Samuels@parliament.govt.nz

            National MP Phil Heatley
            109 Lower Cameron Street
            Tel. 09 438 9992
            Fax. 09 430 3618
            Email: phil.heatley@national.org.nz

Far North: National MP John Carter
            Corner Cobham and Kerikeri Roads (Kerikeri)
            Tel. 09 407 7219
            Fax. 09 497 7352
            Email: John.Carter@parliament.govt.nz

LOBBY LOCAL GOVERNMENT

DEMAND PROTECTION FOR RATEPAYERS AND FARMERS (AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENT) FROM GMO RELEASES

ASK YOUR LOCAL COUNCIL TO INVESTIGATE ENFORCEABLE GE FREE ZONES & REGIONAL EXCLUSION ZONES FOR GMO LAND USE

For a copy of the new (November 2004) GE FREE kit

“How to Lobby your Local and Regional Council” (one free version, another kit costs $35

Contact: Kara Vandeleur kara@wetafx.co.nz H: 04 801 7121 W: 04 387 5785

Tips on lobbying local government to stop release of GE/GMOs (and GE field trials) in your District/Region:

Remember, communities and regions should have the right to decide their own future. Regional Exclusion Zones were a term coined by the Royal Commission into Genetic Modification (in its 2001 report) in order to "preserve opportunities and choice" for all New Zealanders.

We believe local authorities should have the ability to determine independently of ERMA the potential economic impact of a particular GE release on its territory and exercise control over whether or not it should be permitted.

There is a strong desire among many Northlanders to prohibit GMO land use in our Region, due to the serious risks to our economy, key markets and unique environment. There is serious concern that "conditional" release and commercial release of GMO's is not practical or desirable. The government has also failed to put in place a truly strict liability regime, to ensure that the polluter shall pay for unintended and unforeseen adverse effects of GE field trials or crops.

Those who wish to engage in controversial GE applications or releases should not have the right to impose unacceptable risks, costs and liabilities on to others.

Environment Bay of Plenty (Regional Council) has warned a Parliamentary select committee (1 August 2003) that the "consequences of incorrect action may be irreversible" if a moratorium on release of genetically modified organisms is lifted in October

Allowing GE releases or GMO land use risks a major decline in agricultural trade and loss of our "clean green" and "100% Pure" image.

HOW YOU CAN HELP RIGHT NOW:

1. Obtain a copy of the two new Sustainability Council of NZ documents and make sure your local councillors are familiar with it

GM CROPS

Where Local Government Picks Up

(Communities and their elected representatives face a new resource management issue: the outdoor production of genetically modified (GM) food varieties

http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/docs/CouncilOptionsforGMmanagement.pdf

4 pages

and

Frequently Asked Questions About GM, GM Foods and Managing GM in the Community

http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/docs/GM_FAQ.pdf

2. Write to your local Regional Council and District Council and ask them to include you (or your group or organisation) in the community outcomes process (consultation process) for the Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP). Although the first round of consultation has already taken place, you can still formally request to be included in further consultation.

Ask for a copy of the councils "Policy of Significance", then scrutinize it to see if it mentions GENETIC ENGINEERING.

Ask your council to prohibit GMO land use in your District and for GE to be classed a "Matter of Significance".

Ie. "In light of the new legislation on genetic engineering/GMOs, and the serious risks GE represents to our economy and environment, as a council you may wish to initiate a plan change prohibiting any release of GMOs".

See Kaipara Council Press Release on GE (27 June 2003) "Kaipara Gets Strong on GE" http://www.kaipara.govt.nz/media.php?p=1&m=180 and

"Regional council warns of possible "irreversible consequences" if GMO moratorium lifted" (1 August 2003 Press Release, Environment Bay of Plenty Regional Council) - http://www.envbop.govt.nz/publications/media/030801ac.doc

Background:

In view of the Local Government Act 2002, there is a much stronger emphasis and requirement for council to consult with community and reflect community views.

This provides for local authorities to "play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of their communities, taking a sustainable development approach" (S3(d)).

It is of critical importance that local government take action now to keep our region free of GMO’s, to preserve our future options and key markets and protect ratepayers from hazardous new technologies.

3. You can ask your District Council to make a change to their District Plan and adopt the following options:

A) SYMBOLIC STANCE

Declare __________ District a GE FREE ZONE (along the lines of Waitakere District, Nelson, Napier and Buller)

B) REGULATION THROUGH THE DISTRICT PLAN

Make a variation to your District Plan classing GE experiments/commercial release (outside the strict containment of the laboratory) as

i. a Prohibited Activity; or

ii. a Non-complying/Discretionary Activity that would require public notification and a Resource Consent

If GE is not to be prohibited then all persons who are likely to be affected, in any way, must be notified.

Please note that an effective combination could include a symbolic GE FREE stance with regulation through the District Plan (preferably classing GE as a Prohibited activity).

(Regional Councils go through a different process, involving a Plan change although they do not have a District Plan.- they have a Regional Plan, Air Quality and Soil & Water Plan).

4. You can also send your local Regional Council and District Council a detailed list of questions regarding GE (note that the 2 sets of questions are slightly different, tailored for Regional Councils or District councils). Email: zlg@xnet.co.nz or ring 09 4322155 for the set of detailed GE questions.

5. Ask your local District and Regional Council to fund a “Risk Evaluation & Options Report” on GMOs (as Waitakere City Council, Rodney, Kaipara, Whangarei and Far North District Councils recently commissioned)

see

NORTHLAND COUNCILS FUND GE STUDY

The Far North District Council has joined Whangarei, Kaipara, and

Rodney District and Waitakere City Councils to support and jointly

fund a Risks and Options Report on Genetic Engineering in the

Northland peninsula. (10 September 2004, the Bay Chronicle)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/hlc/1,,85652~3030296a6015~,00.html

This will detail the risks of GMOs to our unique geographical region- our unique biodiversity, key markets, economy, brand, primary producers, local iwi, etc.

6. Write to the Prime Minister Helen Clark, Minister of Science and Technology Pete Hodgson, Minister of the Environment Marion Hobbs and Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton (freepost c/o Parliament Buildings, Wellington) Make it clear you do not want GE crops or experiments in your Region. Ask for REGIONAL EXCLUSION ZONE (for GMO land use) designation. Demand a truly strict liability regime for GMOs.

For more information, please contact:

Zelka Grammer
(Chairperson, GE FREE NORTHLAND in Food & Environment)
tel. 09 4322155 (Whangarei)
email: zlg@xnet.co.nz

CONTACT DETAILS LOCAL GOVERNMENT NORTH OF AUCKLAND

NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL
Private Bag 9021
Whangarei
TEL. 09 438 4639 FAX. 09 438 0012
Call free 0 800 002 004
Email: mailroom@nrc.govt.nz
Chairman Mark Farnsworth email: markf@nrc.govt.nz
CEO Warren Maclennan email: warrenm@nrc.govt.nz

WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL
Forum North
Private Bag 9023   Whangarei
TEL. 09 430 4200    FAX. 09 438 7632
Email: mailroom@wdc.govt.nz
Mayor Pamela Peters email: triciac@wdc.govt.nz
General Manager Mark Simpson email: laurelle@wdc.govt.nz
Environmental Services Manager Ian McCalley   email: ianm@wdc.govt.nz

KAIPARA DISTRICT COUNCIL
Private Bag 1001
Dargaville 0300
TEL. 09 439 7059    FAX. 09 439 6756   Call free 0800 727 059
Mayor Peter King
General Manager Jack McKercher
Communications and Services Leader Claire McInness  email: cmciness@kaipara.govt.nz
Regulatory Leader- Mark Vincent
Senior Environmental Policy Planner - Brendan Neal   email: council@kaipara.govt.nz

FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL
Memorial Ave
Private Bag 752    Kaikohe
TEL. 09 405 2750 FAX. 09 401 2137   Call free 0 800 920 029
Mayor Yvonne Sharp email: yls@fndc.govt.nz   cc:   rah@fndc.govt.nz
Senior Environmental Policy Planner Alison Newell   email: Alison.Newell@fndc.govt.nz

General Manager Clive Manley email: cam@fndc.govt.nz
District Secretary Graham Carman email: gjc@fndc.govt.nz
Environmental Services Manager Pam Greenfield email: pjg@fndc.govt.nz

RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL

While Rodney District is technically not part of Northland (the area falling under the jurisdiction of Auckland Regional Council) it is heartening to hear they are taking steps towards becoming a more eco-friendly district. Along with Waitakere City Council, they are our "good neighbors" to the south. Rodney is an official "organic friendly District" and is considering extending that to incorporate a GE free designation as well.

Since the recent GE public meeting at Orewa (2^nd September 2003), at which Mayor Graeme Ramsey of Kaipara and Northland Regional Council Chairman Mark Farnsworth spoke about their concerns about GE and local government policy, Rodney District Council is considering align its GE policies with its neighbours to the north and west. Now is a great time to make your concerns known to the Mayor and your elected ward representatives about GMO land use.

RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL
Private Bag 500 OREWA
TEL. 09 426 5169 FAX. 09 426 0211
Mayor John Law email: jlaw@rodney.govt.nz cc: vshanley@rodney.govt.nz
CEO Wayne Donnelly email: donellw@rodney.govt.nz
Group Manager Environmental Services Geoff Mears email gmears@rodney.govt.nz

GE FREE RODNEY- contact
Chris cooper phone/fax 09 420 5165 (Kaukapakapa) email: c-cooper@clear.net.nz
Jean Bell email: palumbo@nznet.gen.nz Margaret Alyward 09 424 2048 (Whangaparoa)

AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL
http://www.arc.govt.nz/        email: info@arc.govt.nz
tel. 09 366 2000     Fax 09 366 2155

NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

Put pressure on the Northland Regional Council to act in a manner in keeping with its adopted Long Term Council Community Plan re: GMOs- ie. A strong precautionary approach and investigation of the risks of GMO land use to the region..

As you may know, there are a whole range of risks to be examined (the NRC is charged with the sustainable management of resources in the region) including GMO contaminants, discharges, and economic, cultural, and ethical issues. Protection of biodiversity and finite resources in this region is of course of great importance to our organisation.

Send them a strong message that you will not tolerate any future GE field trials or commercial crops in Northland. The NRC has recently taken a number of positive actions regarding GE, with the Chairman Mark Farnsworth actively advocating a precautionary and conservative approach to GE (and even banning GE field trials). See the Chairmans Report (24 June 2003) "Northland Regional Council's Approach to Genetically Modified Organisms" below.

In addition, it clearly states in the NRC adopted Long Term Council Community Plan (in response to the many anti GMO submissions made) that “the Regional Council is a member of a Northland inter-council working group to discuss a common approach to the management of genetically modified organisms in Northland. Until the group has completed its work, the council has decided to adopt a precautionary approach. This means that there should be no further development and field testing of transgenic organisms envisaged for agriculture, horticulture and forestry in Northland, nor any commercial release, until such time as the risk potential has been adequately identified and evaluated and a strict liability regime put in place.”

It also states on p. 43 (under “Measuring progress”) that the following indicator will be used to track the community’s progress towards achieving this community outcome:

“No GE applications approved by ERMA for Northland until the risk potential has been adequately identified and evaluated, and a strict liability regime put in place.”

See

GE-Related Changes Adopted in First 'Northland Community Plan' (Northland Regional Council Press Release, 23 June 2004)

http://www.nrc.govt.nz/reports.and.news/media.releases/2004/june/mr_230604_ltccp_adopted.shtml

The NRC needs to go further however, and protect the environment and ratepayers from hazardous new technologies by putting in place an actual policy change to the Regional Plan prohibiting GMO land use in our Region.

Recent developments:

At the most recent NRC full council meeting (l7 November) in Whangarei, a resolution was passed that "the Northland Regional Council gives support in principle to the work being carried out by the territorial authorities in relation to genetic engineering"

and

"that the Northland Regional Council continues to work with other Regional Councils to seek clarification of regional council roles and responsibilities in the management of genetically modified organisms."

We strongly support points 2 & 3 of this resolution. We urge the NRC to not only work with other councils and Local Government NZ to seek clarification of regional councils roles and responsibilities in the management of genetically modified organisms but for the NRC to take a leading role in the commissioning of this important work.

It is imperative that a legal opinion be obtained on the role of regional authorities regarding GMO land use (as proposed by Local Government NZ and Environment Bay of Plenty) as quickly as possible.

As you know, there are a whole range of risks to be examined (the NRC is charged with the sustainable management of resources in the region) including GMO contaminants, discharges, and

economic, cultural, and ethical issues. Protection of biodiversity and finite resources in this region is of course of great importance to our organisation.

We note that in the NRC adopted Long Term Council Community Plan it states (p. 41):

"there should be no further development and field testing of transgenic organisms envisaged for agriculture, horticulture and forestry in Northland, nor any commercial release, until the risk potential has been adequately identified and evaluated and a strict liability regime put in place".

For the NRC to contribute financially to ensure that the Local Government NZ proposed legal opinion on the role of regional authorities re: GMO land use (including: GMO's as a potential contaminant, discharges and so forth) is commissioned would be an excellent way of "adequately identifying and evaluating" the risk potential of GMOs for Northland (and other regions).

The NRC has a legal obligation to protect finite resources like soils & protect biodiversity under the Resource Management Act. In their Annual Plan (2001-2002) they state (in their Vision for the Region) the following ideals:

ECOSYSTEMS :	Ecosystems, indigenous vegetation and fauna, and their significant habitats, protected. The biodiversity of Northland is maintained.
LAND :	Land with productive soils, free from accelerated erosion and harmful CONTAMINANTS.
AIR :	Clean air free from harmful contaminants.

Hold them to it!
Evidence and experience from overseas strongly indicates that GE is incompatible with conventional farming, Integrated Pest Management systems and organic farming.

In our view, Northland should be classed a REGIONAL EXCLUSION ZONE for GMO land use (in order to protect our unique environment, quality primary production, and growing organic industry and tourism). This distinction could be written into regional or district plans, just as industrial use is separated from residential use.

The Northland Regional Council's Approach To Genetically Modified Organisms

File 900.14.1

Report from the Chairman dated 24 June 2003.

Over the past two years, the Northland Regional Council has had numerous approaches over the need for a policy on the management and control of genetically modified organisms. At the last two Annual Plan hearings, the Council has been actively lobbied to ensure that the Northland region becomes a GE-free environment.

The recent debate on the subject at a GE Conference at Kaikohe clearly demonstrated that the scientific community is highly polarised on this matter.

There are two clear camps: Those who see the benefits that can result from GE; versus those that can see the potential harm that can result from the use of the technology.

Given this environment it is almost impossible for councils to make an informed decision on the matter. Up to now this Council has supported the moratorium, adopting a "wait and see" approach and has indicated that it expects that the matter will be regulated by clear policy direction and resourcing from central government. The Government have been slow in addressing the matter. Attached to this report is a piece of work commissioned by Environment BOP on the subject and a legal opinion from Cooney Lees Morgan. The Environment BOP report highlights the conundrum that councils face. It is evident that there are a series of unanswered questions that need to be addressed, especially in the areas of liability, control and risk. Risk in particular has yet to be quantified.

It has been noted to Council that it may have responsibilities under the Resource Management Act 1991 for the regulation of GMOs in Northland. Cooney Lees Morgan provides a highly qualified legal opinion on this matter. If it is accepted that Council may have responsibility, then the most prudent course of action is for the Council to take a precautionary approach - GM trials should remain strictly controlled in the laboratory.

Once the fundamental questions of risk, liability and control have been addressed, then the Council will be in a position to re-address the matter.

If the Council accepts the premise that GMOs are a central government matter, I still suggest that the Council accepts the view that under the fundamental questions have been addressed, GM trials should remain in the laboratory.

GM has the potential to be both a good genie and a bad genie. We need to be very sure of our ground before we move forward to encourage GM field trials in Northland.

E:\WORDDATA\CHAIRMAN\2003\REPORTS\GE - COUNCIL'S APPROACH JUNE 2003.DOC

ENDS

PRESS RELEASE GE FREE NORTHLAND (in Food & Environment)

3 July 2003

Northland Regional Council Chairman's Report on GE identifies the need for a Precautionary approach

Northland Regional Council released a report on Genetically Modified Organisms this week, in which Chairman Mark Farnsworth states that the "most prudent course of action is for the Council to take a precautionary approach- GM trials should remain strictly controlled in the laboratory."

GE FREE NORTHLAND spokesperson Zelka Grammer said today she applauded the leadership of the NRC Chairman on this critical issue, at a time when the Labour led government continues to ignore the concerns of both eminent scientists and the majority of New Zealanders about the environmental and economic uncertainties of the use of GMO's outside the strict containment of the laboratory.

A further resolution passed yesterday by full council (to lobby central government over its concerns about areas of liability, control and risk of GMOs) shows that local authorities don't have to wait for central Government to decide the future of their communities.

This responsible approach to environmental protection coincides with the release of an independent review which questions the capability of the Government's environmental watchdog to regulate genetically engineered crops and animals.

The report also highlights serious gaps in ERMA's ability to deal with the range of issues it is supposed to administer under the HSNO act. In particular the lack of ecological, strategic, social science expertise and ethical perspectives has alarmed independent scientists and the community as it has led to ERMA compromising the Precautionary Principle.

"ERMA is shown to be in no position to look after the national interest if the moratorium on GE release is allowed to lapse," says Zelka Grammer from GE FREE NORTHLAND (in Food & Environment).

The review goes on to identify concerns over monitoring, and co-ordinating compliance with relevant legislation. It also points to tensions in the relationship between ERMA and the Ministry for the Environment over controls and monitoring, and says it is in this area that the system of risk management for new organisms is most vulnerable.

The report said there was poor oversight by ERMA of compliance and monitoring of conditions set on GE approvals, and poor coordination between ERMA and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) -- which enforces the conditions set by ERMA.

The report adds new evidence supporting the extension of the moratorium on GE applications. The public have been shown to be correct in not placing blind trust in organizations like ERMA and MAF.

The public of New Zealand need legislation that requires ERMA to protect our environment from GE contamination and acknowledge regional choices to prohibit GE primary production.

It is now the responsibility of MP's passing the "New Organisms and Other Matters" Bill to ensure this happens.

Contact: Zelka Grammer, Chairperson GE FREE NORTHLAND (in Food & Environment)
09 432 2155

ENDS

http://www.gefree.org.nz/press/28062003.htm

WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL adopted LONG TERM COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLAN (LTCCP) states: “Council will adopt a precautionary approach to the management of biotechnology in general and GMO land uses in particular. It will continue to investigate ways of maintaining the district’s environment free of GMOs until the outstanding issues such as liability, economic costs and benefits, environmental risks, and cultural effects are resolved.”

On p. 62 (under PLANNING- Key Projects) it states “A discussion paper, including a legal opinion, addressing the ability of the council to regulate Genetically Modified Organisms has been obtained in conjunction with other Northland local government authorities. Further discussions will be taking place with the community and central government on this matter.”

Well done WDC!

Kaipara Gets Strong on GE

The Kaipara District Council has decided to limit the release of Genetically Engineered Organisms within the Kaipara District after the lifting of the moratorium which is due later this year. It has requested that its staff report to the August Council meeting on the methods which can be used and their likely effectiveness.

"This is a bold move for a conservative rural Council" according to Mayor Graeme Ramsey. "Two years ago such a decision would have been rejected but today the level of concern is so great that there was little doubt that something needed to be done."

Council debated a number of options. It rejected the option of doing nothing as it believed that its role was to provide leadership within the community. Likewise it decided not to declare Kaipara a GE free area as this is largely a symbolic gesture. Rather, Council decided on a "precautionary" approach of seeking a means to limit the release of GMOs.

Mayor Graeme Ramsey told Council that after Council's own research, and a considerable number of submissions and correspondence, it was time for Council to decide on a direction. "Scientific evidence is clearly divided and it does not provide a basis for decision making. Likewise the economic benefit is doubtful. While Council's legal position is unclear, as a community and a District we need more debate upon the subject. To do so we will need more time. Rushing into the release of GMOs will not provide the time necessary for the community to have such a debate".

Councillors in the debate pointed out that Kaipara is a food producing District therefore the issue was more than academic.

Several said that decisions such as this cannot be left to scientists'. Rather these decisions need to be taken by ordinary people using a range of criteria.

"This approach, which may commit the Council to the expenditure of money, is the most prudent approach in the face of a government which appears to be charging headlong into this area on the basis of very divided evidence."

"This is a momentous decision. We recognise and accept the need to provide leadership. We hope in doing so to stimulate the debate on the subject that is needed within our community", said Mayor Ramsey.

Contact Numbers :
Graeme Ramsey 025 748202 & 09 439 5668

ENDS

Our response:

GE Free Northland, 28^th June 2003

GE FREE NORTHLAND applauds Kaipara District Council GE decision

Kaipara District Council signalled its strong opposition to genetic engineering this week, voting to limit the release of Genetically Engineered Organisms within the District.

GE FREE NORTHLAND spokesperson Zelka Grammer said today she applauded the much needed leadership of the Mayor and full council on this critical issue, at a time when the Labour government continues to ignore the concerns of both eminent scientists and the majority of New Zealanders.

The move by Kaipara Council shows that local authorities don't have to wait for central Government to decide on the future of their communities.

Councillor Bruce Rogan is correct when he states that ordinary sensible citizens- rather than scientists and businessmen- should make decisions on GE on behalf of their children and grandchildren.

Kaipara District Council obviously recognizes the significant threat to local primary producers from GE experiments and crops whose pollen and seeds can spread via the wind, soil and farm machinery. We hope that Whangarei District Council, Far North District Council and Northland Regional Council will emulate Kaipara's precautionary and conservative stance and act swiftly to protect ratepayers from hazardous new technologies like GE.

Northland is a prime candidate for REGIONAL EXCLUSION ZONE designation, due to its geographical location and the risks GE presents to our economy and environment.

The majority of New Zealanders don't want to eat genetically engineered food, and they don't want genetically engineered organisms released into their backyard.

Without a strict liability regime, innocent third parties and local authorities remain at risk. Liability for unforeseen adverse effects of GE needs to be satisfactorily resolved before any release of GMOs occur.

See "NZ Law Commission Report on Liability/GE"
http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/Documents/Publications/NZLC_GMO___.pdf

Contact: Zelka Grammer, Chairperson
GE FREE NORTHLAND (in Food & Environment)
09 432 2155

Martin Robinson
09 407 8650

ERMA (Environmental Risk Management Authority)
http://www.ermanz.govt.nz

The independent review of ERMA clearly showed numerous flaws in ERMA. In our view, this illustrates that ERMA is incapable of protecting our unique environment and the public health.

Help us by opposing any new GE field trial applications or applications for GE release with written submissions
(don't forget to make clear that you wish to speak to your submission).

Check their website or check our updates for info on any new applications for risky experiments (some funded with your tax dollars!) here in NZ.

MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry)
http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/

MAF has admitted that they have neither the funding nor the expertise to monitor GE outside the strict containment of the laboratory, and yet this is the role that they have been given.

We have serious misgivings as to the ability of MAF to carry out its role in monitoring and attempting to contain GE organisms. Recently, due to MAF’s inadequate biosecurity protocols for seed importation into NZ, there was another illegal GMO biosecurity breach (GM contaminated maize). As opposed to “ponying up” and acknowledging their mistakes (and vowing to do better) MAF tried to hide their contribution to the problem and even lobbied for our Zero Tolerance Policy (on unintended GM presence in imported seeds) to be dropped. Fortunately, MAF was not able to pull this off and were forced to pull their Cabinet paper.

MAF EXPOSE

MAF and Corson Grain seems rather over-eager to see NZ's Zero Tolerance Policy (for adventitious GM contamination in imported seed) abandoned (see RURAL NEWS, l3 July 04).

Could it be that MAF and Corson Grain are trying to portray GM contamination in NZ as "inevitable" when refinement of the existing biosecurity protocols for seed importation could do the job?

The managing director of Corson Grain, John Corson, recently advocated abandoning Zero Tolerance following the detection of 0.05 percent illegal GE content in his imported seed.

However, as with any illegal action (say Foot and Mouth), a breach of the law does not require the law to be abandoned. Especially when in this particular case, very basic (and rectifiable)procedural errors were made by the US testing laboratory and MAF.

Instead of hinting at weakening NZ's Zero Tolerance Policy, MAF should focus on the unnecessary errors made by the US testing lab (Biogenetics Services) which then resulted in GM contaminated seed slipping into seed consignments sent to NZ (thanks to MAF still not having a clear written contract stipulating the way low level results should be interpreted and reported, despite previous experience with "Corngate" and Pacific Seeds).

BGS detected low levels of GM maize contamination but did not see fit to report it.

Last month MAF finally tightened the protocols around testing of the crops (seeds) most likely to be GE contaminated: sweet corn and maize, soy beans, and canola. Only one kind of test can now be used, and there has been clarification of the way low-level results should be interpreted and reported.

Seed companies have access to the technology to check for GE content, and the taxpayer should not be paying for the mistakes of those companies. It seems only fair that liability for GE contamination should remain with the companies which imported or used GE seed.

Removal of our Zero Tolerance standard would involve knowingly accepting routine and randomly-distributed contamination. This could damage New Zealand's image as a supplier of pure and high quality foods and could include pharmaceutical contamination or GE varieties illegal to sell for human consumption like Starlink* corn (that has cost millions of dollars in product recalls in the US).

Pharmaceutical GE crops are being grown right now outdoors in the US, despite a number of contamination incidents and growing concerns from many eminent scientists and the food industry.(see NEW SCIENTIST, "GM crop mishaps unite friends and foes "18 November 02).

What are the potential consequences of contamination from these? Some of the maize grown in NZ is used for human food- corn chips, starch etc.

If genes find their way from pharm crops into food crops, we could wind up with drug-laced corn flakes or taco shells.

One sector of the industry should not have the right to impose unacceptable risks, costs and liabilities on to others.

The real questions that need to be answered by MAF and Minister of Agriculture Jim Sutton are:

Why isn't MAF expending more effort into improving the process?

What has MAF done?

Now is the time to improve and refine existing biosecurity systems designed to protect NZ from biological incursions, not weaken them.

Biosecurity resources are currently very stretched. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to lift the moratorium until such time as NZ's biosecurity capacity has increased to a level where it can adequately address current problems, let alone take on new responsibilities.

Regarding "Coexistence"- MAF's claim that they can keep GE and nonGE primary production seperate (something the Americans have failed miserably at - for example the Starlink corn debacle that cost millions of dollars and massive product recalls) would be a joke if it wasn't so serious.

MAF's performance (despite “good intentions” and some dedicated staff) re: the Varroa bee mite, the Painted Apple Moth, Guava Moth and other stuffups hardly inspires confidence that they could possibly "contain" and monitor GE organisms (vectors for dispersal include pollen and seeds via insects, wind, soils, and farm machinery).

see (article): "GE Monitoring Slack, MAF says":

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry oversees facilities where GE experiments are done. However, MAF biosecurity authority director, Barry O' Neill said it could not monitor the effects of GE, either in containment, or after commercial release. Nobody was monitoring such effects. Even if MAF had more funds, it lacked the skills to monitor effects of GE, he said.
(Evening Post, 5 August 2000)

Let MAF know you're not impressed, email:
Richard Ivess (Director, Plant Biosecurity) email:    ivessr@maf.govt.nz
Graeme King email: kingg@maf.govt.nz
Peter Kettle  email:    kettlep@maf.govt.nz
David Wansbrough   email: WansbroughD@maf.govt.nz

More background on GE maize contamination Gisborne:

Gisborne Herald 9/10/2002 Page 3 - Officials fail to quell GE worries

MAF and Environment Risk Management Authority (ERMA New Zealand) officials failed to quell local concerns about GE at a public meeting in Gisborne last night. Genetically engineered corn was grown in this district in field trials as far back as the 1990s, a crowd of more than 60 people were told.

There had been three approved trials in Gisborne with GM corn in the 1990s which consisted of less than a few hundred square metres in each case.

The trials were held at Corson Grain's research areas but Mr Hannah did not know where those areas were. That angered some people in the crowd and he said he would provide the location to the Gisborne Environment Centre which arranged the public meeting.

The government officials said in the recent incident three local fields had been planted with imported seed. Male and female lines were grown on a 12-hectare plot while two separate plots totalling .5 hectares were planted with one of the lines only. Sampling of the hybrid seeds found that GM was present in a concentration of less than 1 in 2000 seeds which was estimated to consist of 319 plants in the hybrid field and nine in the female inbred field.

The seed crops were later destroyed by Pacific Seeds under MAF supervision while MAF and ERMA were to monitor the fields until March, 2003.

Donald Hannah of ERMA, said according to research "virtually nothing" would happen to grazing animals or birds as they would digest and break up any genetically modified DNA. Laboratory researchers found that soil contamination by mulched DNA "was very, very rare where they had tried to do it". "We think there has not been a transfer of genetic material from those plants into that soil of any significant amount."

At the end of the night a wide cross-section of the community including farmers, bee keepers, environmentalists, members of the public, a Gisborne District Councillor and a District Health board member asked questions and all seem unimpressed. "It defies belief that we are playing with chemical balances that have been five billion years of evolution in the making," said one man. "And you put out a document that actually justifies that. It's beyond comprehension."

Mr Hannah said scientists were trying to "drive those effects" to enhance knowledge of what was going on. Scientists were "monitoring" and wanted to know if there was a problem and if there was, do something about it. "It will be too late," a woman called out from the crowd.

A man asked if anyone in any ministry had survived as a dissenting voice. Stephen Vaughan, of the Ministry for the Environment, said "all of us from time to time".

At the time of the recent Gisborne plantings "people within government" were looking ahead and asking what were the consequences for the country if other countries grew more GM crops. There were politicians and other government departments who wanted to make more money for New Zealand or advance science. "Those people had said that is the way we think the world should be. We had all been in that position of saying 'just a minute'. "

One person said he couldn't understand the point of GM corn as overseas markets didn't want such products. David Wainsbrough of MAF said the Government was interested in finding out if there was any benefit in GE technology. If New Zealand wanted any such benefits the country would have to have their own technology. Farmers were also aware of consumer demand.

"It is not always as clear-cut as it's reported." Europe was conducting GM trials while Japan was importing GM soya bean oil. The Government wanted a system where benefits and risks could be assessed so opportunities would not be missed out on.