GE onus belongs with polluters, central Government
The recent disclosure by the Environment Minister to a group of Northland and Auckland councils that central Government takes no responsibility for GE crops that go wrong confirms the Green Party position that no release of GE organisms should be allowed, the Greens’ Co-Leader Jeanette Fitzsimons says.
“There is no demand for GE food from markets - in fact the demand is all the other way. Why would we allow a rogue, unwanted food crop to contaminate a premium crop with high market demand, and then let the polluter off with no responsibility ?†Ms Fitzsimons says.
“Growers of GE free and organic products that attract a premium have a right to be able to pursue their business without being contaminated by new, unwanted technologies.
“The Government has confirmed that if the Environmental Risk Management Authority approves the release of a GE organism ( which could be a vegetable, a grain, an animal or a micro-organism ) and it contaminates the land or products of growers whose markets demand it be GE free, the owner of the GE organism is off the hook as far as paying compensation, or the costs of a clean-up - assuming they haven't broken any laws.
“What this means is that if a central Government agency such as ERMA gets its risk analysis wrong, and approves a release which goes on to damage other growers, the Government will take no responsibility. The victims and their local community will have to bear the costs, as best they can.
"What is at stake is New Zealand’s market access for food that can still be guaranteed to be GE free, as consumers in Europe and Japan want. That alone is reason enough to exclude GE organisms from New Zealand.
"However, this Government has legislated to allow release, although no-one yet has applied to do it. They cannot now stand back and say ‘it won’t be our problem’ should something go wrong.
"We can only assume this cavalier attitude to New Zealand growers is driven by the wish for a free trade agreement with the US, the source of most GE products, which demands that nothing be put in the way of their profits from this technology. It is a very, very bad bargain for New Zealand.
“Local councils are justified in setting up their own bans on GE releases until strict liability is legislated - so that any owner of a GE organism that causes harm is required to stump up for the full costs involved.
“This matter should not be to left to the Auckland and Northern councils to sort out. Local Government New Zealand should be making its feelings clear to central Government that it cannot offload the major financial liability for its GE decisions onto local growers and ratepayers.†Ms Fitzsimons says.
“There is no demand for GE food from markets - in fact the demand is all the other way. Why would we allow a rogue, unwanted food crop to contaminate a premium crop with high market demand, and then let the polluter off with no responsibility ?†Ms Fitzsimons says.
“Growers of GE free and organic products that attract a premium have a right to be able to pursue their business without being contaminated by new, unwanted technologies.
“The Government has confirmed that if the Environmental Risk Management Authority approves the release of a GE organism ( which could be a vegetable, a grain, an animal or a micro-organism ) and it contaminates the land or products of growers whose markets demand it be GE free, the owner of the GE organism is off the hook as far as paying compensation, or the costs of a clean-up - assuming they haven't broken any laws.
“What this means is that if a central Government agency such as ERMA gets its risk analysis wrong, and approves a release which goes on to damage other growers, the Government will take no responsibility. The victims and their local community will have to bear the costs, as best they can.
"What is at stake is New Zealand’s market access for food that can still be guaranteed to be GE free, as consumers in Europe and Japan want. That alone is reason enough to exclude GE organisms from New Zealand.
"However, this Government has legislated to allow release, although no-one yet has applied to do it. They cannot now stand back and say ‘it won’t be our problem’ should something go wrong.
"We can only assume this cavalier attitude to New Zealand growers is driven by the wish for a free trade agreement with the US, the source of most GE products, which demands that nothing be put in the way of their profits from this technology. It is a very, very bad bargain for New Zealand.
“Local councils are justified in setting up their own bans on GE releases until strict liability is legislated - so that any owner of a GE organism that causes harm is required to stump up for the full costs involved.
“This matter should not be to left to the Auckland and Northern councils to sort out. Local Government New Zealand should be making its feelings clear to central Government that it cannot offload the major financial liability for its GE decisions onto local growers and ratepayers.†Ms Fitzsimons says.