Tough line on liability for genetic engineering risks

By BRIAN FALLOW

Anyone who sells or uses any genetically modified organism should be liable for physical harm, damage or economic loss to property caused by that organism.

That is the recommendation from a report on who should bear the financial risks associated with genetic engineering.

The report was made by public law firm Chen Palmer and Associates and economic consultants Simon Terry and Associates.

They take issue with the Royal Commission's conclusion that legislation providing special remedies for third parties affected by the release of a GE organism is unnecessary.

For the report's authors, Sir Geoffrey Palmer said: "We say it would be better for everyone if the liability regime was decided on at the beginning.

"Relying on the common law leaves potential claimants and companies alike to the vagaries of litigation."

The report's authors advocate a strict liability, under which a firm would be responsible for the full consequences of its actions, whatever those consequences may be and regardless of whatever precautions it may have taken to minimise the risk of accident.

Otherwise, they say, the losses would be borne by the taxpayer or by the victims - innocent citizens or businesses who happened to be in harm's way.

Insurance cover should be mandatory for any GE-related approval by the Environmental Risk Management Authority, the report says. If a risk proves uninsurable, it should not be authorised.

It is sometimes argued, the report says, that market failure on the part of traditional insurance markets in the face of major technological risks leaves policymakers having to choose between banning new technologies, leaving individuals unprotected, or socialising the risks by leaving the problem of compensating for damage to the Government.

But one of the report's authors, Dr Geoff Bertram, mentions the emergence over the past decade of catastrophe bonds, to lay off catastrophic risks of natural disaster.

In return for a higher interest rate, these bonds carry the risk that in the event of some specified catastrophe, the insurance costs of that event will be deducted from the face value of the bond.

Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons said: "Our position is that this is a very useful technology that ought to be used within a laboratory. We don't think that it is safe to take it out into the field at this stage.

"However, if the Government does decide to go ahead with releases or field trials, it is very important that there should be strict liability and compulsory insurance.

"I think of instances like a farmer whose livelihood might be seriously affected if he or she lost organic certification as a result of contamination by GM plants, seeds, pollen or whatever."

Without strict liability laws and compulsory insurance,
"people introducing the organisms would have no great incentive to take all possible steps to make them safe. This keeps the industry as honest as you can."

nzherald.co.nz/ge

Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification

GE lessons from Britain

GE links

GE glossary