GM activists claim safety neglected

By ANGELA GREGORY

A group opposing genetic modification of cows argued in court yesterday that Environment Minister Marian Hobbs and a watchdog agency had failed to protect the public.

Mothers Against Genetic Engineering Inc (Madge) had sought a judicial review after the Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) agreed to an application by the Government's biggest science company, AgResearch, to put copies of human and other animal genes into cows.

The review began in the High Court at Auckland yesterday.

Wearing cow masks, a group of mothers formed a silent line outside the court.

In Wellington, Madge members served milk garnished with mice at Midland Park.

The group believes Ms Hobbs failed in her duty to enforce the Hazardous Substances and New Organism Act, which required Erma to minimise risks and approach with caution the creation of unknown organisms.

In opening Madge's submissions before Justice Judith Potter, lawyer Peter Andrew said both Ms Hobbs and Erma had unlawfully fallen well short of their watchdog roles.

They had a vital role to protect the health and safety of New Zealanders but had failed to do so, particularly by allowing an outdoor phase of the AgResearch project.

In its last stages, the genetically modified cows would be fully grown and studied in an "outdoor laboratory".

Mr Andrew said it was in fact a farm-style pastoral grazing unit at Ruakura, and Erma had acted outside its jurisdiction by allowing such a field trial.

Madge argued that the key risk was of horizontal gene transfer, but only monitoring was offered as a control.

Mr Andrew said the application for the outdoor development of transgenic cattle had been significant as the first of its kind under the legislation.

It was also the first since the Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, which saw a compelling need for an effective framework for ethical decision-making on such issues.

Mr Andrew said very high risk assessments were required by law, and to maintain public confidence.

But the approach taken by Ms Hobbs and her officials was so cursory that in law no decision was made.

"This can be categorised as an unlawful abdication of statutory function."

He said the minister's officials were obliged, but failed, to give proper consideration to whether Ms Hobbs should call in the application and decide it herself.

Erma then failed to act lawfully by giving no weight to ethical considerations in a manner required by the legislation. "Important issues had effectively been decided by default."

Earlier, lawyers for Erma and AgResearch had warned Justice Potter they would challenge some of the evidence presented by Madge as inadmissible.

They considered some to be unqualified opinion, argumentative, invidious or not relevant to the questions of law which were under scrutiny.

The review continues today.