GM: Is it too soon?: Hard task gets harder

By ANNE BESTON

The job of policing genetically modified organisms will only get tougher once the moratorium expires in October.

While policing a GM-free New Zealand has been difficult, with GM security breaches occurring regularly since 1998 (see side panel), the job of, say, keeping GM crops separate from non-GM crops is likely to be much harder.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority has the job not only of approving or rejecting applications for GM but of making sure GM organisms stay where they are supposed to be.

Its partner in "compliance and enforcement" is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry but the relationship between the two agencies caused concern during a review of Erma earlier this year.

A three-panel review team said the different cultures and different legislative requirements of the two agencies were an area where "risk management for new organisms is most vulnerable".

The review found Erma lacked knowledge in key areas including gene technology, ecology and social science; the agency's management systems were outmoded with staff calling the organisation "hierarchical', "paternalistic" and "sexist".

The reviewers said Erma did not make use of outside expertise, staff sometimes lacked respect for submitters' views and left out scientific evidence in their evaluations of a GM proposal if it didn't fit with other material.

"If there was selective bias of this sort, it would be most serious," the reviewers said.

They made 49 recommendations for improvement.

Set up under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, Erma began its work in 1998. A panel of eight is the decision-making "authority" which in turn is supported by staff and a range of special committees.

Long-time critic and Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons called the review findings "damning" and Erma "dysfunctional".

She and other anti-GM campaigners believe the authority and its staff have failed to get to grips with its role, that authority members are dominated by staff, Erma has too often dismissed public concerns over GM and been all too ready to give the green light to GM applications.

She holds little hope things will change. "I doubt whether the current people in charge can fix things because they are the ones who created them," she said.

While Erma chairman Neil Walter talks at length of "strategic direction" and "strengthening of systems" in light of the review, he couldn't say exactly where Erma is up to in implementing the 49 recommendations.

"I don't actually have a number but the vast bulk of recommendations have been actioned or will be over the next couple of months," he said.

Erma has found itself at the centre of what has been a long and sometimes fierce public debate over GM. "It's fair to say the workload we're now facing is not only bigger, it's more complex."

Great escapes?

1998/99

* Wild Greens attack GM potato crop trial in Christchurch. Amount of GM material taken, if any, unknown

1999/00

* Disappearance of 22 GM zebrafish from a laboratory. Possible theft, unlikely to survive outside lab

* Rip reported in GM plant house. Escape of pollen, if any, unknown

2000/01

* Gap found in roof of greenhouse for GM plants, no pollen present

* Break-in at GM tamarillo field trial in Kerikeri, trial in post-harvest phase

* Two GM mice missing from cage. Possible escape, sabotage or simple counting error

* Attempted break-in at AgResearch's Hamilton campus

* Attempted GM potato trial sabotage in Christchurch

* Gate stolen and lock broken at a GM containment facility