Lobby group takes Government to court over GE cow research

2.45pm - By SIMON COLLINS science reporter

A group of mothers has launched legal action aimed at stopping New Zealand's biggest research project in genetic modification of animals.

Mothers Against Genetic Engineering (Madge) is seeking a High Court review of the Environmental Risk Management Authority's decision last October to approve a project by the state-owned AgResearch to develop genetically modified cattle.

The group, which has 1500 members throughout the country, says the authority had no legal power to approve such a wide-ranging project, inserting genes from sheep, goats, deer, mice and humans into cattle for the next seven and a half years.

The project aims to use cows as "bioreactors" to produce bulk human proteins in their milk. The proteins would then be extracted and used to treat diseases such as multiple sclerosis.

AgResearch sees the project as a key part of transforming New Zealand's economic base from commodities to "life sciences", including medicines and foods with specific health properties. It has spent $750,000 on the approval process so far, and has assigned about 20 scientists to the project.

But Madge spokeswoman Kate Woodd, an Auckland lawyer who now looks after her 22-month-old toddler, said the project risked releasing harmful organisms into the environment and losing customers in places opposed to genetic engineering.

"Consumers throughout Europe and Asia have overwhelmingly rejected GE produce," she said.

"New Zealand, as an agriculturally-based economy, cannot afford to jeopardise these markets."

She said the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act allowed for approval of specific new organisms - not for a generic approval to produce a wide range of new organisms as AgResearch proposed.

Madge also contends that Environment Minister Marian Hobbs should have exercised her power under the act to "call in" such a wide-ranging application on the grounds that the authority lacked any expertise in the ethical considerations involved.

The Government plans a Bioethics Council chaired by former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves to advise it on ethical issues, but it allowed the authority to consider the AgResearch project before the new council was in place.

Madge also claims that the project constitutes a "field trial" of new organisms, which is banned under the moratorium which expires in October this year.

AgResearch says the work will be done "in containment". But Mrs Woodd, who accepted an AgResearch invitation to visit the research facility at Ruakura last month, said it was just an open paddock contained by double two-metre-high fences.

"I was probably even more concerned about the nature of the containment after having seen it than I was before," she said.

"They have an electronic gate, and you have to sign your name when you go into the building.

"But when you walk through the building there is dried blood on the floor, and you walk into the field which contains cattle dung, all of which contained modified DNA.

"You walk out from there to the street. They have lots of tour groups and school groups going through there. That did concern me that there was no sterilisation of your shoes."

Mrs Woodd said she and other mothers were working on the legal case unpaid, but they had hired a barrister, Peter Andrew.

Marian Hobbs is named as first respondent, the authority as second respondent and AgResearch as third respondent. A judicial conference has been called in late March.

AgResearch communications manager Frank Fernandez said work on the project would continue in the meantime.

"All aspects of the research work have been scrutinised through a very public, open and rigorous regulatory process which allowed any objector to present submissions against the application, and we are confident that the ERMA decision will not be reversed."

Herald feature: Genetic Engineering