Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 


High Court Prevents GM Developers Bypassing GM Laws

High Court Prevents GM Developers Bypassing GM Laws

22 May 2014

The High Court has quashed a decision by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that would have allowed developers of genetically modified crops to bypass New Zealand’s GM laws.

The Court found the EPA misinterpreted the law when it decided that GMOs from two new breeding techniques could go into New Zealand fields without any formal consultation or assessment of the impacts. The EPA was also criticised for failing to act cautiously in the face of uncertainty.

This was not a routine approval for a minor field trial. This was the EPA putting new methods for making GMOs beyond the law without having properly understood that law or properly investigating the consequences.

The decision placed New Zealand at risk of losing overnight its status as a GM Free food producer without a public process to assess what would be lost.

The Council believes such failures raise serious questions about the EPA’s reliability as a guardian of the environment.

The case arose from an EPA decision last April that two new techniques for plant breeding – Zinc Finger Nuclease (ZFN-1) and Transcription Activator-Like Effectors (TALEs) – did not produce GMOs under New Zealand law.

Certain traditional plant breeding techniques are excluded from the GM laws and the EPA decision effectively added to the exemption list. The Sustainability Council appealed that decision and its barristers, Dr Matthew Palmer and Felix Geiringer, told the Court that only the Cabinet or Parliament can decide which techniques are exempt. The Council also stated that the EPA had misinterpreted the law and failed to exercise proper caution – points that the Court judgment has supported.

The ruling is good news for food exporters supplying high value markets such as Europe that will generally not tolerate any detectable level of GM content. The EU has yet to set regulations specifically for ZFN-1 and other new techniques. If ZFN-1 crops were grown in New Zealand and contaminated exports, that production could wind up being rejected if Europe’s GM laws end up covering the new techniques.

The records of the EPA’s decision-making committee make no mention of these market factors. Yet economic effects are part of the overall outcomes the EPA is responsible for considering and this is one reason it should definitely have applied caution in its decision-making.

The EPA thoroughly misjudged the decision and needs to explain how that happened and how it plans to fix the problems.

Key Background to the Court Ruling

What the EPA was asked to decide: In 2012, crown research institute Scion asked the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) whether organisms created using two new breeding techniques are genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and so subject to the regulatory conditions for GMOs. The new techniques are called zinc finger nuclease 1 (ZFN- 1) and transcription activator-like effectors (TALEs).

The process the EPA used: Scion’s request was made under a special procedure for determining whether something is a new organism and a GMO under the law. This process (set out in section 26 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO)) is called a ‘determination’ and allows a committee appointed by the EPA board to make that decision. The process does not require the EPA to consult anyone beyond government departments but the Sustainability Council was invited to comment in this case.

How the law defines a GMO: There are two criteria for deciding whether a plant or animal is legally a GMO:

1. Whether the organism meets the definition of a GMO in section 2 of the Act.
2. If it does, whether the organism is expressly excluded by regulations made under the HSNO Act. A regulation issued in 1998 lists all the techniques considered not to produce GMOs.

What the Committee decided: In 2013, the three-person EPA committee decided 1) that ZFN-1 and TALEs organisms do meet the definition of a GMO but 2) are “similar to” a technique excluded from the Act under regulations. As a result, the Committee concluded that ZFN-1 and TALEs organisms are not GMOs.

The Sustainability Council’s appeal: The Sustainability Council appealed that decision in the High Court, stating that:

• The EPA committee had overstepped its legal authority because ZFN-1 and TALEs are not excluded under a proper reading of the HSNO regulations; and
• Only the Government has the authority to decide which techniques are to be excluded from regulation and the Act defines a process for this that is outside EPA control.

What the High Court ruled: The High Court ruled that the EPA had misinterpreted the law it administers and quashed the determination. The following points emerged from the judgment:

• The EPA was wrong to conclude that ZFN-1 and TALEs are not covered by the Act because they share similarities with a technique listed as not being GM. Only those techniques specifically named in the regulations are excluded from HSNO. (para 73)

• Parliament had made clear in the Act that decisions about what techniques are GM are to made by the government, and where there is doubt about what the law covers, “a more cautious approach” would be to leave any change of coverage to a change of regulation by government. (para 69)

• The EPA decision “did not sit well” with the overall purpose of the HSNO Act. In particular, the EPA failed to apply a precautionary approach. The court dismissed the regulator’s argument that it is not required to do so for decisions of this nature. The court said that the techniques are novel and no evidence had been presented that demonstrated an understanding of their environmental safety. (para 68)

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 

Departure Speech: Governor-General’s State Farewell Luncheon

"...Unfortunately I was unable to get to the Antarctic, the Chatham Islands and the Kermadecs. A dicky heart thwarted our travel to the Antarctic; and even though I volunteered to parachute into the Kermadecs to join the Young Blake expedition, time, commitments and officials frustrated my plans to visit the Kermadecs and Chathams." More>>

ALSO:

New Research: Most Homeless People Working Or Studying

“The cost of housing has been rising without corresponding increases in income, whilst the number of state houses per capita has been in decline. Many low-income people are missing out on housing, whether we recognise them as ‘homeless’ or not. More>>

ALSO:

Post-Traynor: New Offender Info Sharing Plan

“This Bill delivers on that step-change by moving away from name-based records held by individual agencies to a shared, anchor identity based on unalterable information, such as fingerprints and facial recognition. It also gives agencies access to the drivers’ licence photo database and birth, death and marriages information." More>>

  • NZ Law Foundation - New $2M fund for research on information challenges
  • Littoral: New Ship To Deliver Enhanced Naval Capability

    Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee says the Government has approved a Ministry of Defence and New Zealand Defence Force recommendation to request tenders for a new naval ship to support littoral operations. More>>

    July:

    After King's Labour Snub: Māori Party And Kiingitanga To Work Together

    Māori Party Co-leaders Te Ururoa Flavell and Marama Fox met with Kiingitanga representatives in Wellington yesterday to discuss working together on key issues for the betterment of Māori. More>>

    ALSO:

    Waitangi Claim On Rehabilitation: The 'Justus' System For Māori Not Good Enough

    Closing statements at the Waitangi Tribunal case against Corrections called for immediate steps and a comprehensive review to address the high rate of Māori reoffending. More>>

    ALSO:

    Advice: PM Sets Rules For Ministers' Treatment Of Public Servants

    Prime Minister John Key has laid down the law about the way ministers and public servants should interact, saying ministers may not always like the advice they receive, but they must listen to it carefully, respectfully and professionally. More>>

    Gordon Campbell: On The Funding Changes In Special Needs Education, And Uber

    The plan to strip out the educational support for older “special needs” children in order to meet the existing shortfall in funding for special needs in early childhood education is so miserly and relentlessly stupid as to defy belief… More>>

    SPECIAL EDUCATION (& More):

    Online Learning Plans:

    Get More From Scoop

     

    LATEST HEADLINES

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Politics
    Search Scoop  
     
     
    Powered by Vodafone
    NZ independent news