ERMA Faces Protest over GE Cows Approval
ERMA Faces Protest over GE Cows Approval
Protest at ERMA's decision to allow development of GE cows in deliberate contradiction of the Royal Commission on GM will be on the agenda today when ERMA meets with community groups in Auckland.
The RCGM 2001 made a key recommendation 7.5 (
p. 355 of vol. I RCGM report)
"that, wherever possible,
non-food animals, or animals less likely to find their way
into the food chain, be used as bioreactors rather than
animals that are a common source of food."
The recent decision by a sub-committee of ERMA to to clear the way for AgResearch to import GM embryos aimed at producing lactoferrin in milk allows work to take place that goes directly against this key finding of the Royal Commission aimed at building consensus on appropriate use of GE technology.
The GE lactoferrin project differs in important ways from other experiments that have been allowed because :
1) It has no claims to being of medical significance
2) It uses animals as bioreactors in a way that directly goes against uses the Royal Commission said were acceptable to New Zealanders
3) It is a precursor to manufacturing a product that will directly compete with a readily-available product sold by New Zealand farmers today
4) Has virtually no new benefits in terms of scientific learning because the novel genetic material is being imported and already well-understood traditional husbandry techniques will be used in development.
5) It will produce a product that is totally untested for its safety for infants with whom it may be used, and for which ethical ways of safety pre-testing are problematic
"There is particular concern that new ERMA CEO Rob Forlong was personally involved in the three-person panel that made a decision so fundamentally against the Royal Commission's findings," says Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ in food and environment.
The decision raises doubts about the ethical basis for ERMA's processes and the issue will be one of the major concerns to be raised at this evening's Community and Environmental Group (CEG) meeting at the Carlton Hotel in Auckland.
ENDS
Reference
ERMA/ COMMUNITY/
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP AGENDA
Wednesday 23 November 2005 at
5.00pm 7.00pm Tui II Suite, Carlton
Hotel Corner Mayoral
Drive and Vincent Street Auckland
1
Welcome/Introductions
2 Discuss format of CEG meetings
including Action Points/Minutes see
note #1.
3
Pesticides Reassessment Update
4 Review use of 1080
effects on honey bees Bob Blair
5 Discussion about the
way in which ERMA/MAF liaise (HSNO Act/Biosecurity Act) to
address ongoing concerns about ERMA/MAF inappropriate
handling of the illegal GM biosecurity breach involving GE
contaminated maize (Liberty Link T25) accidentally planted
in 2003 at a number of sites in the North Island (including
one site in Far North District, Northland) discovered in
2004 and the failure of any central government agency to
notify or give basic information to local government about
an illegal GE biosecurity breach on their turf see note #2.
6 The failure by ERMA to act on assurances given to
NorthlandConservation Board at a meeting in Whangarei on 21
Jan 05 (to set up a new notification protocol so that in the
event of any future illegal GM biosecurity breach that local
authorities are notified in writing within 5 working days),
this is particularly relevant in view of the latest GM
contamination (maize)scare (grain silo at Onehunga,
fortunately it was subsequently discovered that the GM
contamination picked up in the maize was due to the maize
being stored with some imported soy meal that had GM
contamination) see note #3.
7 AgResearch /new GE cows
issue of inadequate public notification"development" vs
"field trial".
8 AgResearch's Lactoferrin cows process
in conjunction with PharmingNetherlands)/ ERMA's decision on
amendments under section 67a/ exclusion of public /
breaching RCGM recommendations/ clarification regarding
publicnotification re: GE field trial application (vs
"development). 9 Outputs from last ETHICS consultation round
and timeline/ processfor integrating ethical process for
ERMA
10 HGT research updates, and ongoing monitoring /
prevention of soilcontamination eg at PPL site
11
Update on GE trees and any other applications that are
expected orhave been suggested as likely
12 Any other
business
Notes
#1 Protocols for ERMA CEG meetings :
need for written agreed actionpointsbefore the end of each
meeting to avoid previous incidents of confusion oraction
points being forgotten
#2 Process of ERMA working with
local councils and the urgent ongoingneedfor new
notification protocols for local authorities (regional
andterritorial authorities) including the event of any
future illegal GMbiosecurity breach. Need for notification
of local authorities on a District(not just Regional) basis.
(ie. it is not good enough to notify theNorthland Regional
Council, or Northland territorial authority or
NorthlandConservation Board that an illegal GM biosecurity
breach has occurred"somewhere in Northland".
#3 ERMA /
Maf interface. Concerns about interface between MAF/ERMA
whendealing with illegal GM biosecurity breaches i.e. HSNO
Act /Biosecurity Actand concern that central govt agencies
are not responding in an adequatemanner to biosecurity
breaches (GE, rocksnot, Maize replanting incontaminated
fields
etc)