New Zealand Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification
Transcript of Proceedings 8feb01
Dalmuir House, 114 The Terrace ,Wellington, New Zealand
3444
1 ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
2 ON GENETIC MODIFICATION
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Commission: Sir Thomas Eichelbaum (Chair)
10 The Rt Rev Richard Randerson
11 Dr Jean S Fleming
12 Dr Jacqueline S Te M Allan
13
14
15 Mr Brendon Brown QC, Counsel
16 Assisting the Commission
17
18
19 Ms Therese McLeod (Clerk)
20
21
22
23
24 Stenographer: Mrs Jacqui Kennedy
25
26 Scopist: Ms Rawinia Hauraki
27
28
29
30
31
32 Venue: 11th Floor
33 Dalmuir House
34 114 The Terrace
35 Wellington
36 NEW ZEALAND
37
38
39
40
41 Date: 8 February 2001
42
43 Commencing: 9.30am
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
______________________________________________________________________
51
52 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
53
_______________________________________________________________________
54
55
56 Verbatim Transcript Services
57 PH: 64-4-9396333
58
59
60
8 February 2001..3445
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 PRESENTATION BY ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION
2 SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED
3
4
5 CHAIR: Good morning, would you like to tell us your names
6 and then proceed with your presentation?
7
8 MR CHAPPLE: Morning Mr Chairman, my name is Keith
9 Chapple. I'm president of Forest and Bird, and I
10 will be leading the delegation here today.
11
12 To my left is Dr Peter Maddison, who will be
13 presenting submissions on behalf of the Society as a
14 whole. And Ms Jocelyn Bieleski, who will be
15 presenting submissions on behalf of the Nelson branch
16 of the Society.
17
18 I can inform you, sir, that our Marlborough branch
19 submissions has been incorporated - sorry,
20 Dr Maddison will present submissions on behalf of the
21 Marlborough branch. Our central Auckland branch has
22 withdrawn from these proceedings, and their
23 submission will be incorporated into the Society's
24 main submission.
25
26 CHAIR: So, effectively there will just be the one
27 presentation today? I mean --
28
29 MR CHAPPLE: There will be the two, sir, one from our
30 Nelson branch and one from Peter - Dr Maddison from
31 the Society as a whole.
32
33 CHAIR: But, is it your intention that we deal with both
34 of those together, or are we to deal with them quite
35 separately, two lots of questioning and so on?
36
37 MR CHAPPLE: They have been developed separately, sir.
38 There is a synergy between them, of course, but the
39 Nelson branch has prepared its own submission and
40 would prefer to give it separately, but it is
41 entirely over to the Commission as to how it handles
42 questions. It may be better for us to proceed with
43 the evidence and question both members later, after
44 that evidence.
45
46 CHAIR: Mr Hodson, you seem to be the only
47 cross-examiner. Would that procedure be agreeable to
48 you?
49
50 MR HODSON QC: I'm quite happy either way, it might be
51 more convenient to take it altogether.
52
53 CHAIR: Yes, very good. Well, we'll hear the two
54 presentations and then there will be one lot of
55 questioning.
56
57
58 ***
59
60
8 February 2001.3446
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 [9.31am]
2 MR CHAPPLE: Thank you, sir. I have just have a few
3 opening remarks. The Royal Forest and Bird
4 Protection Society, more commonly known as Forest and
5 Bird, is New Zealand's oldest and largest environment
6 organisation. The main objects of the Society are to
7 take all reasonable steps within the power of the
8 Society for the preservation and protection of the
9 indigenous flora and fauna and natural features of
10 New Zealand for the benefit of the public, including
11 future generations.
12
13 The Society presently has about 40,000 members spread
14 throughout 54 branches nationwide. As well as the
15 Society as a whole, three branches of the Society
16 have been granted "interested persons" status before
17 this Commission, and I've already informed you of
18 that, sir.
19
20 In relation to genetic modification and the matters
21 before this Royal Commission, the Society's principal
22 concern is for the indigenous flora and fauna of
23 New Zealand.
24
25 Why New Zealand's biodiversity matters. According to
26 New Zealand's biodiversity strategy, and I have a
27 copy of it here, sir, that I can make available to
28 the Commission, New Zealand's unique biodiversity is
29 internationally important. We boast the world's only
30 flightless parrot, the Kakapo, the bird with nostrils
31 at the end of its beak, the kiwi, a primitive frog
32 that lays eggs that hatch adult frogs, a large insect
33 that fills the role of small rodents, the weta, and
34 of course many other exceptional species.
35
36 High percentages of New Zealand's indigenous species
37 are endemic, a result of isolated evolution and the
38 diversity of New Zealand's land and seascapes.
39
40 This level of endemism is remarkable
41 internationally. Both species of bat are endemic, as
42 are all four frogs. All 60 reptiles, more than 90%
43 of insects, and a similar percentage of marine
44 mammals, about 80% of vascular plants and a quarter
45 of all bird species. By way of contrast, Great
46 Britain, which separated from continental Europe only
47 10,000 years ago, has only two endemic species; one
48 plant and one animal. Half a dozen islands in the
49 Hauraki Gulf have a greater level of endemism than
50 the whole of Britain.
51
52 In light of this unique biological environment,
53 Dr Maddison will submit that the precautionary
54 approach, as defined in the HSNO Act, be adopted by
55 this Royal Commission. The Precautionary Principle
56 is a statement of commonsense, and should be applied
57 by decision-makers in appropriate circumstances. The
58 Precautionary Principle prevents serious or
59 irreversible harm to the environment in situations of
60 scientific uncertainty.
8 February 2001.3447
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1
2 Its premise is that, where uncertainty or ignorance
3 exists concerning the nature or scope of
4 environmental harm, decision-makers should adopt a
5 cautious approach.
6
7 The report of the Board of Inquiry in relation to the
8 proposed Taranaki Power Station air discharge effects
9 in February 1995, under the Resource Management Act,
10 recorded a number of cases pertinent to the
11 Precautionary Principle.
12
13 There is extensive discussion of the Precautionary
14 Principle in the judgment of Justice Stein in Leach v
15 Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife
16 Service, and ^ (to be inserted) v City Council,
17 number 10376. I do have the details of that case
18 here, sir. In that case the question was whether the
19 construction of a road should be allowed when it
20 involved the likely loss of an endangered species.
21
22 Justice Stein said "While there have been expressed
23 references to what is called the Precautionary
24 Principle, since the 1970s the international
25 endorsement has occurred only in recent years.
26 Indeed, the principle has been referred to in almost
27 every recent environmental international agreement,
28 including the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and
29 Development, the 1992 United Nations Framework
30 Convention on Climate Change, the June 1990 London
31 Amendments to the Montreal Protocol on Substances
32 that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and the 1992 Convention
33 of Biological Diversity".
34
35 CHAIR: What country is that case from, that you were
36 reading?
37
38 MR CHAPPLE: United States, sir. I have a copy of the
39 Stratford Report, and I can get those cases for you.
40 That is, in fact, the end of my opening remarks, I've
41 kept them reasonably brief. I'll now call on
42 Ms Jocelyn Bieleski to present submissions on behalf
43 of the Nelson branch.
44
45
46 ***
47
48 [9.39am]
49 MRS BIELESKI: Good morning. Do you mind if I stay
50 sitting because, I have sciatica and it's hard to
51 stand. Don Murray is another member of our branch
52 and he's going to put my overheads up for me.
53
54 I'm a member of the Nelson/Tasman Branch on the
55 committee. We were founded as a Protection Society
56 and our mandate is for the protection of the natural
57 environment.
58
59 We fear the impacts of our unique biodiversity from
60 the release of GM organisms, new pests, diseases,
8 February 2001.3448
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 bacteria, viruses or vigorous alien flora may be
2 created with effects that can't be reversed. A
3 fundamental part of the culture and character of New
4 Zealanders is a clean, green, safe environment with
5 open spaces available to all.
6
7 We have major concerns; environmental protection of
8 indigenous species, maintenance of environmental
9 quality, loss of biodiversity. The release of GM
10 organisms into the environment will add to these
11 concerns.
12
13 Our natural ecosystems in New Zealand are unique, and
14 their isolation, until recently, has made them
15 vulnerable and valuable beyond measure. Indigenous
16 forest - indigenous flora and fauna and fish belong
17 here in their own right. They do not belong to any
18 person, but we as citizens do have guardianship and
19 responsibility to keep nature intact for the future,
20 with any modifications not coming from man.
21
22 The forest is one of our living ecosystems which has
23 successfully adapted and developed to a complex
24 self-maintained diverse community, which has
25 sustained its integrity over eons. Yes, there has
26 been genetic change as adaption applies, but this has
27 not been engineered by humans in haste. Evolutionary
28 upheavals in nature have taken millions of years, and
29 modifications have occurred naturally.
30
31 Genetically modified organisms will threaten the
32 indigenous biodiversity. With their release will
33 also come changed soil composition, pollen production
34 and insect mutation. Through mutations new bacteria
35 and viruses are likely.
36
37 The importance of our indigenous ecosystems, soils,
38 air and water, is recognised by governments past and
39 present, and it is evident in legislation and the
40 establishment of Government Departments.
41
42 The Treaty of Waitangi, which was the first document
43 in the world ever to recognise the importance of the
44 natural environment and the life therein.
45
46 Next we have; now, 13 National Parks have been
47 established, with the first being Tongariro in 1887
48 of 79,589 hectares. In the Nelson Province, there
49 are three, the Abel Tasman 1942, Nelson Lakes 1956
50 and Kahurangi 1996. A total of 474,642 hectares.
51
52 All in this province is part of the Paparoa National
53 Park which was established in 1987. We have one
54 Marine Reserve established and one, hopefully, soon
55 to be established.
56
57 The Kahurangi National Park has a great variety of
58 land forms, flora and fauna and vertebrates. I have
59 put some posters here which actually show the
60 diversity of the forest communities in the part of
8 February 2001.3449
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 the Kahurangi National Park on the West Coast side,
2 and in those posters you will see there is an
3 extremely dense and interesting diversity. Another
4 view from the same area is of the nikau palms, is
5 also part of the same park.
6
7 The Kahurangi National - the, umm, the Kahurangi Park
8 includes a great variety of land forms, flora and
9 fauna and vertebrates, including the paraphanta
10 snail, and water creatures. It is popular with
11 trampers, cavers, botanists, and mountaineers.
12
13 To show its diversity I've added a few overheads;
14 north part of the park, the wind blowing and the sea
15 of Farewell Spit; further coastline of quite a
16 different nature. The tussock grass of some of the
17 highlands, and you can see the mountains in the
18 background, which are not - it's a summer photo,
19 because they're not snowcapped. Strange rock
20 formations, which have diverse habitats attached to
21 them, as you can see in this one here - [referring to
22 overhead] - and much wildlife including the Blue
23 Duck.
24
25 The Kahurangi National Park wilderness area has
26 sustained itself for many thousands of years; its
27 unique components have not all been documented, the
28 properties of its components not all discovered, thus
29 its value for future generations. It is vital that
30 this precious remnant be spared any more pest
31 attacks. We submitted a copy of the Kahurangi
32 National Park Revised Management Plan in our original
33 submission, which was dated the 3rd of the 8th 1999
34 and it spoke of its values and mentioned that there
35 were 38 threatened plant species, 18 of which were
36 endemic to the park.
37
38 The Nelson Lakes attract many people to tramp and to
39 tramp, fish, and just being - enjoy being there among
40 the thriving bird communities. 1999 saw 9,000
41 recorded - 90,000 recorded visitors. Volunteers and
42 DOC staff have worked hard on the Rotoiti Mainland
43 Island Project which I have - which I can table a
44 copy of, their report for 1997/1998.
45
46 Volunteers and DOC staff have worked hard on the
47 Rotoiti Island projects, with pests such as wasps,
48 possums, mustelids, rats, hedgehogs and rabbits now
49 greatly reduced, wasps by 78% reduction.
50
51 The Abel Tasman is a mecca for overseas visitors, as
52 well as many New Zealanders attracted by its clean
53 golden beaches, cool manuka forests through which can
54 be glimpsed the clear blue sea, the campers swim,
55 snorkel, water-ski, kayak, sail and picnic.
56
57 I'm sorry, I seem to have got - umm, take a deep
58 breath. I forgot to table this, which is the report
59 of the New Zealand Conservation Authority when they
60 set up the Kahurangi Park, and I also have a document
8 February 2001.3450
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 spelling out the National Parks.
2
3 All the National Parks are attractive areas for
4 eco-tourism. It should be noted that Switzerland has
5 designated its alpine parks GE-free. The Ministry
6 for the Environment was set up to meet the need to
7 protect this environment. In making a difference for
8 the environment, which is this document, it states
9 "Our vision, a healthy environment which sustains
10 nature and people". Marion Hobbs confirmed that the
11 Government's goal for the environment is to treasure
12 and nurture our environment with protection for
13 ecosystems so that New Zealand maintains a Clean
14 Green environment, and rebuilds our reputation as a
15 world leader in environmental issues. A
16 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was
17 appointed to act as an Ombudsman for the public and
18 the environment.
19
20 If you have a complaint about the way a council or
21 any other public body has handled an environmental
22 problem, you have - and that you have reported to it
23 on the way it was dealt with, a query, resource
24 consent application or submission, you should
25 consider approaching the Office of the Parliamentary
26 Commissioner for the Environment. The Commissioner
27 has the power to investigate the performance of
28 public bodies in relation to their functions under
29 the RMA, which I will deal with in a minute.
30
31 Hugh Logan, the Director-General of Conservation, in
32 his forward, a briefing - [indicates document] - to
33 the Minister of Conservation, dated December 1999,
34 said "New Zealand's natural and historic heritage is
35 unique and diverse. It is important because it
36 provides a sense of identity as a nation, a wide
37 range of recreational opportunities, the physical
38 basis of much of our tourism industry and the
39 background for marketing many of our exports, soil
40 and water conservation". Among the major tasks
41 ahead, he includes reversing a widespread decline of
42 the indigenous biological diversity, improving the
43 condition of protected natural areas, finding and
44 using better ways to sustain biodiversity on private
45 land.
46
47 In the introduction it reads "New Zealand's natural
48 and historic heritage is an inseparable part of our
49 sense of identity, because it shows us where we have
50 come from; it keeps Pakeha and Maori in touch with
51 their own and each other's history, and their
52 relationship with nature.
53
54 We see ourselves as outdoors people, and we expect
55 our natural and historic heritage to be accessible
56 for a wide range of recreational experiences. The
57 opportunity to get away from the stresses of everyday
58 life, to be inspired, to enjoy and experience
59 solitude, challenge adventure and gain a different
60 perspective on space and time is, for many people,
8 February 2001.3451
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 synonymous with being a New Zealander.
2
3 Many of us have favorite picnic places, walks,
4 beaches, parts of the back country and high
5 mountains. Our natural heritage provides services
6 that we often overlook, such as clean water, reducing
7 the risk of flooding, filtered - filtering polluted
8 air and storing carbon. It also provides clues that
9 contribute to our knowledge about the natural world,
10 and has lured internationally well-known naturalists
11 such as Sir Dr David Bellamy and Sir David
12 Attenborough to make documentaries here, which have
13 been beamed to television audiences around the
14 world.
15
16 The images of a Clean Green environment, impressive
17 natural scenery, the sounds of nature and the
18 accessible outdoor recreation opportunities attract
19 overseas visitors to New Zealand. These images are
20 the basis for our largest single export earner, the
21 tourist industry, under the background that we used
22 to market a wide range of other exports.
23
24 While our country may not be 100% clean and green,
25 the intention of this image remains and much of our
26 environmental legislation and management activities
27 reflect it. The long tradition of conserving natural
28 and historic heritage also contributes to our sense
29 of identity, and is a source of pride to most
30 New Zealanders.
31
32 New Zealanders have told us on many occasions,
33 including through surveys that the Department has
34 commissioned, that they want their children and
35 grandchildren to be able to enjoy the same, if not
36 greater benefits of their natural historic heritage.
37
38 Also under the Minister of Conservation is the
39 Portfolio of Biodiversity. New Zealand ratified the
40 Convention of Biological Diversity in September 1993,
41 and it became international law in December 1993.
42 Each country which is a party to the convention is
43 responsible for the conservation and sustainable use
44 of its own biological resource. New Zealand, has,
45 therefore, a global responsibility to protect our
46 unique biodiversity.
47
48 New Zealand also signed the Biosafety Protocol on the
49 24th of May. It is yet to be ratified. Governments
50 are required by the Protocol to consult the public in
51 all decision-making processes regarding genetically
52 engineered organisms. 2: Provide access to
53 information on genetically engineered organisms that
54 may be imported. 3: Publicise the results of any
55 decisions made.
56
57 Each country is required to take appropriate measures
58 to prevent international movements of GEOs across
59 boarders from taking place. For the first time in
60 international law there is an explicit requirement
8 February 2001.3452
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 that countries take precautionary measures to prevent
2 genetically engineered organisms from causing harm to
3 biodiversity and human health.
4
5 Although New Zealand signed the agreements, it has
6 not heeded them. Is this because America has not
7 ratified either the Convention on Biological
8 Diversity or the Biosafety Protocol?
9
10 In the Convention of Biodiversity it is acknowledged
11 that releases of genetically engineered organisms,
12 referred to in this - in the CBD as living modified
13 organisms, may have a diverse effect on the
14 conservation and sustainable use of biological
15 diversity.
16
17 All countries who signed up to the Convention on
18 Biological Diversity are expected to; A, establish
19 and/or maintain means to regulate, manage or control
20 the risks associated with the use and release of
21 living modified organisms resulting from
22 biotechnology, which are likely to have adverse
23 environmental impacts, taking also into account the
24 risks of human health. And B; consider the need for
25 a protocol setting out appropriate procedures in the
26 field of the safe transfer, handling and use of any
27 living modified organisms resulting from
28 biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the
29 conservation and sustainable use of biological
30 diversity.
31
32 To help meet this commitment, these commitments, the
33 Government will spend an extra $187 million over the
34 next five years. This year an extra $700,000 is
35 allocated to the Nelson/Marlborough conservation for
36 protecting the region's unique animals and plants.
37 Of this, $630,000 will go towards pest control,
38 including against possums, weeds and pests,
39 freshwater fish.
40
41 Sandra Lee said one area in particular in which extra
42 funding will help make a difference is in and around
43 the Kahurangi National Park. The park contains
44 native plant and small snail species unique to the
45 area. We must question the logic of committing so
46 much in funding and human energy on protecting the
47 biodiversity of New Zealand, and then allowing the
48 release of genetically modified organisms into the
49 same environment when many scientists speak about
50 the "unpredictability of such organisms". Here's a
51 copy of Sandra Lee's statement.
52
53 After a series of environmentally threatening
54 accidents, such as the introduction of the varoa bee
55 mite, snakes, painted apple moth, tussock moth,
56 Argentine ants, the rabbit calici virus and the rapid
57 spread of hyeracium, it has been essential to look
58 into our biosecurity and to establish a Ministry for
59 Biosecurity, and to require regional or unitary
60 councils to even include biosecurity measures in
8 February 2001.3453
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 their plants.
2
3 Here's the paper on developing the biosecurity, and
4 Keith has already shown you the large document
5 dealing with this.
6
7 Detection of these pests and their whereabouts has
8 been both time-consuming and costly. Genetically
9 modified organisms are smaller than any of our
10 present pests. No amount of vigilance at the boarder
11 or within the country will protect our native flora
12 and fauna. If soils from Australia can collect on
13 the top of the Wellington hills, then so can
14 pollens.
15
16 GM organisms released accidentally, all with mistaken
17 ignorant intent, as with the rabbit Calici virus,
18 will be an even greater public nuisance, maybe taking
19 many years to show us. Eradication of thriving
20 species has always been difficult, and with GM
21 organisms will be unlikely to be reversible, and the
22 cost to the country beyond anything we have as yet
23 experienced.
24
25 Our present long list of pests could be eradicated
26 within our financial input for research,
27 corroboration between departments, and great
28 diligence by all citizens.
29
30 One major effective tool which affects all our lives
31 is the Resource Management Act. Councils and
32 residents are obliged to consider the environment and
33 avoid remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of
34 activities on the environment. We think adverse
35 effects can only be avoided by not allowing any
36 environmental release of GM organisms until all
37 possible effects have been tested over time.
38
39 We can't see any testing being done currently as
40 adequate, nor can we see it being affordable.
41 Funding for research and development has been
42 for - been profit-driven. There is no profit in
43 adequate independent research, and sufficient
44 research will be extremely expensive.
45
46 We also consider that it will be impossible to remedy
47 or mitigate adverse effects. We would point out
48 that, because of our uniqueness, research into the
49 environmental effects overseas is not relevant.
50 Effects from the release of GM organisms may take
51 many years to show up, and to isolate, and may spread
52 even more insidiously than the hyeracium which is
53 taking - which is threatening the biodiversity of our
54 High Country.
55
56 On the overhead it spells out the purposes - the
57 purpose and principles of the Act. Do you need me to
58 read that out?
59
60 CHAIR: No, thank you.
8 February 2001.3454
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1
2 MRS BIELESKI: Denise Church - oh; the responsibility for
3 managing and enforcing the RMA lies with the
4 councils; an inexpert body. The top of the south has
5 no Regional Council, and the RMA also relies on
6 citizens, their diligence, questioning, observation,
7 to bring any breaches to the attention of the
8 councils.
9
10 Denise Church, Chief Executive for the Ministry of
11 the Environment points out that New Zealanders want
12 to live and to bring up their children in a clean and
13 healthy environment. To achieve this we need clean
14 air, water and healthy soils. Our bush provides
15 these needs, and is at present fit and balanced; an
16 excellent example for organic horticulture,
17 monocultures in the Nelson area, mainly pinus
18 radiata, are already affecting the soil balance and
19 water quality and quantity. The timber companies are
20 looking into genetically modifying pines purportedly
21 to increase yield, therefore, supposed profit. This
22 will lead to an increase of acreage and an increased
23 risk of human health from airborne allergens, and a
24 further lessening of the water interception and soil
25 quality.
26
27 It is worth noting here that the Environmental Risk
28 Management Authority, ERMA, was set up to
29 specifically manage the consents for GM science, and
30 with regard to safety. They have recently granted
31 permission to a field test, pinus radiata with GM
32 genes implanted to control reproductive development,
33 and pine or spruce for herbicide resistance. They
34 plan to remove all flowers, a very hard task, and one
35 likely to be imperfect.
36
37 Whatever method is used to introduce foreign genes
38 into a target cell, it only works some of the time.
39 So, the genetic engineer needs a way to identify
40 those cells that have successfully taken up the
41 foreign genes. One way to identify these cells is to
42 attach a gene for antibiotic resistance to the gene
43 intended for insertion. After attempting to
44 introduce the foreign genes, the engineer can treat
45 the mass of cells with an antibiotic; only those
46 cells that have incorporated the new gene survive,
47 because they are now resistant to antibiotics.
48
49 From those surviving cells a new plant is generated.
50 Each cell of this plant contains the newly introduced
51 genes, including the gene for antibiotic resistance.
52 It is understood that an ampicillin gene has been
53 inserted into the 330 pine trees granted field trials
54 by ERMA. These trees are to grow for 20 years with
55 pollen bearing cones removed once a week.
56
57 Will there be no human errors? I would like to cite
58 an example that I have had in our Coromandel home. I
59 had a very attractive moth plant which grew over my
60 deck. I found out that it was invasive, so decided
8 February 2001.3455
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 that, yes, I could keep my attractive plant as long
2 as I removed the big kapok-like pods which dispersed
3 the seeds very easily with the wind. I cut them off,
4 and I was diligent, but I still missed some, and
5 ended up by having to cut out the plant. I can't see
6 that, for 20 years once a week, that they are not
7 going to miss some of those pine cones.
8
9 With the right wind conditions, pine pollen can go as
10 far as 1,000 kilometres. Will this ampicillin
11 marker-gene risk human health through antibiotic
12 resistance and remove a useful medical tool? Will
13 the GM pollen cause new allergens? The British
14 Medical Association has urged an end to such
15 practices.
16
17 The FRI are evaluating Fletcher Challenge central
18 North Island forests including Kaiangaroa, on behalf
19 of Scientific Certification Systems, System
20 California. SCS is an accredited certifier under the
21 Forest Stewardship Council Certification System.
22 Forest Stewardship Council principles and criteria do
23 not permit use of genetically modified organisms in
24 certified forests. One must question why ERMA has
25 allowed this trial in light of this, of the
26 moratorium in place, while the Commission 27 deliberates.
28
29 While some people may benefit from genetic research
30 in the field of human health, and we will gain
31 valuable information through a better understanding
32 of our world, we see now proven benefit from the
33 genetic modification of crops or animals in the claim
34 for commercial property, or the claim for commercial
35 property rights to seeds, genes, or any of our
36 heritage.
37
38 Who acts on our behalf - on behalf of the public on
39 this? Is it ERMA? It seems to me that ERMA is
40 merely a regulatory facade. And, if it is to put
41 Government stated intents in its many ministries, it
42 certainly needs strengthening.
43
44 If field trials are allowed, we request that it be
45 recommended that ERMA be required to publicly
46 announce the sites of any field trials. It is the
47 public who are left to police the RMA and to notice
48 environmental change. Government legislation and
49 bodies show an appreciation of our natural heritage,
50 because it is part of our culture and who we are.
51 Where do we spend our leisure time? Many people can
52 be found enjoying the rivers and beaches, the
53 mountains and hills, bring out trampers, mountaining
54 and bike enthusiasts, hangliders or potters who
55 simply enjoy being in there.
56
57 In the document New Zealand Biodiversity, An Overview
58 From The Department of Conservation, they say on page
59 9; "Spiritual and cultural importance. The
60 conservation of New Zealand's biodiversity also has
8 February 2001.3456
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 cultural implications. Native plants and animals,
2 their habitants and their diverse landscapes are part
3 of our cultural identity and an important source of
4 spiritual enrichment. For Maori the natural world
5 has a deeply spiritual significance. Conserving
6 biodiversity is important to maintaining Maori
7 cultural identity".
8
9 When volunteers are needed for tree planting, many
10 turn out as they did in Nelson last winter to plant
11 along the Stoke bypass. Schools and communities work
12 on beach clean-ups. The Department of Conservation
13 is reliant on volunteers for many aspects of its
14 conservation work, for example, in the Rotoiti Nature
15 Recovery Project. Any clean-ups from the release of
16 GMOs is sure to involve more volunteers. Will
17 volunteers be able to cope with GM mistakes?
18
19 Acknowledgment of our global responsibility to
20 protect our unique biodiversity is demonstrated by
21 our world heritage sites, on Ruapehu, in
22 South Westland and on the Sub-Antarctic Islands. Our
23 unique and varied ecosystems attract many overseas
24 visitors who contribute to the local economy.
25
26 We have, in the Nelson province, a unique variety of
27 flora due to the range of soils, climates and weather
28 conditions. We have areas of wetlands, semi-tropical
29 bush Gondwanaland Beech Forests, alpine vegetation,
30 tussock lands and plants adapted to various mineral
31 areas.
32
33 All these places have a diverse bird, amphibian and
34 vertebrate population, the sea is also rich in
35 species with a field of unique sponges in the sea
36 near Nelson. The untouched areas, the Clean and
37 Green image, the accessibility and the potential for
38 adventure, attract people to New Zealand as well as
39 help to market our produce. On TV recently people
40 were interviewed as they were leaving New Zealand.
41 All said they would be willing to pay some sort of
42 tax to keep it that way.
43
44 Let's recognise this treasure and keep it free from
45 the upheaval of unknown sudden change that
46 genetically modified organisms in the wild will
47 bring.
48
49 Genetic modification has one outstanding
50 characteristic, that of unpredictability. In nature,
51 where the time scale of evolutionary change has taken
52 hundreds of millions of years, unpredictability is
53 the most deeply embedded genetically encoded
54 characteristic of ecosystems.
55
56 Human understanding of ecosystems is as yet very
57 poor, so how much more unpredictable will be the
58 short-term manipulation and transfer of genes between
59 otherwise segregated species.
60
8 February 2001.3457
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 The latest news in the New Scientist of unexpected
2 destructive genes created when a mousepox virus was
3 modified in the hope of developing a contraceptive
4 vaccine for mice control, demonstrates this
5 unpredictability.
6
7 Another example is the gene transfer from GE rapeseed
8 to bacteria, and fungi in the guts of honeybees who
9 ate the pollen. The spread of GE - of genetically
10 engineered genes in this way is completely
11 uncontrollable.
12
13 ^ Joyce Kerry(?), 1888 to 1957 said, "It is a
14 tragedy of the world that no-one knows what he
15 doesn't know, and the less a man knows, the more sure
16 he is that he knows everything". This thought seems
17 to be applicable to scientists and their backers,
18 commercial profit seekers who are foisting genetic
19 modification on the world. Assumptions are being
20 made without consideration of what is yet unknown.
21
22 In a recent article in the Dominion on "Science in
23 the Year 2000" is this illustration of a human genome
24 project. A milestone, but look at the bottom
25 right-hand corner; it states 97% of our DNA has no
26 known function.
27
28 A lot of promises for advances in human health are
29 being put forward to this Commission on only a
30 maximum 3% of knowledge. If the DNA known about is
31 subject to manipulation, what will the effects be on
32 the 97% DNA whose functions are not as yet known?
33 Ignoring the unknown, and not giving full
34 consideration to unpredictability, seems common in
35 genetic engineering.
36
37 In this copy of Seasons, which is from HortResearch,
38 there is a small - here is the actual article which
39 is long and involved and scientific, but the promo
40 for the article says, "Genetically modified plants
41 are an important part of modern crop improvement
42 strategies and a useful tool for analysis of
43 fundamental plant development processes. However,
44 producing transgenic plants is not a predictable
45 process. Transgene expression levels are generally
46 random and considerable variation exists between
47 individual plants".
48
49 There are many examples which are travelling the
50 world via the internet; I have a few here, and Peter
51 has heaps. There are many examples which are - umm,
52 I am sure the Commission has heard about the Monarch
53 butterflies, the Bt corn, the Vitamin A enriched rice
54 or the StarLink corn developed by Aventis
55 CropScience. Australia has had an unpredictable
56 event with its mice.
57
58 Last year a GM sugarbeet being developed by Aventis
59 in Europe accidentally gained resistance against
60 herbicide, which one variety pollinated another in a
8 February 2001.3458
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 said company's greenhouse. It's in the New Scientist
2 dated 21st of October in the Year 2000, and there's a
3 copy for each commissioner.
4
5 There have been many examples of "experimental
6 advances", in inverted commas, turning sour with
7 commercial interests, and haste has been put ahead of
8 the environment and the public. The Nelson province
9 has its share, but the biggest disaster is that of
10 the Mapua Fruitgrowers Chemical Company; the site is
11 heavily contaminated organochlorine pesticides.
12 Those pesticides dieldrin, DDT, lindane and PCBs.
13
14 Here is - the levels of DDT in the Moutere Inlet
15 exceed the Canadian and Netherlands Sediment Quality
16 Guidelines for the Protection of Wildlife. People
17 suffer skin rashes, liver damage, respiratory
18 problems, disrupted immune systems and cancers. The
19 native fish, bird and fauna populations must also
20 suffer. Abnormalities in the reproduction and
21 development of fish-eating birds has been found in
22 similar situations.
23
24 This is a report from the Minister of the Environment
25 reporting on persistent organochlorines in
26 New Zealand, and - oh, I was looking for the date, it
27 is a few years ago now.
28
29 Dieldrin, a Monsanto product, was seen for nearly
30 50 years as a safe control agent for carrot fly rust,
31 grass grubs and for horticultural pests. These
32 scientifically safe products have proved to have
33 adverse effects on the health of ecosystems and human
34 life.
35
36 The province has also been subjected to
37 pentachlarophenol, another scientifically safe
38 organochlorine pesticide used in great amounts by the
39 timber industry over a 35 to 40 year period, until
40 1998, as a treatment for freshly cut timber, mainly
41 pinus radiata. From this usage, toxins entered the
42 soil, the water systems and subsequent vegetation,
43 and is still evident 12 years after the law forces
44 stopped these practices. We fear that GM organisms
45 released into the environment will pollute in a
46 similar way.
47
48 It is not yet possible to quantify the risks from the
49 environmental release of genetically modified
50 organisms. Genetic modification is at a rudimentary
51 stage, and some risks may not emerge for many years.
52
53 We do know that there will be a risk, for instance,
54 of increased herbicide use. New Zealand has already
55 passed legislation to allow this to happen. How will
56 this affect the ecology? Resistant genes have
57 already shown up in weed population overseas. Will
58 this produce another hyeracium? It is probable that
59 there will be an accelerated development of pesticide
60 resistant insects. If this happens, how will we get
8 February 2001.3459
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 rid of our - rid of our - if this happens, how will
2 we get rid of our problem, introduced insects, eg the
3 Argentine ants, varoa bee moth, or even if we are
4 unfortunate enough to be decimated by the
5 introduction of the crazy ant as on Christmas
6 Island? We must practice caution. Simon Upton
7 stated that "the risks will be socialised".
8
9 The solving of problems arising in horticulture,
10 agriculture and forestry by scientific - scientists
11 using the chemicals cited above was to increase
12 profitability. From the submissions to this
13 Commission, it is evident that the science is being
14 driven for the reasons of economic gain and
15 competition. We acknowledge that many scientists are
16 covering much worthwhile new knowledge, but fear the
17 application of this science without a holistic view
18 and independent testing.
19
20 Business profit should not be subsidised by the
21 environment, nor costs put on the community.
22
23 We are concerned about the emphasis on intellectual
24 property rights and commercial sensitivity which
25 obstructs the availability of information in the
26 public processes so that the effects and
27 environmental risks can't be properly assessed.
28
29 For instance, the clean-up at the Mapua site is now
30 down to three methods. Tenders will be called this
31 month, yet one of those - these methods is a complete
32 mystery as it is deemed commercially sensitive.
33
34 When the Tasman District Council was asked for more
35 information as the treatment additives were given
36 only as 10% organic, 3% inorganic, so what are they
37 we asked? Are they genetically modified? No answer
38 was given. Landcare Research has already committed
39 to the Commission its interest in bioremediation. We
40 are naturally concerned that, though consulted, it
41 will be without adequate information. This provides
42 a rational basis for concern that overseas companies
43 may be using New Zealand, yet again, as an
44 experimental ground.
45
46 One example of this was the synfuel project at
47 Motanui. Scientists themselves have given us this
48 feeling of uncertainty and unpredictability. They
49 have been influenced by a world view which is
50 manipulative and exploitive. To carry out research
51 they have to canvas funding from vested interests
52 which give an emphasis to exploration and economic
53 gain, not to environmental effects. Their world
54 focuses naturally on genes, without consideration of
55 organic wholes, such as organisms, ecosystems,
56 societies and communities.
57
58 Globalisation is pushing genetic engineering
59 biotechnology, with quick profit the goal.
60 Government has been perhaps inadvertently helping
8 February 2001.3460
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 this movement, driven by the desire for power and
2 kudos, as well as profit. To quote David Bellamy on
3 New Zealand On Air recently, "There has been a
4 misappropriation of science for rapid profit".
5
6 Too often scientists are fascinated by their own
7 research, and are blind as to how their experiments
8 impact on the wider community. An independent
9 supervisory body needs to be set up to monitor
10 impacts of scientific findings.
11
12 We advocate a precautionary approach rather than the
13 dramatic one as to find a satisfactory determination
14 of high and low risk which is agreeable to all would
15 need to be made after case by case considerations by
16 independent experts.
17
18 The precautionary approach is the adoption of prudent
19 foresight, and is in accord with the Resource
20 Management Act. It is spelt out clearly in the
21 New Zealand Coastal Policy. It states in section
22 3.3.1, "Because there is a relative lack of
23 understanding about coastal processes and the effects
24 of activities on coastal processes, a precautionary
25 approach should be adopted towards proposed
26 activities, particularly those whose effects are, as
27 yet, unknown or little understood. The provisions of
28 the Act which authorise the classifications of
29 activities in those that are permitted, controlled,
30 discretionary, non-complying, or prohibited allow for
31 that approach".
32
33 Given the above, and the fact that even less is known
34 and understood about New Zealand's complex
35 ecosystems, these principles must apply. The Bryansk
36 Declaration, which I also have a copy for the
37 Commission of, expressed the appreciation of the
38 wisdom of the Precautionary Principle, November
39 1999. People attending this - attending this
40 convention gathered from 18 European countries, and
41 from America, and came from many walks of life. I
42 have a copy for each of the Commission, and I will
43 leave it - the Waikato Regional Council, Environment
44 Waikato recognised the importance of the
45 Precautionary Principle and incorporated it in its
46 policy statements and in its coastal policy
47 document. The Nelson City Council also recognises
48 the importance in its policy document.
49
50 There is an example of the Precautionary Principle in
51 practice in New Zealand in that people who were in
52 the UK for six months between 1980 and 1996 can't
53 donate blood here as they may carry the Creutzfeld
54 Jacob disease. The Precautionary Principle is
55 consistent with sound science, since it promotes
56 rational and prudent decision-making in the absence
57 of conclusive scientific knowledge. The burden of
58 proof of complete safety for the environment and for
59 health must lie with those wishing to introduce these
60 organisms.
8 February 2001.3461
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1
2 When problems occur in the future, who will pay? Who
3 will take responsibility? Will businesses promoting
4 the GM organisms be required to carry insurance, and
5 how big will this need to be? Nearly all of the
6 responsibility for eradication of our current
7 biosecurity pests falls on the state as the
8 perpetrator is either unknown, bankrupt, or has left
9 New Zealand.
10
11 Volunteers are given a heavy burden. Much of the GM
12 activity to date has been clandestine from research
13 through to the introduction of products, especially
14 food products. New Zealanders have had no choice,
15 which is a denial of their rights. As the natural
16 environment can't speak for itself, people who have a
17 concern for the protection of our unique biodiversity
18 need to be consulted. All genetic modification
19 advances need to be available for public scrutiny.
20
21 Organic farming is a big winner for New Zealand.
22 Genetic modification and organic farming are mutually
23 exclusive. The natural ecosystems demonstrate just
24 how well the system works, how all of it is
25 interlinked, but how vulnerable it is to introduced
26 elements.
27
28 The Mountain Daisy, for example, are endangered in
29 the High Country as hyeracium advances. The red
30 crabs are being decimated by the crazy ants, European
31 consumers are demanding more and more organic
32 products; Zespri, as an example to this Commission,
33 bore that out. Genetically engineered crops grown in
34 other countries will increase this demand, and
35 New Zealand will benefit economically by being
36 GE-free.
37
38 A Ministry of Biosecurity without links to commercial
39 interests is needed to consider any environmental
40 release of GM organisms, the monitoring of any
41 release, boarder biosecurity surveillance and
42 regulation and policy making. This should prevent
43 another hidden event such as the Argentina ant saga,
44 when economic and political considerations for
45 visitors to the commonwealth games were put ahead of
46 responsible action.
47
48 We now have an expensive, extensive eradication to
49 face. A separate Ministry of Biodiversity is needed
50 as an umbrella organisation working with the
51 Ministries of Environment and of Conservation to
52 enforce and demand compliance of environmental laws
53 rigorously. It needs to establish and hold an
54 inventory of our natural assets, and to assure that
55 what we have now is retained. ERMA needs to come
56 under this Ministry, be independent from commercial
57 pressures, and have stronger guidelines of
58 precaution.
59
60 We need to declare New Zealand GM-free just as we
8 February 2001.3462
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 became nuclear free. This will give the opportunity
2 for New Zealand to act as a storehouse with areas of
3 undisturbed ecosystems. It would also enable more
4 monies to be freed for research into organic methods
5 and promote organic farming.
6
7 Denmark must be noted as it has already declared
8 itself GE-free. With multinationals pushing GM
9 technology, Monsanto, Wehauser, DuPont and Aventis
10 etc, we feel our very existence as a green and lovely
11 country is threatened.
12
13 We therefore request the Commission and the
14 Government to resist this pressure, and to recommend
15 that, for the foreseeable future, it is not
16 appropriate for genetically modified organisms to be
17 released into our complex balanced natural
18 environment. The Government has no mandate to
19 release genetically modified organisms into our
20 environment. Thank you.
21
22 CHAIR: Thank you.
23
24
25 ***
26
27 [10.33am]
28 MR CHAPPLE: I'd like to now introduce Dr Maddison.
29 Mr Chairman, Dr Maddison is a scientist, former
30 biologist, formerly with the DSIR, New Zealand's
31 representative on the New Zealand Science Council and
32 he heads up the society's Biosecurity Committee?
33
34 DR MADDISON: Can I just stay seated?
35
36 CHAIR: Yes, certainly?
37
38 DR MADDISON: I should correct that. I was the
39 representative on the New Zealand Society for some
40 years, but I'm not now.
41
42 I think you've heard, from our Nelson person, a wide
43 range of issues concerning the environment and our
44 concerns as a Society, and our President, in his
45 introduction, highlighted some of the biodiversity
46 strategy issues, and I'd just like to put in, if I
47 could, from the biodiversity strategy, the goal of
48 that strategy, noting that in fact the aim of the
49 strategy is to restore a full range of remaining
50 habitats, and also note in there that the issues
51 about production in urban environments are included
52 in that strategy.
53
54 I just want to be clear that that was there from the
55 start. And, I'd like then to move on to a set of
56 issues we're concern about within the environment,
57 and starting first, I think, with soil ecosystems.
58 You can take that off now, thank you. And, I think
59 it's fair to say that genetic engineering as a
60 technology has not considered impacts on soil, fauna
8 February 2001.3463
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 flora and the interrelationships of the soil
2 ecosystems in many of the applications to date. And,
3 this is probably true also of many other
4 technologies; that in fact the soil is regarded as a
5 bit of a mystery and isn't included in the testing
6 that's done. It's certainly true, I think, for a
7 range of pesticides, that in fact the issue is so
8 complex that it tends to be ignored.
9
10 The underground ecosystems are extensive, and include
11 more biodiversity than those obvious ones above the
12 ground, and the web of life in these environments
13 includes complex associations of the roots of plants
14 with myccorhizal fungi and rhizobia bacteria in the
15 legum plants, and consists of a huge network of
16 things like fungal mycelia.
17
18 Now, I was reading the other day that there is, in
19 fact, a situation where in New York State there was
20 one fungus that occupies five acres of one organism.
21 That's quite a substantial issue to think about, that
22 one fungus can actually have its mycelium spreading
23 over five acres; it's the largest organism on earth
24 that's known. I suspect there's bigger ones when
25 they actually investigate them, but the fact that the
26 same fungus can creep everywhere and send its
27 toadstools up at various parts of the environment, I
28 think, indicates the huge area over which this fungus
29 spreads.
30
31 Along with that, there is obviously a large
32 interrelated food web relating to the breakdown of
33 organic matter, and crucial to the carbon, nitrogen,
34 and oxygen cycles to that whole recycling of matter
35 that occurs through the soil. And amongst the other
36 organisms involved there, there are things like
37 earthworms, insects, mite, nematodes, protozoa
38 bacteria and the fungi. So, a whole range of things
39 are in the soil there networking the whole issue and
40 connected up.
41
42 Along with that, the soil in its physical structure
43 contains a whole range of cavities and holes that are
44 important both as a habitat for the animals, but also
45 for the breathing of the soil. And, as part of the
46 habitat as a whole, connection through this
47 underground habitat. And associated with that is
48 also the large aquatic network that occurs, and the
49 thin film that surrounds the soil particles is
50 actually a whole live area that is interconnected,
51 and it allows for the movement of organisms into the
52 soil.
53
54 So, we've got this whole network, and I suppose one
55 of the best examples that might show how connected it
56 is, is that there are species of cave weta in this
57 country that lives obviously in caves, like the
58 Coromandel, but they turn up in the caves right up in
59 the Waitakeres, and we found them in soil cavities
60 right through South Auckland. So, the whole
8 February 2001.3464
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 connectedness of the soil, fauna, is quite enormous,
2 and it's a thing I don't think is very well
3 understood.
4
5 And, this web of life that we might call it, is
6 inherently very important for all the things that
7 live on the surface, and for the plants that put the
8 roots down and, of course, for the animals that feed
9 on those plants. And, of course, as I said before,
10 it's very important that what happens in the soil is
11 very important for those three cycles of carbon,
12 nitrogen, oxygen, and of course sulphur and
13 phosphorus, all the things are recycled through the
14 soil. And, one of our contentions, that in fact, you
15 know, the possible effects of genetically modified
16 organisms on this system haven't been considered to
17 any extent.
18
19 And now I'd just like to highlight a few of these
20 organisms and talk a bit about them. And the first
21 group I'd like to talk about are bacteria and related
22 rod Archaea which are also very simple organisms.
23 They're both now classified as kingdoms in their own
24 right in the classifications of organisms. So, we've
25 got the Kingdom Bacteria, the kingdom Archaea and the
26 kingdom Plantae. So, we have those, and the kingdom
27 Fungi for fungi, so that's the basic sort of
28 classifications of life. And the bacteria and the
29 Archaea are amongst the most simple organisms, and of
30 course, I mean, some of the theories of origin of
31 life are that they are at the very start of it.
32
33 Bacteria are unusual amongst living things in that
34 they lack nuclei in the cells and that the genetic
35 material, the DNA exists in a single chromosome,
36 basically, but it's also in the plasmids and the
37 rhizosomes. In the bacterial cell there is also DNA,
38 but they don't have a nucleus, and it's possibly
39 because of the simplicity that you, you know, in fact
40 bacteria are much used in genetic engineering work;
41 they're easier to work with, and that's probably why
42 our famous E.coli or, to give it its proper name,
43 Eschenscia coli. So that, this organism is much used
44 in GM work.
45
46 Now, the other issues that are important I think
47 about bacteria are four, and I'll come back to them
48 and talk about each of them, but they are the - the
49 numbers of them, the vast numbers there are of them,
50 the speed of multiplication, the multiplication rate
51 of them, the adaptability of bacteria and their
52 survivability.
53
54 Speaking first about the numbers. I mean, they're
55 just staggering, the numbers of bacteria involved,
56 and perhaps the most graphic example which I give in
57 the evidence too, is the fact that there are more
58 bacteria in your mouth than there are people on the
59 surface of this earth; so, there's a large number of
60 them.
8 February 2001.3465
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1
2 And, you know, obviously related with that, they are
3 of course very small, and I hate to get into religion
4 but, I mean, the number of bacteria that will pass
5 through the eye of the needle is far more than the
6 number of camels.
7
8 And so, I mean; one, we can't see them, and there
9 must be millions in this room, and of course for that
10 very reason, you know, we have concerns about what is
11 happening with them.
12
13 I think the Commission heard the other day about a
14 bacterium that was going to destroy all the plants on
15 earth from Dr Ingham, klebsiella, and I think that's
16 just one of the examples of our concerns and what can
17 happen.
18
19 So, bacteria's second characteristic is their
20 multiplication rate, and because of their means of
21 reproduction which is by binary fission, they split
22 in half, they can rapidly produce and produce
23 colonies of millions. And again, some of the best
24 examples of these I think are the well-known ones;
25 for us as humans, if we cut our finger and the speed
26 with which septicemia sets in, or the speed which you
27 get a strep throat is in fact caused by that huge
28 reproduction, the capacity of the bacteria to build
29 up. So, I'm just trying to build for you a picture
30 of why we're concerned about bacteria.
31
32 The adaptability of bacteria is a concern. They have
33 a capability through their reproductive processes
34 which are varied, and are not as simple as their
35 binary fission, that they can actually reproduce by
36 conjugation, transduction and transformation. And
37 so, there are many ways in which bacteria can
38 exchange characters, and exchange DNA, and that
39 actually is one of the reasons why they're so
40 adaptable and can change for new situations. And,
41 anyone in the medical profession will tell you how
42 quickly a bacteria can change, and how difficult it
43 is to identify some of them, and to identify some of
44 the pathovars of bacteria.
45
46 The last thing I would like to say about bacterial
47 characteristics is their survivability. And that is
48 that they can encyst, and that's encyst, and they're
49 able to survive extreme environmental conditions.
50 So, they can survive droughts and floods and
51 everything else for many years, and of course there
52 are those wonderful stories about the bacteria from
53 the tombs of the Pharoahs that are still alive after
54 thousands of years. So, you know, that
55 characteristic of them is actually quite important.
56
57 Now, just passing on to just a few other types of
58 organisms that I think are important in the soil.
59 The protozoa, the primitive single celled organisms,
60 are also a huge group in the soil. There are many
8 February 2001.3466
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 factions, both as predators and as organisms, that
2 photosynthesize those that live on the surface that
3 are green. There are some very tiny protozoa that
4 can do that, and they have the same characteristics
5 as bacteria; their ability to rapidly multiply and to
6 survive through a whole range of unfavourable
7 conditions.
8
9 Now, just to rapidly run through some of the other
10 types of animals; earthworms are key, are of course
11 very important for the structure and fertility of the
12 soil. They feed largely on bacteria and organic
13 material in the soil, and are - I mean, obvious
14 probably to people only on occasion, but of course do
15 all that work that Darwin described in proving soil
16 fertility, would hardly be noticed unless you were
17 gardening and a little worm casts onto the surface.
18
19 Alongside them are a whole range of our org - you
20 know, nematodes that live free in the soil. These
21 are very tiny and actually mostly live in that
22 surface water film I talked about, and some
23 concerning organic breakdown, some concerning
24 parasites that feed directly into the roots, and of
25 course can pick up all sorts of chemicals from the
26 plants that they feed off.
27
28 Then the arthropods and insects are, of course, the
29 largest group - insects and mites are the largest
30 groups of animals that occur in the soil, all very
31 tiny. A recent study I did in a small area of the
32 Riverhead Forest indicated there was something like
33 1,000 different sorts in one square metre of soil to
34 a depth of 10 centimetres. So, that's quite a range
35 of different species in a habitat like that and, of
36 course, this will bring up the question of how you
37 ever test this range of things, and that may be an
38 issue for some questions later on.
39
40 Fungi I mentioned before, but I want to come back to
41 them because I think they're very important in the
42 soil, that this connection that fungi have with the
43 roots of plants in myccorhiza, myccorhiza
44 associations is quite important, and relates to an
45 issue that was just raised in the Marlborough
46 submission in the Society about pines, that no
47 testing is envisaged by ERMA in the consent for the
48 pine tree GMs that are going to be grown, yet these
49 myccorhizal fungi are quite crucial to the growth of
50 the plant. It seems there's quite an omission that
51 that - these organisms have not been tested, you
52 know, when the pines were approved.
53
54 I now want to talk a little bit about moving from the
55 soil to aquatic ecosystems, and just in the
56 submission we do mention the fact that aquatic
57 ecosystems are many and varied, and I mean they range
58 from the very small ponds, and I think right up to
59 the ocean, but also down at the other end to the area
60 I mentioned of the soil water, and this film of water
8 February 2001.3467
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 that covers the soil particles.
2
3 So, the concern really about both the soil and
4 aquatic ecosystems is that these whole range of
5 things exist in the fine balance, and that is easily
6 upset. And there are many examples in the recent
7 history, where pesticides are known to particularly
8 upset those balances, and I suppose those - some of
9 those changes are at the very heart of environmental
10 concerns, that arose since Rachel Carson's book,
11 Silent Spring, where she identified that the lake was
12 dead, and then started to check back the reasons for
13 it, and found that the pesticides, you know, the DDT
14 was actually at the start of that whole process.
15
16 I'd now like to move to a bit of section that I have
17 in the submission about death and decay, because it
18 seems to be another one that comes to everybody, but
19 it is actually an important issue, this issue of
20 decay and the breakdown of organic matter.
21
22 Now, it's my understanding that DNA, which is the key
23 issue, of course, in all this genetic modification
24 debate, is in fact a substance that doesn't break
25 down very easily. In fact, I mean the Industry on
26 the one hand says it does breakdown, but on the other
27 hand we have people trying to get DNA from dinosaur
28 bones and from moa bones that have been dead for
29 years. So does it die, or doesn't it die?
30
31 I think you've heard about naked DNA, and the fact it
32 can persist for a long time is very important. I
33 think, therefore, one of our concerns, particularly
34 when it comes to the issue of containment, is that
35 the material that dies is properly cremated, or
36 incinerated, and that we - that even when it comes to
37 the medical use of GM, that we have thought about the
38 issues of where the genetically modified bits inside
39 people, when we're talking about human medicine,
40 goes, because I don't think that's an issue that's
41 been raised. But, thinking about that side, the DNA
42 that's incorporated, if it is at all of concern, will
43 actually pass out with the people, and actually pass
44 into the system with - if the people are buried
45 rather than cremated. And it's an issue I thought we
46 should raise, because it's one that doesn't seem to
47 have been largely considered, again, in the testing
48 procedures. What happens to the dead material?
49
50 I'd also like to - just there to raise the issue; my
51 colleague raised it here, of bioremediation. It was
52 raised in the Landcare Research submission and we
53 have the same concerns about, about using genetically
54 modified bacteria and fungi to, to die. Just the
55 chemicals that are in the sites that are
56 contaminated, and to bioremediate them, again, the
57 question is how is that going to be contained? Are
58 these organisms going to - these genetically modified
59 organisms going to get out into the environment? And
60 what is the possible web that those could get into,
8 February 2001.3468
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 and what effects could that have? Is that going to
2 be assessed in the course of thinking about that?
3
4 And the same, of course, applies in the
5 biosensor-type debate about using biological
6 organisms, the sensors used in the same way as
7 canaries were used in the mines to see what's
8 happening. That technology worries us to the extent
9 that the testing needs to be done on the side effects
10 and the long-term effects of those agents that are
11 being used.
12
13 Now, I'd just like to talk about the possum story,
14 because that's an issue that, of course, has been
15 raised much before this Commission. As a society, we
16 of course have got great concerns about the possums
17 as a pest, and there's no argument about that side;
18 about the need to control them. The ethics and
19 morals are, to some extent, being debated, and there
20 are issues, of course, around the current methods of
21 control, using chemicals.
22
23 Now, it's my understanding that the latest proposal
24 of Landcare is to use a genetically modified protein
25 associated with the coats of the ovum and the sperm,
26 and this process, it's not a living organism any
27 more, we'd have severe concerns. But if that's so,
28 in fact what they're using is a genetically modified
29 product in the system; we still have concerns about
30 that, because why would you incorporate this in a
31 carrot and feed it to a possum, and get it sterile?
32 And if it's only - we understand the tests to date is
33 75% to 85% efficient, what happens to the other 15%?
34 Are they going to be selected to be resistant, as it
35 were, to this chemical that's incorporated in the
36 sperm or the ovum, and what then happens?
37
38 I think there's a whole lot of concerns about that.
39 I'd only be satisfied if it's 100% certain that this
40 chemical, you know, would work and be out in the
41 environment. And I think Ms Fitzsimons expressed the
42 other day, the issue, of course, if there's any
43 chance of it getting across the Tasman Sea into
44 Australia, then we'd be really concerned about the
45 marsupial fauna in Australia. So there are huge
46 concerns there about it.
47
48 Going back to the issue, that if it is only a
49 genetically modified protein, the question in my mind
50 is, why would you bother putting it in a carrot and
51 feeding it to a possum, and sterilising it, when you
52 could, equally well, get the carrot to contain a
53 chemical that would kill the possum? Wouldn't it be
54 better that the carrot's actually eaten and the
55 possum dies? It's a better form of stability.
56
57 And now I'd like to move on, I think, to the issue,
58 some of the issues I raised around problems with
59 genetic, genetically modified crops.
60
8 February 2001.3469
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 And to note that the tathen in biocrop technology
2 have resulted in the transnational corporations, and
3 the big agricultural organisations trying to push
4 more and more towards a monoculture type of
5 cultivation.
6
7 Now, I mean this is a shame, I think, because one of
8 the potentials of the work is to create a greater
9 variety of commercial plants, but the trend is to
10 actually reduce it down, and that seems to be the
11 wrong way.
12
13 There are a number of concerns, and I think you've
14 heard quite a few of them about monocultures, it
15 seems to me that in history, the planting of large
16 areas in one plant leaves them liable to attack by
17 pathogens or insects, you know, the fact you put all
18 your eggs in one basket means that they are likely to
19 get broken.
20
21 So, that is one of our concerns about it. The other
22 concern is the effect of using single cultivars in
23 the loss of genetic diversity, which is one of the
24 issues I believe that we should be trying to
25 preserve, the genetic diversity even of our crop
26 issues are quite important, as is the diversity
27 around what happens in the crops.
28
29 I mean there is a question, and I always have in my
30 mind, why do you need to heap herbicide on a crop
31 just to kill a few weeds, when they're really not
32 affecting the amount of production you get? And, you
33 know, the chemical companies, you know, never really
34 address that issue. They put up these regimes to
35 wipe out the number of weeds that are there, and, of
36 course, I mean, because there's commercial benefit in
37 that naturally, but I mean, do we always need them?
38 And what effects do these weeds have on the yield,
39 apart from the fact that farmers have been conned
40 into this thing, that we've got to keep on spraying
41 them. I talk a bit about the Green Revolution, and I
42 think that's an important issue, and it was raised a
43 little by my colleague here as well.
44
45 Of course, that didn't work, largely because the
46 varieties were subjected to a range of pests and
47 diseases they didn't expect, and because the farmers
48 in fact went back to the old methods of harvesting
49 seeds and trying to keep their native varieties
50 going. So there was both farming resistance and pest
51 disease resistance to them. And the Green
52 Revolution, so-called, is actually sort of much
53 abused these days, because - not abused, I mean it's
54 much maligned, because it actually hasn't achieved
55 what it promoted to do. And that's a bit of a shame,
56 because they did have some useful things.
57
58 I'd like to just address the issue of the vitamin
59 enriched rice that's been talked about, like the
60 Golden Rice you hear about.
8 February 2001.3470
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1
2 One question no-one has raised, that I have heard is,
3 does this rice get eaten by the insects? I mean it's
4 all promoted as wonderful; no-one has yet tested it
5 to see whether this wonderful enriched rice, which is
6 yummy, isn't yummy to the insects too, and won't they
7 have to heap a lot more pesticides to control the
8 insects that are there? Even if they Bt engineer it,
9 it seems to me that there are a whole range of
10 insects that are not Bt susceptible that go on rice.
11
12 I mean, there are huge questions around that issue
13 that haven't been addressed, and of course - it
14 hasn't gone to field testing yet, of course, but you
15 hope those things get addressed before the huge hype
16 and promotion, about how it's going to save the
17 world, goes ahead. Maybe we need to know that it
18 isn't going to be another disaster before we get into
19 it.
20
21 Also I'd like to talk a bit about herbicide resistant
22 crops, or HRCs as they're called, and they're being
23 promoted, you know, to farmers as a way of reducing
24 their weed control requirements. But the recent
25 papers I have seen suggest that, in fact, that
26 doesn't happen, and, in fact, they're having to apply
27 more herbicide in many cases. And, in fact, quite a
28 lot of resistance is occurring because of the extra
29 herbicide that's put on.
30
31 And so I'll just catch it while I'm here, that the
32 other issues about that are, that in fact we know
33 very little about the herbicide effects on soil, you
34 know, soil flora and fauna, that we've talked about
35 before. So that this huge use of herbicide may well
36 be sterilising the soil and having huge effects, that
37 in fact the Industry doesn't want to think about.
38
39 And then I talk about some of the characteristics of
40 herbicide resistance, and there are over 200 cases
41 known of herbicide resistance. And some - most of
42 these, or 60 of them, as I say, relate to triazine
43 herbicides, but there are in these cases known, I
44 think - I note there 14, I think it's gone up to 16
45 species resistant from sulphonyl urea herbicides.
46 It's part of Form 3 of the report. And I note in the
47 very last sentence there that, there is at least one
48 weed, fat hen, chenopodium album, that has become
49 tolerant to glyphosate, which is not unknown to you
50 from the Roundup debate.
51
52 The ecological impacts of herbicides I alluded to
53 before, in the soil, but of course there are huge
54 ones, you know, in the natural environment. The
55 effects of herbicides, both by spray difficulty, but
56 also by the effects on nontarget species, are
57 actually quite important. And some work I did when I
58 was a student eons ago, you know, suggested that the
59 paraquat had a huge effect on a range of animals in
60 the soil. So, I mean, it is an issue that I think is
8 February 2001.3471
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 very little studied, and it is quite important.
2
3 The next issue, I think - the next two issues I think
4 are related; the 4th paragraph, 45 and 46 in my
5 report, indicating that the issues around both the
6 transgenic crop becoming a weed in its own right, so
7 you've engineered the crop to actually become a weed,
8 you know, as its ability to produce seeds that
9 shatter and can germinate, and have become so
10 effective.
11
12 I mean, this is the opposite of the terminator
13 technology; that they actually become too efficient,
14 and we actually get too many of them, can become
15 quite a problem. So that volunteer weeds are an
16 issue, but the more important one is the issue around
17 the possible creation of superweeds; that, you know,
18 being an issue, of course, much in the media, and
19 already some of the examples have occurred; the
20 possibility of gene hopping into Johnson grass in
21 Australia from sorghum. The possibilities - I think
22 I put two examples in, in fact in with the evidence,
23 of genes moving into weeds in canola crops, and in
24 sugarbeet crops. From the New Scientist those
25 articles were.
26
27 So, I mean that's a huge issue again. I mean lots of
28 people have debated the horizontal gene transfer
29 issue, and a lot of people like to deny its
30 existence. The more I thought about it, the more I
31 thought, isn't horizontal gene transfer what's
32 occurred over millions of years in evolution, in the
33 way that, in fact, lots of species have evolved, is
34 through mutation and horizontal gene transfer? And I
35 think it's an issue we're probably only getting to
36 grips with, how in fact evolution has occurred.
37
38 The further issue, then, I'd like to talk about, is
39 the ecological effects of reduced complexity in agro
40 ecosystems. And again, this comes to the fact of
41 what happens when you wipe out all the weeds, the
42 effects on - of that on a range of organisms that
43 normally live in the fields? And we've got to the
44 extent now, with these huge hyperfields, that in fact
45 all the hedge rows have been cut down; this is the
46 European story, and of course all the things that
47 live in those have gone.
48
49 Just because of this possibility of the cultivation
50 of the large monoculture, and the direction that this
51 goes, it leads in this direction, that you don't have
52 an acceptable level of weeds, you don't have hedge
53 rows any more, you don't have wildlife any more, you
54 lose your skylarks, and the things drop out of the
55 sky. I mean, the recent reports give me great
56 concern about the decline in the British bird fauna,
57 and where things like the song thrush and house
58 sparrows have become endangered in Britain because of
59 the huge loss of the biodiversity that occurs around
60 fields.
8 February 2001.3472
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1
2 Umm, the last issue there concerns pest control
3 and - the last two issues, the use of Bt, bacillus
4 thuriengensis. I - having worked with that in the
5 past, and I know a little bit about it and there is
6 also reported resistance to Bt toxin, and these
7 issues I think are of a concern. Not a lot of work
8 has been done on that, and the amount used. And the
9 essential nature for Bt being used by the organic
10 farming industry, means I think we have to tread very
11 carefully about this use of transgenic crops using
12 Bt, as we may well stuff up one of the chemicals that
13 is of advantage to the organic farmer. And I think
14 it's an issue that needs a lot more research, to deal
15 with that.
16
17 And paragraph 49 deals with the other possibility,
18 the side effect of the use of Bt, and the effects
19 that have been on, on beneficial insects, and I cite
20 some examples that, that have been already reported
21 in the literature; the transfer of Bt from orchids to
22 ladybird predators, in Switzerland the effects on
23 lacewings, or Chrysopian, larvae, and the effect on
24 the parasite of the diamondback moth, Cotesia
25 plutellae.
26
27 I now - I'll leave the session on diseases, since
28 you've heard quite a bit of that from the experts, so
29 I'll not go on with that.
30
31 CHAIR: We'll interrupt you, if you don't mind, and have a
32 break for 15 minutes.
33
34
35 Adjournment taken from 11.08am to 11.26am
36
37
38 CHAIR: Yes, will you continue then, Dr Maddison?
39
40 DR MADDISON: Thank you very much. I'd just like to
41 return to, if I could, to my evidence at
42 paragraph 49. There's a correction that I meant to
43 draw the Commission's attention to, that I hadn't
44 sent in as an erratum; paragraph 49, where it should
45 be "egg and larval", not "egg and canal
46 parasitoids". I only just saw that. If you've got
47 para 49, the second sentence, third word, "larval".
48
49 If I may, I'd now like to pass on then to the issue
50 of accidents, surprises and predictability, which is
51 also raised by Jocelyn Bieleski in her submission.
52 There's quite a lot of concern, of course, in the
53 genetic engineering field about escapes and things
54 like that, and the issues around containment are very
55 important.
56
57 But, you know, accidents do happen, and my
58 paragraph 60 does deal a little bit about that, but
59 we do know that they've escaped, and there's also the
60 issue of, I suppose what one might call, deliberate
8 February 2001.3473
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 flagranting of the law, like the calici virus issue,
2 where people take the law into their own hands and
3 believe these things are okay and will introduce
4 them; those issues to me, and others of course, are
5 quite important.
6
7 I'd like to move on to our paragraph 54 where we talk
8 about these new technologies and some of the issues
9 surrounding there, and I list there a number of
10 issues of new technologies that over the last, you
11 know, 60, 70 years have been introduced, later been
12 found to cause environmental or social problems. And
13 of course, I mean, they're fairly obvious, and the
14 nuclear one is well-known, the pesticide ones are
15 well-known, the tributyl tin is to remind you, the
16 issue about the coating of the holes of ships that
17 fouled the organisms, I mean, or killed the
18 anti - sorry, it was used as antifouling paint to
19 kill the organisms that grow on ships, and of course
20 was found to kill off all sorts of other molluscs and
21 things in the estuaries.
22
23 PCPs are well-known, but the point is that these
24 technologies have been introduced without the testing
25 occurring, and later on the community's had to pick
26 up largely those costs that are involved in dealing
27 with those issues, and some of them have been
28 enormous. So, not only the accidents but the
29 deliberate introduction of technologies that haven't
30 been properly tested, are a great concern. I suppose
31 the latest one, and the one that's raving at the
32 moment, is the one of bovine spongiform encephalitis
33 or BSE, mad cow disease. Someone told me it should
34 be could "Mad Councillor Disease", because that's
35 what's happened to it.
36
37 I mean, the real concern, you know, and that's the
38 concern about genetic engineering, that in fact the
39 side effects haven't been looked at because of this
40 substantial equivalent argument that these things are
41 not largely different from the existing crop
42 varieties that have been grown.
43
44 I think the evidence that's come to date suggests
45 that may not be true, and you obviously heard from
46 Dr Pusztai yesterday about one issue, but there are
47 many now beginning to surface about concerns, you
48 know, about side effects of bio - of genetically
49 engineered products.
50
51 And, that leads me back into two issues; one, the
52 issue of the Precautionary Principle which Keith
53 Chapple introduced to you, and our concern that the
54 definition - that we confer amongst those advanced -
55 and I remember reading the Landcare Research evidence
56 where they prefer the Rio Convention definition,
57 which is, "In order to protect the environment the
58 precautionary approach shall be duly applied by
59 states according to their capabilities where there
60 are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack
8 February 2001.3474
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a
2 reason for postponing cost effected means to prevent
3 environmental degradation".
4
5 That's what the Rio Convention says, and normally we
6 hoorah and say, that's wonderful, but if you think
7 about it, that's actually saying that lack of full
8 scientific - should not prevent the introduction of a
9 new technology, and I think that's the wrong way
10 round, and that's why we prefer the HSNO type
11 definition that is in clause 7, "All persons
12 exercising functions, powers and duties - da, da, da
13 - shall take into account the need for caution in
14 managing adverse effects where there is scientific
15 and technical uncertainty about those effects".
16
17 So, I'd now like to go just into a final issue about
18 the board of control and issues concerning biosafety,
19 so I'll put some more overheads on.
20
21 The first to put in context goes from the Convention
22 on Biological Diversity which was ratified in 1993,
23 and indicates there the need for safe transfer,
24 handling of use of any living modified organism.
25 They changed them from GMO in this technology to
26 living modified organism, LMO, and it was for that
27 reason that the Convention on Biological Diversity
28 set up a working group that formed the Cartagena
29 Protocol on Biosafety. So, I have copies of that
30 protocol here for people to look at, and I will be
31 quoting from it, so would you like to have them --
32
33 CHAIR: Yes, fine. Thank you.
34
35 DR MADDISON: I have them available, so the sections I'm
36 quoting from are available.
37
38 [Copies distributed to the Commission]
39
40 PRODUCED AS EXHIBIT H 196
41
42 DR MADDISON: Can I have the next one. The protocol was
43 actually aimed as transboundary units of modified
44 organisms resulting from modern technology and those
45 that may have adverse effects on the conservation and
46 sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also
47 into account risk to human health and specifically
48 focusing, as I said, on transboundary movements. The
49 preamble to the protocol notes - recognising that
50 trade and environmental agreements should be mutually
51 supportive with a view to achieving sustainable
52 development.
53
54 So, moving on to some excerpts from the protocol, and
55 I'll try and take you to where the pages are - these
56 are.
57
58 That comes from the preamble, the lack of scientific
59 certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific
60 information is, in fact, I think, a restatement of
8 February 2001.3475
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 the Precautionary Principle, you know, applied in
2 this protocol. And, therefore, seeing that in 3 transboundary movements, the importance of that whole
4 principle; which is, of course, we think is critical
5 to the whole genetically modified organism debate.
6
7 Can we move on to that? And then in the - yes, I
8 think there's an issue on transport. "A party may
9 take a decision on the import of living modified
10 organisms intended for direct use as food or feed, or
11 for processing under its domestic regulatory
12 framework". And, I'll come on to the issue of how
13 that, I think, relates to our concerns about applying
14 this regime on transboundary movements of GMOs to the
15 issue of field testing and how the same principle
16 should be applied.
17
18 CHAIR: You couldn't give us the numbers as you place
19 these things up, could you?
20
21 DR MADDISON: I was trying to find - I thought the numbers
22 were on the slide.
23
24 DR FLEMING: That one is on page 8, Article 12, number 1.
25
26 MR BROWN QC: The one we looked at a moment ago is article
27 11(4) on page 7?
28
29 DR MADDISON: So, we're now on to - so that's Article 12
30 and 1. So, it's actually saying exactly the same
31 thing, but I'm just going through the issues here.
32 The issue of the Biosafety Clearhouse has been
33 addressed, and I should have said not in Switzerland
34 but in Montreal in December - that was that meeting
35 of the protocol. So, it is advancing quite fast.
36 And, if I go onto the next one, Article 15 - so, that
37 is on page 10 of your document there.
38
39 The issues are to be considered, you know, and risk
40 assessments are addressed there, and I think it's
41 again quite important that the issues of a minimum
42 are addressed there, and the available scientific
43 evidence, you know, it is clearly spelled out in that
44 risk assessment protocol. So, you know, I think - I
45 mean, I'll leave you later to address the words.
46 This is just our suggestion, that this Biosafety
47 Protocol is a key issue and the Government ratifying
48 that protocol is, of course, one of our concerns.
49
50 The next one is Article 16 which is again on
51 page 10. Just, there covers the issues of risk
52 management that are involved in this protocol, and
53 again highlights all sorts of issues that have to be
54 taken into account. And, that's the second half of
55 it that goes - we've got typed out, and it carries
56 across between pages 10 and 11.
57
58 Now, Article 17 deals with the issue I've raised just
59 now, of people cheating, and how to deal with
60 transboundary movements and emergency issues, where
8 February 2001.3476
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 things have crossed boundaries and, you know,
2 Jocelyn Bieleski mentioned all the issues of the new
3 pests that have arrived in the country from the varoa
4 mite through to the painted apple mite and everything
5 else.
6
7 And, the boarder control issue for GMOs is going to
8 be just as significant, and that's why I think the
9 next one, which is Article 18, is quite significant
10 because it comes to the issue - sorry, because that
11 talks about the handling and transport and packaging
12 of these things; and, to me, clearly identifies the
13 need to label these things. I mean, there's a huge
14 debate about whether these things need labelling.
15
16 This protocol would ensure that any LMO imported into
17 a country would require, if you put the next one up,
18 you know, would require labelling. And so, this is
19 applying to only living organisms, but at least it's
20 a step in the way of satisfying that environment.
21 Community will say they would like to know - the
22 community concern about labelling of genetically
23 modified organisms.
24
25 And, I've been involved at one time in looking at
26 quarantine issues in this country and the amount of
27 material that comes in, in terms of seed. I mean,
28 you get presented with pages and pages of lists of
29 seed variety names without a clue to what they are,
30 and, you know, I believe that that's not very
31 helpful; and to know whether they're modified or not
32 will be an important issue in the future, and this
33 certainly - this Article would establish that quite
34 clearly.
35
36 Article 23, I think, is the one that shows that this
37 process should be transparent, and the public should
38 know about what's happening. The process that I
39 think ERMA goes through would quite allow this, and
40 the availability of information that needs to be
41 provided, you know, is important for the community to
42 know what is being imported; and, it gives that
43 certainty, I think, to the whole issue.
44
45 I think we're now up to 26. Just to say that there's
46 more than environmental issues involved in this, and
47 that protocol clearly identifies that, not only are
48 the environmental issues to be looked at, but there
49 are socioeconomic considerations that need to be
50 taken account of in the course of this transboundary
51 movement.
52
53 So, the last bit I just put on, and really we can
54 just run through them. The annex says to the
55 protocol - in fact do spell out in detail the type of
56 information required, you know, for notifications.
57 And, these are not dissimilar from the notifications
58 you now need for new organisms under the Biosecurity
59 Act into this country.
60
8 February 2001.3477
Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc
1 So, they are quite important, you know. So,
2 procedures there and, as I say, the three
3 negotiations deal with the different types of
4 things. Those that are imported under the - you
5 know, the possibility for growth, or whatever, the
6 ones used as food is Annex 2, food or feed. And
7 Annex 3 is three pages of spelling out the risk
8 assessment methodology.
9
10 So, as I say, I think this protocol, the Cartagena
11 Protocol, is actually quite an advance, and it gives
12 some certainty to the whole issue of LMOs and their
13 movement. And, I'd like then just to come back to
14 the local situation and why the Society believes that
15 the similar approach has to be applied to field
16 testing, that these - these genetically modified
17 organisms, you know, have a number of issues around
18 them, and there is a lot of research to do before -
19 before they get out into the field.
20
21 That, I've already indicated some of the problems
22 that I think can occur in the soil, in the aquatic
23 environment, issues concerning the possible spread of
24 some of these things. And so, before anything goes
25 out into the field and is field tested, I think
26 there's a huge amount of testing to do.
27
28 We, as a Society, are not opposed to containment
29 testing provided that it is tightened up, and
30 obviously those issues, I'm sure, will be subject to
31 some further refinement, and I hope that we may have
32 the ability to submit later in the summary session of
33 the Commission, to submit further our thoughts on
34 those issues. Thank you, sir.
35
36 MR CHAPPLE: That completes the evidence for the Society.
37
38 CHAIR: Yes, thank you.
39
40
41 ***
42
43 [11.46am]
44 MR CHAPPLE: There's just one comment I might make in
45 summing up. It's a sort of a restatement of my
46 opening remarks. I'd just like to particularly draw
47 the Commission's attention to the final paragraph
48 here, final sentence that, "The uniqueness of
49 New Zealand's indigenous biodiversity means that
50 responsibility for its continued existence is
51 entirely ours, it can't be conserved in nature
52 elsewhere in the world". It is a unique
53 responsibility and one which we urge the Commission
54 to take into account in its deliberations.
55
56 CHAIR: Mr Hodson.
57
58
59 ***
60
8 February 2001.3478
Royal Forest & Bird XXN by Mr Hodson QC
1 [11.47am]
2 MR HODSON QC: Two or three topics, I think, at the
3 national level, and then perhaps one or two for the
4 Nelson level, if I may, on the topic of boarder
5 control. The lesson I think of many of our
6 unfortunate experiences, but most conveniently the
7 varoa mite and the Argentina ant, is that our boarder
8 control, despite our isolation, is less than
9 perfect. I take it, there's no argument about that?
10
11 DR MADDISON: We'd agree.
12
13 MR HODSON QC: Now, we've had evidence before the
14 Commission that likewise, if we were to declare
15 ourselves GM free, that would not necessarily prevent
16 accidental and unintended importation of genetically
17 modified organisms.
18
19 Now, given this unfortunate state of affairs, has the
20 Society considered to what extent we should maintain
21 a readiness by way of science devoted to knowledge
22 and understanding of GMOs, and ways to combat
23 unintended incursions?
24
25 DR MADDISON: Thank you. Yes, I think the Society
26 has - we have, as you're probably aware, had quite a
27 role recently in dealing with biosecurity issues in
28 this country.
29
30 MR HODSON QC: Yes.
31
32 DR MADDISON: And I'm concerned very much about that
33 readiness and awareness. It is, of course, a very
34 complicated issue in that we - in the environment
35 we've got, of declining funding for - for the quality
36 stuff of this country, and the opposite pressures of
37 being nice to people that seem to come on, on that
38 industry.
39
40 I mean, it seems to me that in the old days it used
41 to be that when you arrived at the airport, you used
42 to wait, you know, for quite a while in the queue and
43 the pressure was on you to get rid of your apples
44 and/or pears. Now the pressure is to get you through
45 as fast as possible, because you're valuable to us.
46 And the same issue happens on the container wharf,
47 where the essence is speed, not security. And I
48 think that balance has to be turned round and we
49 would fully support any measures that are put in
50 place to increase our boarder capability.
51
52 MR HODSON QC: I was taking it a bit past that, before you
53 come in, sir, to the concept that we need to maintain
54 scientific expertise in laboratories and possibly, if
55 necessary, trials to be able to cope with unwanted
56 organisms that do get in.
57
58 MR CHAPPLE: If I could go back to the previous question;
59 the Society's position is that the same level of
60 controls are required, whether for intended or
8 February 2001.3479
Royal Forest & Bird XXN by Mr Hodson QC
1 unintended incursion. We make no distinction between
2 those. Accidents clearly will occur and have
3 occurred.
4
5 DR MADDISON: Following on from your point, I believe it
6 is important to address these. The Hawaiians have a
7 committee called PANIC, which is Pesticides and New
8 Intrusions Action Committee, or something, it's
9 called PANIC anyway. I think it's a great name
10 because they sit and meet and allocate money to the
11 problem. So, that sort of approach, and having the
12 scientific capability to deal with this is
13 important. And, that may mean that we have to have
14 the ability to both detect GMOs, and of course
15 obviously the recent StarLink issue has shown that
16 genetically modified protein can be detected in quite
17 small quantities of produce, and so, that capability
18 is there, and I believe that it is important that, if
19 we're serious about this, the Government has to
20 implement greater funds to this issue.
21
22 MR HODSON QC: Thank you. You have mentioned the research
23 that is going on to deal with possums with a
24 genetically engineered solution. The understanding
25 that we have of that, is that the research has been
26 in progress now for something like 10 years, and that
27 an announcement of progress is expected in about six
28 months. But, with entirely understandable concern
29 about safety and possible unintended consequences, it
30 may be 5 or 10 years before there is actually a
31 release of the product, if it survives that long in
32 the Government.
33
34 Does the Society believe that the process that's
35 being undertaken in that research is appropriate?
36
37 MR CHAPPLE: All research is a good thing. Clearly we
38 need to know as much as we possibly can about any
39 given - about any given subject. With regard to
40 possums, the Society's position is that we want to
41 get rid of them, and as soon as possible. There are
42 already existing methods of, if not eradicating
43 possum, dragging them down to a level that it does
44 not harm the ecosystem that it lives in.
45
46 Our concern is to put more resources into that aspect
47 of it, rather than to carry on research which may or
48 may not work. There are already very good possum
49 control measured known by the Department of
50 Conservation. The fact that only about 25% of
51 New Zealand is presently treated, at least on the
52 Department of Conservation estate, is not because of
53 a lack of knowledge, it's because of a lack of
54 resources.
55
56 There simply isn't enough money given to the
57 Department to treat further areas, and we want to see
58 more effort put into that aspect of the possum
59 control rather than go into research which, as I say,
60 may or may not work.
8 February 2001.3480
Royal Forest & Bird XXN by Mr Hodson QC
1
2 MR HODSON QC: I don't think any of us would disagree
3 that, if an alternative exists to a GE solution, it's
4 to be preferred. But, could I ask, in view of the
5 concerns which you've raised in evidence today, would
6 you find Landcare receptive to anything the Society
7 may say on the subject?
8
9 MR CHAPPLE: We need to see the product of the research.
10 We simply do not know what that research is going to
11 tell us.
12
13 MR HODSON QC: Putting it another way, do you feel there
14 is a channel of communication between the Society and
15 the researchers?
16
17 MR CHAPPLE: The communication certainly exists. We get a
18 whole pile of paper from all around the country on
19 these issues, and certainly we try and keep abreast
20 of that research. But, as I say, our primary concern
21 is to drag possums down to an acceptable level.
22
23 DR MADDISON: I mean, I think the communication exists,
24 but we'd obviously like it enhanced; that we're aware
25 that that research is partly funded by the Department
26 of Conservation on possums, and believe that, in the
27 public interest, we should know a lot more about the
28 research that's going on. And we'd be willing to
29 meet with them, and share the information in
30 confidence, if necessary.
31
32 MR HODSON QC: I'm sure you would support any concept of
33 public involvement in the ongoing progress,
34 particularly at the time, if it reaches such a stage,
35 of field trials, and then again, if it survives field
36 trials, public release?
37
38 DR MADDISON: Yes.
39
40 MRS BIELESKI: Can I point something out please? In the
41 report on the Rotoiti Nature Recovery Project
42 1997/1998, it says - they have the results of their
43 possum treatment; "In May 1998, after trapping for
44 381 days, they only caught four possums. They say
45 these results are considered to represent a very
46 successful control operation, that has almost removed
47 possums from the block. Staff do not now encounter
48 possum sign, except on the northern boundary, and we
49 anticipate that we will soon be able to demonstrate a
50 response in the vegetation".
51
52 Now, it is possible by present methods to get rid of
53 possums, it just requires money.
54
55 MR HODSON QC: I have a bit of land myself, and I'd be
56 happy to talk to you about that. I think we are all
57 agreed, though, that the alternatives are better if
58 they can be effective.
59
60 MR CHAPPLE: No, I don't think we are agreed on that. We
8 February 2001.3481
Royal Forest & Bird XXN by Mr Hodson QC
1 accept there is an alternative, we don't accept that
2 is a better alternative.
3
4 DR ALLAN: Mr Chapel, can I just ask a question? Do you
5 see a trade-off - like, if we go to the mechanical
6 and chemical methods of possum control. This was
7 very familiar to me a few years ago with The Nelson
8 Lakes environment, and I know what possum trappers do
9 with tracks, camps and latrines out in our
10 wilderness. Has your Society considered the impact
11 of people in control, even if the financial resources
12 and skilled manpower were required?
13
14 MR CHAPPLE: We do consider those matters, but it is a
15 matter of risk assessment. We have to weigh that
16 impact against the impact possums and other pests are
17 having on New Zealand's biodiversity. And that
18 impact is tremendous. If I can quote the case of the
19 Kiwi, New Zealand's national bird, there are just
20 over 50,000 Kiwi left in New Zealand. The population
21 is halving every 10 years; we are indeed looking at
22 the extinction of the Kiwi on the mainland, as we
23 know.
24
25 Now, we have to weigh those risks against the impacts
26 that could occur, and obviously do occur when you get
27 into chemical or mechanical trapping. So, it is a
28 matter of risk management. We have great confidence
29 in the ability of the Department, I'm talking about
30 the Department of Conservation, but also in regional
31 councils and other organisations that are involved in
32 pest control to be able to bring the situation under
33 control.
34
35 DR FLEMING: Can I follow-up on that and ask if the
36 Society is concerned with the amount of 1080 poison
37 being used?
38
39 MR CHAPPLE: There are huge problems surrounding 1080, not
40 the least of which are the philosophical issues of
41 whether you should use poison, and such like.
42
43 From our research, and in our knowledge, we believe
44 that 1080 is probably the most researched chemical in
45 New Zealand. A great deal of research has being
46 conducted, and is continuing to be conducted; it is
47 ongoing. It is undoubtedly the best tool we have at
48 the moment. But again, no great evidence has come to
49 light, in all of that research, to show harmful
50 effects on humans. It certainly can affect other
51 species.
52
53 If I can quote a case in Pureora a couple of years
54 ago, where a robin population was severely impacted
55 by a 1080 drop, even though it was not the aim of the
56 drop. However, it did bounce back to twice, three
57 times its population after it was dropped. So again,
58 it's a matter of risk assessment.
59
60 DR FLEMING: Thank you.
8 February 2001.3482
Royal Forest & Bird XXN by Mr Hodson QC
1
2 MR HODSON QC: The Argentina ant hasn't had the same
3 publicity as possums and wasps, so we have downloaded
4 some Hort news material on this particular pest, and
5 if that could be distributed.
6
7 [Document distributed]
8
9 PRODUCED AS EXHIBIT H 197
10
11 MR HODSON QC: I think you'll recognise, amongst the
12 material, the fact sheet which was supplied by the
13 Society, and above that is a pessimistic but perhaps
14 accurate statement by biosecurity officials saying
15 that it can't be eradicated, dated the 20th
16 of September. Can you see that one?
17
18 And, above that is the report of progress on Tiri
19 Tiri Matangi Island. Now, I see that that
20 eradication process seems to be regarded as
21 successful, but it has required the hand laying of
22 bait every two to three metres in a grid over 11
23 hectares to do it.
24
25 Is it the Society's understanding that that
26 particular process will eradicate the ant from that
27 island?
28
29 MR CHAPPLE: Could I ask our senior researcher, sir, to
30 answer that question? Mr Barry Weeber.
31
32 MR WEEBER: The Society has been involved in the
33 eradication on Tiri Tiri Matangi Island. We actually
34 had one of our staff members involved in that
35 eradication process, which happened over the last
36 week. It will take up to a year to work out success
37 of the operation, but certainly from experience in
38 Australia, where debate and different techniques have
39 been applied, we're quite hopeful that we'll see
40 eradication of the ant from the island.
41
42 I suppose it would be also true that, given this was
43 the first time it's been trialled in New Zealand,
44 it's likely to be more intensive an operation than
45 would occur when we get more experience into practice
46 of looking at Argentina ants and controlling
47 Argentina ants and eradicating, certainly from the
48 smaller outlying areas from around the country.
49
50 For example, in Kelburn there is a population of
51 Argentina ants, and if this method suitably adjusted
52 for an urban setting could be applied in that
53 situation. So again, if you look at the techniques
54 that have been applied in regards to possums and
55 other eradications, the first time you do it, it's
56 always more intensive, and you find out with greater
57 experience and greater techniques as that builds up,
58 but certainly we're quite hopeful.
59
60 MR HODSON QC: Is the Society aware of any research aimed
8 February 2001.3483
Royal Forest & Bird XXN by Mr Hodson QC
1 at a genetic solution?
2
3 MR WEEBER: Certainly we're not aware of any techniques.
4 Certainly, our understanding is the current chemical
5 techniques for eradication look very promising and
6 very successful where it's applied out of
7 New Zealand.
8
9 MR HODSON QC: If there were any such research proposed,
10 would the Society support it in their laboratory
11 stage?
12
13 MR WEEBER: Well, that's --
14
15 MRS BIELESKI: Hypothetical question.
16
17 MR CHAPPLE: It's a policy issue, I've been told, so
18 therefore it's been handed to me. The Society always
19 supports research, as I have said before. What we
20 want to know, before giving a carte blanche answer to
21 your question, is what the purpose of the research,
22 what are the objectives of the research, will it be
23 successful, is it a runner, is it achievable? We
24 would need to know all of those sorts of things
25 before we give a definitive answer as to whether we
26 would agree to that research.
27
28 MR HODSON QC: Thank you very much for that. If we can
29 move on in the same vein to the problem of wasps,
30 which I think will be particularly dear to the Nelson
31 heart. Is there any knowledge of any genetically
32 engineered research into the problem of wasps?
33
34 MRS BIELESKI: As far as I'm aware, there is not, but
35 there also seems to be no need, because at the
36 present moment the success rate for the wasp
37 eradication programme has been great. And, it's very
38 evident, one just has to walk through the mainland
39 island at St Arnaud and there are none, and the
40 honeydew has increased incredibly. That - they have
41 been trying various methods, and they are to write up
42 an account of their successes, which will be trialled
43 in other places. It is not only there, though, in
44 the Pelorus Valley they are also greatly reduced.
45 So, I think that this may be a problem; if everyone
46 gets to work on it, it will be solved without needing
47 any genetic modification.
48
49 MR HODSON QC: We have seen the reports, but could I ask,
50 is there any evidence of the permanence of the
51 current success?
52
53 MR CHAPPLE: Dr Maddison?
54
55 DR MADDISON: Can I just say that I am aware of the
56 proposal for research on genetic engineered bacteria
57 in the gut of wasps, that was in the Monsanto
58 research; I gather there is a proposal. We would
59 have concerns about that, because of concerns about
60 bacteria which I've raised before. And so, yeah,
8 February 2001.3484
Royal Forest & Bird QD by Mr Brown QC
1 that's - sorry, the other question, I've lost.
2
3 MR HODSON QC: I think probably the answer is the same; as
4 a matter of policy you would have to look at it very
5 carefully before you gave any approval or support.
6
7 MR CHAPPLE: Oh, certainly.
8
9 MR HODSON QC: I think it bears me only to say that, from
10 where I stand, respectfully, we totally support your
11 reference of the Precautionary Principle as set out
12 in Section 7 of HSNO. Thank you very much.
13
14 CHAIR: Mr Brown, Counsel Assisting the Commission.
15
16
17 ***
18
19 [12.07 am]
20 MR BROWN QC: Good afternoon, and can I compliment you on
21 a clear and refreshingly cross-referenced
22 submission.
23
24 MR WEEBER: You're a bit quiet.
25
26 MR BROWN QC: Okay, I'll modify my presentation. One of
27 the, I think, clear themes in your combined
28 submission is the containment only and no field
29 release position. What I wanted to ask you about is,
30 is whether you see it as entirely practical to have
31 work on GMOs in a laboratory environment, without any
32 field testing in New Zealand, whether that is seen as
33 a practical possibility or whether ultimately it may
34 mean that laboratory work, in itself, won't be a
35 starter. Do you have a view on that?
36
37 DR MADDISON: Well, if I can comment, and it is a
38 difficulty, you know, obviously, the larger scale
39 containment issue, but I seem to recall the issues
40 around - wasn't there a thing called the "biosphere"
41 that people lived in, that you can create quite large
42 areas that you can seal off and do quite large scale
43 quasi field trials in where control - in that nothing
44 escapes from them.
45
46 I think it's just a matter of thinking larger about
47 those issues. I mean, our concern is that nothing
48 escapes, and that this issue of the dead material
49 particularly is dealt with. And, you know, I mean,
50 even the issue of pollen not getting out. So, it
51 needs to be thought out. But, I mean, those things
52 were designed - I mean, how many people lived in the
53 biosphere for so many months? So, it's not beyond
54 the wit of people, and the dollars are there to
55 create that type of environment if they wanted to
56 test this type of material.
57
58 I mean, we - I mean, our concern is that those tests
59 occur before it goes out in the field, so it doesn't
60 need a lot of thinking about how you can do that in
8 February 2001.3485
Royal Forest & Bird QD by Mr Brown QC
1 containment, and I realise that's a difficulty,
2 certainly the Society realises it's a difficulty, but
3 I don't think it's impossible given the dollars that
4 are around this type of technology.
5
6 MR BROWN QC: So, without trying to put words in your
7 mouth, might you be suggesting to me that
8 containment, as a concept, would be something that
9 you could envisage as extending beyond what you might
10 call pure laboratory research?
11
12 DR MADDISON: Well - but large laboratory, yes. I mean,
13 there are the potential for those larger scaled
14 things happening in a contained situation. So
15 whether you call that a laboratory or, you know, a
16 field thing. I mean, what we would be opposed to is
17 it being out with - connections with the outside
18 world. So, if the boffins can design something that
19 contains things that includes that, I mean, it's a
20 very expensive procedure to stop outside soil and air
21 getting contaminated. But, you know, it's possible.
22
23 MRS BIELESKI: They already do at Mt Albert in the
24 HortResearch in a small scale. I don't see why they
25 can't extend that.
26
27 MR BROWN QC: The Commission, of course, is having to deal
28 with not purely future matters, but states of affairs
29 that exist, and there's been evidence about cattle
30 and sheep with - being used to explore various
31 experiments at the moment. Your attitude, I take it,
32 is that you would prefer to see that come to an end?
33
34 DR MADDISON: Yes.
35
36 MR BROWN QC: Yes. The prohibition on field research and
37 the like, I take it from what you've said, and I was
38 fascinated by what you said about the soil ecosystem
39 issues, that wouldn't be a short-term prohibition,
40 you would see that as having to be a long period, a
41 very significant period before there could be
42 consideration given to field research?
43
44 DR MADDISON: I think so, yeah. I mean, there have been
45 suggestions of a number of years moratorium.
46
47 MR BROWN QC: But judging from what you say, and I'm
48 thinking about the comments about the dormancy of
49 various - of various things you refer to in the
50 submission; it would be many many years that one
51 would be contemplating?
52
53 DR MADDISON: It would, unless those things are brought
54 into the testing regime.
55
56 MR BROWN QC: Right.
57
58 DR MADDISON: And some of those can be tested.
59
60 MR BROWN QC: The possum issue has attracted quite a
8 February 2001.3486
Royal Forest & Bird QD by Mr Brown QC
1 degree of attention. The possum issue is one that
2 features in, for example, in Treaty claim issues;
3 it's specifically raised in the Wai 262 claim, which
4 I think is referred to in your material. What is the
5 most effective process that you were referring to
6 before when you responded to the questions from
7 counsel and the Commission? Was it 1080?
8
9 MR CHAPPLE: Yes, it is without doubt the most effective
10 method that we have, within the current state of
11 knowledge that we have.
12
13 MR BROWN QC: 1080 itself, however, has a number of
14 detractors, not least within the Maori community.
15 Would you agree with that?
16
17 MR CHAPPLE: There's no doubt that 1080 has its opposition
18 and those who oppose it; of course there is.
19
20 MR BROWN QC: And are you aware of any evidence that 1080
21 may itself have led to the death of our natural Kiwi?
22
23 MR CHAPPLE: Not that I'm aware. The hue and cry was
24 raised some years ago about 1080 operation in
25 Okarito, where locals have said that this operation
26 had affected the Kiwi. A subsequent study, and I can
27 produce the documents, I clearly don't have them with
28 me, showed that it did not affect Kiwi. But again,
29 the Society is in the invidious position of having to
30 manage risk assessment; we have to weigh the risks of
31 1080, such as they are, against the risk of the Kiwi,
32 of doing nothing. The possum incidentally is only
33 one of a number of threats as far as the Kiwi is
34 concerned.
35
36 MR BROWN QC: We've had some very moving evidence from
37 those who are interested in genetically modified
38 sourced or processed products for the treatments of
39 various illnesses. You address the health question
40 at paragraph 77 of the primary submission, and you
41 say there that the Society doesn't object to GMO and
42 GM product work related to health issues, provided
43 this does not involve field testing or release, which
44 of course is consistent with your - the broad
45 proposition that I asked you about at the beginning.
46 What isn't clear to me, is whether what you state
47 there would involve your taking the position that you
48 would be unhappy with the distribution of medicines
49 in New Zealand that had a GM derivation. Can you
50 help with that?
51
52 DR MADDISON: No, I believe our position, you know, would
53 be that we don't object to that, provided we've
54 looked at all those issues about the disposal of
55 material and, you know - I mean, the health industry
56 looked at that question I raised about, what happens
57 when people die - to that GM material? I mean, if it
58 gets into the system, has that been thought about?
59 And, I just raise it as a question, it's an issue
60 that I don't think I've seen raised, and I don't want
8 February 2001.3487
Royal Forest & Bird QD by Mr Brown QC
1 to get morbid.
2
3 MR BROWN QC: No, no, you're talking about disposal, and
4 possibly also effluent-type issues?
5
6 DR MADDISON: Yes.
7
8 MR BROWN QC: Subject to that --
9
10 DR MADDISON: Yes, subject to that.
11
12 MR BROWN QC: -- concern; you're not troubled by the
13 medical applications.
14
15 On the question of destruction, and destroying these
16 problems, I was very interested in what you said
17 about bioremediation, which is becoming a pretty
18 interesting issue, not the least in the Nelson sort
19 of area.
20
21 MRS BIELESKI: Well, it's only suspect; we have not
22 managed to get it confirmed.
23
24 MR BROWN QC: Right, okay. A entirely hypothetical, if I
25 could; what would your attitude be, for example, to a
26 willow tree that was the subject of some genetic
27 modification that might be planted to leach out
28 metals in an environment that called for
29 bioremediation, and then, once it's fulfilled, the
30 tree was felled and destroyed. Would that be a
31 scenario that you could relate to in a bioremediation
32 situation, or is it too hypothetical?
33
34 DR MADDISON: I mean, I mean, I think we will look at that
35 situation and assess it. I think that may have some
36 potential, and obviously we don't like willows
37 per se; you obviously chose the right plant.
38
39 MR BROWN QC: I'm a cricketer --
40
41 DR MADDISON: I've had enough chopping down willows. I
42 worry about the root system and where it goes, and I
43 worry about the pollen from the willow and the seeds,
44 and those sort of things. So, if that's addressed,
45 all those externalities that need to be thought
46 about. But, in principle, if the willow sequestered
47 the chemicals into it and then is destroyed, I mean,
48 there's a problem what to do with the ash, because
49 it's still got the chemicals inside it, but it's not
50 an impossible scenario. And the other problem is,
51 we've still got that Mapua there, so unless we can
52 remediate it some way, the problem exists.
53
54 MR BROWN QC: But you would make the point that there are
55 issues about the functioning of the particular plant
56 itself during its lifetime?
57
58 DR MADDISON: Yes. That's not impossible.
59
60 MR BROWN QC: I was very intrigued by the article by
8 February 2001.3488
Royal Forest & Bird QD by Mr Brown QC
1 Swiss Re that was attached to your submission. I
2 could be - which I see is an item produced in or
3 about 1998. One could be sort of playful and put to
4 you propositions such as page 8 about the alleged
5 growing pragmatism of Europeans about their genetic
6 engineering concerns. But I take it that your
7 reliance upon this article is to emphasise the fact
8 that the types of damage from disasters, or escapes,
9 are not really capable of being addressed by an
10 insurance process?
11
12 DR MADDISON: That's what I understand the paper to be
13 saying, and that was - you know, when it was applying
14 to genetic engineering, I thought it was of interest
15 to the Commission that this paper existed.
16
17 MR BROWN QC: Would you - one of the themes in this paper
18 is that, and if you look particularly at the last
19 paragraph of it, it talks about the --
20
21 DR MADDISON: It's quite crucial.
22
23 MR BROWN QC: -- about, "A development of societal and
24 legal frameworks unfavourable to genetic engineeering
25 could lead to unsupportably high liability risks". I
26 suspect there may be an argument inferred from that,
27 if urgent letter on the regime insurance is more of
28 an option? But, would I take it that you would
29 generally favour an absolute liability approach to
30 those who seek to have the introduction of a GM
31 product?
32
33 DR MADDISON: Well, I can't speak on behalf of the
34 community, maybe Mr Weeber wants to comment? But the
35 reliability issue, I think, is one that's got to be
36 considered, and we'd like to make sure that somebody
37 in fact is able to pick up the tab if there is - if
38 there are effects that are found subsequently, and
39 how that's achieved seems to be by insurance cover,
40 but maybe Mr Weeber wants to add --
41
42 MR WEEBER: I think, like any other high risk industry, we
43 want to see a limited liability on the benefitter of
44 the product. [Nods].
45
46 MRS BIELESKI: We don't want to see another Mapua or Tui
47 mine disaster, with the taxpayer or the rate payer
48 paying for it.
49
50 MR BROWN QC: Yes, the socialisation of costs that
51 Mr Upton was talking about.
52
53 MRS BIELESKI: Yes.
54
55 CHAIR: Thank you.
56
57
58 FURTHER DOCUMENTS PRODUCED:
59 H 198 - Extract from New Scientist,"Unfit for Humans",
60 (02/12/00): Mrs Bieleski.
8 February 2001.3489
Royal Forest & Bird QD by Commission
1 H 199 - "The Bryansk Declaration": Mrs Bieleski.
2 H 200 -"8-Misc: The Bryansk Declaration on genetic
3 engineering", (02/06/01): Mrs Bieleski.
4
5
6 ***
7
8 [12.22pm]
9 BISHOP RANDERSON: I just have one question, and this is
10 perhaps a hypothetical one as well, given your desire
11 not to have plants, GM plants growing in the field.
12 But, we have had evidence about the effectiveness of
13 tests that are conducted overseas, and if it's been
14 approved as okay in another country, that we can
15 bring it here and just do it here. But, the contrary
16 side of that has been, that may be so as far as the
17 plant is concerned, but our environment and our
18 ecosystem here is quite unique, it is different from
19 the other places where the tests might have been
20 done. So, weighting those two factors, I mean, in
21 making an assessment, how big a part of the
22 assessment is the uniqueness of the New Zealand
23 ecosystem in having to assess the safety or otherwise
24 of any plant that has been tested overseas?
25
26 MRS BIELESKI: To the Nelson/Tasman Branch, enormous. We,
27 umm, feel that testing overseas is just not adequate
28 for here.
29
30 BISHOP RANDERSON: So, there's absolutely no value at all
31 in any of the genetic properties of the plant that
32 might have come from --
33
34 MRS BIELESKI: It would require another testing here.
35
36 BISHOP RANDERSON: What I'm trying to say, is getting a
37 feel for the balance of "over there" as compared with
38 what needs to be done here.
39
40 MRS BIELESKI: We have a history of weeds here which were
41 not weeds in their original country. So, it has been
42 demonstrated that our environment reacts differently
43 with introduced species.
44
45 BISHOP RANDERSON: That was the basis of my question, of
46 course, perhaps someone else might be able to help us
47 here.
48
49 MR CHAPPLE: I think the question, I suppose firstly is,
50 what is the validity of the testing that is being
51 conducted overseas, and has that gone through a
52 robust system? I simply do not know whether it has
53 or not; it is a hypothetical situation. It does come
54 down, I think, ultimately to a balance. You need to
55 say, well, that may well be so, but are there other
56 factors that ought to be built into the equation
57 which relate specifically to New Zealand.
58
59 So, I suppose you would say - you would need to take
60 into account what had happened overseas. You would
8 February 2001.3490
Royal Forest & Bird QD by Commission
1 then have to weigh that specifically against
2 New Zealand's uniqueness and say, are there other
3 threats that could - could or should be taken into
4 account? Without a specific example, I suppose it's
5 difficult to say. Things do react differently to
6 different ecosystems.
7
8 We know for example that with global warming some
9 species, which were not able to persist in
10 New Zealand, may well be able to persist down the
11 track, for example, mosquitoes. These are things
12 that do need to be taken into account. It's a very
13 difficult question, and I don't know if I've answered
14 it properly, but it is about the best answer that I
15 can give.
16
17 DR MADDISON: If I could follow on; I mean, I think there
18 already exists with biocontrol agents, a regime that
19 is set up for the testing of those agents. I
20 remember, I think, the gorse spider mite that was
21 introduced in this country, I think had to be tested
22 on about 14 leguminous plants, including the native
23 broom, carmykelia(?). So, that that regime was put
24 through - under the, you know, protocols that were
25 existing at the time, I don't think it was under the
26 present Act.
27
28 So, that mite was tested in Spain against plants that
29 were sent out from New Zealand, you know, for that
30 purpose, before it was introduced here. And then it
31 was in quarantine for a while in New Zealand at
32 Mt Albert before it was actually released in the
33 country. And, I mean, to my knowledge that stayed on
34 gorse in this country, and it's starting to be
35 effective. I mean you get this sort of ball and
36 socket around the gorse that's killing them off.
37
38 So that sort of testing is now required to be done
39 internationally. The old biocontrol way, of taking a
40 handful of things and throwing them out in the
41 country, is long gone, thank God, and we've learnt a
42 lot in the process.
43
44 BISHOP RANDERSON: Thank you.
45
46 CHAIR: Ms Bieleski, just coming back to the Mapua
47 situation, are there lessons to be learned from
48 that? Can you tell us a little more about it? Are
49 you familiar with the background, can I ask?
50
51 MRS BIELESKI: I can leave you a background paper on it,
52 would that be helpful?
53
54 CHAIR: Depends what's in it. Can I ask you one or two
55 questions?
56
57 MRS BIELESKI: Certainly.
58
59 CHAIR: There was a company there, the Fruitgrowers
60 Chemical Company, is that right?
8 February 2001.3491
Royal Forest & Bird QD by Commission
1
2 MRS BIELESKI: Yes.
3
4 CHAIR: Was that a multinational, or was it a New Zealand
5 based operation?
6
7 MRS BIELESKI: It was a New Zealand based. "Fruitgrowers
8 Chemical Company was established by an Arthur McKee
9 in 1932 and produced lime sulphur and spraying oils
10 in a coolstore at the port for the horticultural
11 industry" --
12
13 CHAIR: You don't need to read us large chunks. Was it a
14 New Zealand based operation; it was run by a man
15 named McKee, I think you said?
16
17 MRS BIELESKI: That's how it originated. Then it changed
18 its character, it became Lime & Marble to process the
19 Takaka marble. Then the McKees introduced a
20 micronising or reduction technique into New Zealand.
21 That's when it became involved in the DDT, dieldrin,
22 and such processes.
23
24 CHAIR: Now that you've reminded me of all that, it was
25 regarded as a highly successful New Zealand based
26 operation at one time, wasn't it?
27
28 MRS BIELESKI: Yes, it also produced Agent Orange which
29 they exported.
30
31 CHAIR: And then what happened, without going into a lot
32 of detail? At some stage did the good people of
33 Nelson realise that this was a time bomb?
34
35 MRS BIELESKI: No, no, it wasn't realised - I'm just
36 trying to remember when. The company - it was a
37 family company, and eventually they actually sold
38 out, which is what I'm trying to find, "Mintech
39 bought the company" --
40
41 CHAIR: I'm not too interested in the pedigree of the
42 company. What happened as far as finding out it was
43 having a seriously deleterious effect on the
44 environment?
45
46 MRS BIELESKI: Well, eventually the Nelson Catchment Board
47 monitored the effluent. And from that they realised
48 that this was having this effect.
49
50 CHAIR: Was it closed down?
51
52 MRS BIELESKI: It had already closed down, it had been
53 left. The Tasman District Council negotiated with
54 the owners, and they received $375,000 to allow them
55 to clean up.
56
57 MR WEEBER: Sorry, if I can assist the Court, the
58 Commission. Forest and Bird's actually a party to an
59 Environment Court case, appeal, in regards to the
60 clean up of the sites. Our appeal on that is on the
8 February 2001.3492
Royal Forest & Bird QD by Commission
1 basis of, the proposed clean up is not sufficient.
2 So we've been involved in the history behind the
3 site.
4
5 Our basic concern, I suppose, came from about the
6 mid-1980s when they - after the company had finished,
7 that basically what we ended up with was an orphaned
8 site on which there was no real shell company on
9 which you could sue or place liability on. And
10 Tasman District Council, in its wisdom, took over
11 liability of that site to ensure clean up, and since
12 then there's been a lack of debate and/or action by
13 Tasman District Council.
14
15 And in the last three years there's been a commitment
16 from the Ministry for the Environment, of a - a
17 cabinet commitment, to fund and assist in the clean
18 up, and currently there's a process going through of
19 trying to deal with that. But we're talking about a
20 liability would could be as much as 10 or $15
21 million, that the tax payer, rate payer - of
22 New Zealand will end up paying for.
23
24 CHAIR: Because the company wound up?
25
26 MR WEEBER: Yes, and the same is true of Tui mine in the
27 Coromandel, which Jocelyn referred to, where the
28 company left the tailings dam, now which there is no
29 company to sue and currently the liability of that is
30 in dispute.
31
32 CHAIR: And coming back to chemicals, during the life time
33 of the company, it is not discovered or suspected
34 that this was an environmental time bomb, is that
35 right?
36
37 DR MADDISON: That's right.
38
39 MRS BIELESKI: No. One of the reasons for leaving was
40 there was a fire, which accelerated the --
41
42 CHAIR: Perhaps there's a lesson about monitoring there?
43
44 MRS BIELESKI: Definitely.
45
46 MR CHAPPLE: And research.
47
48 DR MADDISON: Could I just correct for the record. I
49 think Jocelyn said that it was a Monsanto chemical,
50 and I don't want to be sued by Monsanto, I think it
51 was the company, Shell, that developed dieldrin.
52
53 CHAIR: Thank you very much for your presentation; we
54 enjoyed hearing from you, and it's helpful to have
55 you here. We'll adjourn now till 9.30 tomorrow.
56
57
58
59 Hearing adjourned at 12.34pm
60
8 February 2001
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |
