Ge Beast Rears Its Ugly Head
We’ve been so focused on climate change that this one nearly slipped by me. You’ll remember the nationwide fight to keep New Zealand GE free. Tens of thousands of us marched, not once but three times, to stop GE crops and food from entering our food-chain. And even though the Government lifted the moratorium on GE release in 2003 New Zealand has been effectively GE Free ever since.
This is now under threat from AgResearch, a Government research institute, which has applied to ‘field test’ GE organisms with
“a range of genetic modifications and maintain these organisms in containment for research, breeding and for the production of products with potential commercial applications”.
If it gets approval AgResearch will be able to conduct broad-ranging genetic experiments on a vast range of animals including cows, goats, sheep, pigs, rats, rabbits, possums and chickens. They even want to alter milk composition and have the right to release GE milk onto the market and intend using cells taken from ‘non-Maori humans’ mixing genes from different species to make transgenic animals. The application is so broad it lists humans as “host organisms” to modify!
It’s really important that as many people as possible oppose this monstrous application. NZ’s GE Free status, food, environment, economic wellbeing and clean green image are at stake.
Please take a moment to make an online submission to help keep New Zealand GE free.
It is a little complicated so I’ve included the submission I made with the help of our lawyer below.
You can find out more about the application here and several other related applications here . We’re most concerned with GMF07001 but GMC07012, GMD08012 and GMD07074 are also of concern so I’ve also mentioned them in my submission. You can read the Greenpeace submission here.
Here’s my submission.
In the ‘Reason for submission’ box I wrote …
There is inadequate information on genetic constructs, location and disposal for ERMA to make a good decision, or for submitters to make an informed submission, and ERMA should not have notified this application until these matters were adequately specified.
Its inadequacy is seen in the apparent mistaken inclusion of humans as a host organism to be genetically modified. There is insufficient information for ERMA to undertake an adequate risk assessment. This application should be declined for this reason alone.
Genetic modification of cows, buffalo, sheep, pigs, goats, llamas, alpacas, deer, and horses will endanger New Zealand’s GE -free status and non-GM exports as well as New Zealand’s dairy, sheep, deer, pig, goat, llama, alpaca and equine industries. It can also threaten New Zealand’s natural environment, including flora and fauna, through escape of genetically species, including pigs, goats, rabbits and possums.
The application for unlimited duration must not be accepted.
Conditions on disposal of waste matter are inadequate.
The genetic modification of rats, mice, hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, and possums as research models involve risk of escape and breeding.
The Appendix to application GMC07012 lists the following species as “The range of host organism to be genetically modified”: these species are listed in the following table.” The list of animals is:, cattle, buffalo, goat, sheep, pig, deer, llama, alpaca, horse, rat (excluding kiore), mouse, rabbit, possum, chicken, hamster, guinea pig, monkey, and human.
I oppose the genetic modification of these species by AgResearch.
AgResearch said that is ” not possible at the time of application to specify all the details of each field test which may be carried on under this approval (including the effects tested, the location or duration)” since “this application is for a generic approval (i.e. approval for any field test of organisms complying with the organism description for the purposes set out in this application) of unlimited duration.” The application is so broad that “whatever the boundaries, any outdoor activity will be approved under one approval or the other”. The breadth of this application, together with its lack of specifics of genetic constructs and locations, and its unlimited duration, means that it must not be approved. I also want no approval of commercial release of products approved.
I want these submissions also taken into account on applications GMC07012, GMD08012 and GMD07074 and hope that they will be taking in to consideration within those hearings.
Then for the ‘decision I seek’ I simply said:
The application declined.
Related posts
Email This Post
I’d be interested, Mr. Young, to know exactly what makes you (and your lawyer) qualified to comment on the inadequate conditions of waste matter disposal, and risk of escape for modified animals.
Did you happen to read AgResearch’s proposal?
“No products and waste from transgenic animals containing animal tissue (including meat and products containing animal cells) may leave the containment facility other than for disposal. Disposal must also comply with any resource consent requirements under the Resource Management Act.”
They also cite _extensive_ research and peer-reviewed science to back up their claims. Where are your sources? Where is your research and careful science?
This kind of knee-jerk negative reaction is holding back the progress of beneficial human medicines and therapies (one only need to go as far as Diabetics and Human Insulin to see direct benefits of genetically engineered microbes).
I am a member of your organisation but this kind of activity makes me question my support.
AgResearch asked that “that disposal of any animals and waste may occur on site or off site in accordance with the requirements of the standard using an acceptable method agreeable with local iwi. Disposal methods may include, Incineration, burial, organic waste treatment (commercial or composting or spraying onto pasture).”
Note that the location of the field tests and development activities are not specified so are unknown. The combination of these matters gives rise to our concerns about disposal. ERMA, rather than the RMA, is designed for addressing GE matters.
We would add that AgResearch’s intention to ‘alter and improve milk composition’, manipulate ‘the characteristics of wool fibre’ and ‘improve fertility in cows’, and the application to be able to commercialise such products, are quite separate from the biopharming activities and give rise to quite different concerns.
Regarding your comment on medicines, Greenpeace is not in general opposed to the use of GE in the medical sector, but research and application should only take place in truly contained systems.
No GE organisms producing, for example drugs or hormones, should escape into the environment because of the risks to human health, wildlife and ecosystems.
We believe that GE should be kept in the lab. There’s more on that here
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/campaigns/genetic-engineering/understanding-ge/ge-medicine
‘GE Pragmatist’ is also mixing two completely different technologies — genetically engineered microbes vs. genetically engineered cows. one is contained and has given us lots of new medicines. The other is released into the environment, is completely unproven, and frankly is absolutely unnecessary — we’ve got genetically engineered bacteria that do the *exact *same task.
GE Protagonist also does not address the ethics of what equates to animal abuse. Theres no place for this level of fiddling with nature. You dont have to be a scientist to know that.