As New Zealand reels from its latest GM contamination incident, involving a 13,500 tonne consignment of maize in the North Island, organisations such as 'GE Free NZ' are pointing to the desperate need for the principle of "polluter pays" to be established in law.
Why, GE Free NZ asks, are New Zealand's export industry and primary producers repeatedly being put at risk while the taxpaying public gets to foot the investigation and all the clean-up charges?
Instead of promoting the liability and compensation regimes that are required, Helen Clark's NZ government has been busy blocking them, acting as a stooge for the US government and other GM exporters.
New Zealand together with GM-exporting Brazil took this obstructive stance at the recent Cartegena protocol meeting in Montreal Canada where the NZ delegation actively blocked any liability laws and tracking of GMOs.
Why? According to NZ's poorly regarded Environment Minister, Marion Hobbs, the accurate labelling of GM shipments and a liability regime would serve to "slow trade", acting as an "arbitrary barrier" to the free flow of goods.
Here's a series of great letters and an excellent article, taken from NZ's FARMERS WEEKLY, which respond to the behaviour of NZ's delegation in Montreal and to the attempt by Marion Hobbs to justify it.
------
letters to the editor of NZ FARMERS WEEKLY:
email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
fax: 06 323 7101
18 July 2005 NZ FARMERS WEEKLY
"MINISTER DOES NOT CONVINCE"
Dear Editor
I would like to support what Zelka Vallings said [see article below - CARTEGENA POSITION HURTS INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION] regarding New Zealand's position at the recent Cartegena protocol meeting in Montreal Canada (Farmers Weekly, July 4).
When it first became apparent New Zealand and Brazil were siding with non voting countries and companies involved in GE, the minister responsible, Marian Hobbs, retorted it was the NZ Greens and "NGO's" who were spreading misinformation.
Later, as the truth became evident, she acknowledged the other Cartegena delegates at Montreal disagreed with NZ's stance.
It is shameful enough for us to become the laughing stock of the conference for our unprincipled stand, but for the minister to deflect criticism and then change the tune suggests she is out of touch with what's going on.
It is time the minister acknowledged the depth of opposition here and overseas to GMOs being spread around the globe unchecked, and stop making us look like clowns.
Jon Muller
Dip Hort, NDH (Hons)
Via email
next letter:
"GM MARKET DATA UNAVAILABLE"
Dear Editor
Environment Minister Marian Hobbs (4 July, Weekly Punchup) was trying to say that in future New Zealand will have the reputation of being clean, green and GM. This is highly unlikely, given the increasing worldwide opposition to GM food.
"We do not export any GM products, and whether we do so in the future should be determined by the normal rules of the market and consumer demand - not by arbitrary trade restrictions set through the Cartegena Protocol," said Ms Hobbs.
The trouble with this stance is that the market is not in a position to assess any company data, like rat-feeding experiments, and even if it did so, would have difficulty interpreting them (independent studies of company lines of GM crops are scarce).
Leave this to Food Standards Australia NZ (FSANZ), I hear her saying.
Really? They have just approved the corn Mon(santo) 863, which caused kidney and blood abnormalites in rats. Not a problem, say FSANZ, the corn was compositionally similar enough to called safe.
Who would you trust?
Yours sincerely
Dr Elvira Dommisse
(ENDS)
25 July 05, NZ FARMERS WEEKLY
AUSSIES FIND KIWIS REJECT GMOs
Dear Editor
My husband and I recently visited New Zealand for a Sheep Breeders Conference and toured the South Island, visiting many properties on the way.
At every opportunity, I questioned the hospitable locals regarding GMOs (transgenic technology).
Not one indicated to me they wanted GMOs grown in New Zealand and preferably not on their supermarket shelves either.
Helen Clark, your Prime Minister, appears to have turned off her hearing aid to her constituents by sending a delegation to the Cartegena Protocol meeting in Canada which promptly dismissed her own country's concern about transgenic technology.
Perhaps Clark and indeed all parliamentarians who supported such action would offer their services and their canteens for long term scientific health studies! If transgenic foods are so safe, as the multinational PR machines would have us believe, then Clark would have no qualms at taking part in such safety testing and then quite rightly - liability and labelling could become a non-issue.
New Zealand is a beautiful country and your marketing skills are fantastic - hopefully your current government will not lose your natural advantage by supporting the multinationals over your farmers.
Let's get to the bottom of this matter - what problems are trying to be solved by transgenic technology? There is an alternative and it lies in understanding our soils, ensuring balanced mineralisation and supporting farmers who actively pursue such sustainable farming practices.
Helen Chambers
Marong, Victoria, Australia
next letter:
CARTEGENA SAGE KEEPS ROLLING
Dear Editor
I see Environment Minister Marian Hobbs' response to concerns about the government's attitude to the Cartegena Protocol (Farmers Weekly, July 4) is not exactly the same as the response I received from the minister.
My response from the minister did not contain the paragraph "we do not export any GM products, and whether we do so in the future should be determined by the normal rules of the market and consumer demand - not by arbitrary trade restrictions set through the Cartegena Protocol."
This paragraph is revealing and echoes a phrase which has been repeated again and again throughout this affair.
Notice the minister uses the expression "arbitrary trade restrictions".
How could any decision made by 130 countries who are signatories to the Cartegena Protocol be considered "arbitrary"? People right now are being affected by GE contamination and labelling issues, not least the 33 African countries for voted for higher accountability.
What does the minister consider the "normal rules of the market" to be exactly, and what does this spurious statement on our possible future as a GM exporter have to do with her responsibilities to biosecurity and the environment?
Simon Marler
Auckland
ENDS
*text of "Punchup" which got the ball rolling:
Weekly Punch Up
NZ FARMERS WEEKLY p. ll
4 July 2005
New Zealand's negotiating position at the recent Cartegena Protocol meeting in Montreal, Canada has upset the GE-free lobby. In the Weekly Punch-up, Northland farmer Zelka Vallings highlights the concerns of other conference delegates and suggests New Zealand's reputation for being clean and green has been damaged. In response, environment minister Marian Hobbs says that is not the case at all.
CARTEGENA POSITION HURTS INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION
Our farming family is extremely concerned at the unprincipled stance the New Zealand delegates took at a recent international meeting.
This was the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol meeting which discussed the liability and labeling of LMOs (Living Modified Organisms).
On Radio New Zealand's Morning Report programme on May 31, Malaysian delegate Gurdial Singh Nijar said "towards the end, the New Zealand delegation suggested one of the options be that there be no instrument (provisions) on redress and liability. So all of these options were on the table and then suddenly the New Zealand delegation suggested that actually we should have one of those 'no document of any kind- voluntary, binding, provisional'."
Nijar continued by commenting that the NZ delegation were reflecting the interests of some rather powerful countries who are involved in GMO development but who are not parties to the conference.
African Group head Dr. Tewolde Egziabher warned the failure to reach agreement would allow global genetic pollution to escape unnoticed and unscathed.
He said the saddest part of the meeting was that it did not reach a conclusion on labelling and that was because Brazil and New Zealand blocked any progress.
New Zealand's admirable reputation as a producer of the highest quality, safe and clean non-GM food is at risk if stronger biosecurity protocols are not swiftly put into place.
The right of farmers to save their own seed is also under threat because of careless distribution of unwanted GM varieties. Now NZ has ratified the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol, there is an opportunity to be a "good global citizen" and for NZ to push for the highest standards of environmental protection and accountability (this will also protct our trade interests/key markets, which demand non-GM produce).
But what has the Government actually done? Despite attempts to deny the unprincipled position on liability and labelling of LMOs taken by the NZ delegates at the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol talks in Montreal, it is clear from the criticisms made by delegates representing other nations, and respected journalists like Ashok Sharma (an award-winning journalist who is respected by both the pro- and anti-GM lobby) that NZ has been obstructing negotiations in Montreal.
A change in the NZ Government's attitude is urgently needed, to stop blocking the emerging consensus around rules to implement Article l8(2)(a) and to rejoin the countries that are working to build an effective biosafety regime.
This is the Government's responsibility, as representatives of a democracy where the majority of the population are opposed to the release of GM organisms.
Environment minister Marian Hobbs should show some respect for the serious, science-based environmental and public health concerns which motivated the emergence of the Biodiversity Convention and the Biosafety Protocol.
ENDS