92% don't want GE!
The Tasmanian parliamentary select committee have recommended an
open-ended continuation on their GMO crop release moratorium. They have
expressed their desire to eventually declare themselves GE-free, intending
to cash-in on the premiums on non-GE crops.
We, the Safe Food Campaign, are deeply disappointed that the Royal
Commission have
recommended that NZ goes down a GE track which we know is unwanted.
Public opinion polls have repeatedly shown that the vast majority of New
Zealanders don't want GE food. It is noteworthy that of the 10,861 public
submissions to the RCGM 9,998 were either strongly against or tended to be
against GE.
Over the last few years we have seen this world-wide aversion to GE
manifest itself as a consumer rejection of GE, and an increasing demand
for GE-free produce - not to mention the exponential increase in demand
for organics. For example, US farmers are loosing up to 700 million
pounds in lost markets as consumers shun GE. Similarly, Australian
farmers gained an extra $US 750 000 on 150 000 tons of Canola - because it
was not GE.
Why are we willing to follow the GE path when we have this knowledge that
GE is not needed and not wanted?
Tee Rogers-Hayden
Safe Food Campaign Spokesperson
and Waikato University, Geography doctoral student
News release from Greenpeace:
Public will bear the cost of GE experimentation
Auckland, Tuesday 31 July.
Greenpeace says that if the
government adopts the recommendations of the Royal Commission
on Genetic Engineering (RCI), the public will bear the economic
and environmental brunt of GE release if it goes wrong.
"The commission have acknowledged the public do not want GE in
the NZ environment, yet have not recommend a GE free NZ.
Instead they place the liability, of adverse GE release, squarely on
the shoulders of the taxpayer, the conventional and organic farmer,"
says Annette Cotter, Greenpeace campaigner.
The RCI conclusion of liability issues acknowledges "the potential
for some socialisation of unforeseen or unanticipated loss or
damage" but considers that, "with the emphasis on prevention, this
is appropriate" (CH 12,p328).
"Prevention measures can't be adequate. Seed contamination is
widespread in Europe, an unapproved GE corn is throughout the
food chain in the US, and canola field trials in Western Australia
cannot be contained. The rate of containment breaches
internationally should send a clear message to NZ. Once GE is in
the environment, contamination is inevitable. Why does the
Commission think NZ will be any different?"
"Insurers have already said they are not prepared to insure GE, and
the commissioners acknowledge this, "it is improbable that
insurers would take on such risks." (CH 12, p323). Currently, there
is almost no liability regime for environmental damage by adverse
GE release, which may take years to manifest," says Ms Cotter.
Greenpeace is calling on the Government to officially extend the
current voluntary moratorium on GE in the environment, until the
government's decision-making ends and they call for a GE free NZ
in food and the environment.
August 2001 |