Staff working for the nation's genetic engineering regulator may have opened the door to re-assessments of previous broad approvals of genetic engineering of animals, says a lobbyist critical of field trials of genetically-engineered (GE) plants and animals.
Soil and Health campaigner Steffan Browning said it was "very pleasing" that Environmental Risk Management Authority (Erma) staff yesterday recommended rejection of AgResearch's wide-ranging GE plans, but said the regulator had previously allowed similar proposals .
"(The) recommendation follows GE Free NZ's previous legal challenges and opens the door for reassessment of previous decisions," he said."
Yesterday's announcement by Erma was a significant knock-back for the state's biggest science company, which has already responded by saying it will slash the species covered by the applications.
In the run-up to a planned June hearing, the authority's staff said in their evaluation and review the applications should be declined, because not being able to identify the range of GE organisms meant that they were unable to identify the nature of the organism or associated hazards.
"The exceptionally large range of genetic modifications, techniques and traits proposed means it is not possible to identify the full range of genetically modified organisms," the report said.
Mr Browning said Erma had failed to acknowledge that it had previously approved similarly broad animal engineering applications, and he said Erma was playing word games in the wake of legal challenges driven by the GE Free NZ lobby
GE-Free NZ took both Erma and AgResearch to court last year, over plans to use animals as "production platforms" for GE milk and other high-value proteins. It won a High Court decision that there were insufficient specifics in AgResearch's four applications, but an appeal court said such judgments should be made by regulators.
Erma was now suggesting the lack of a description of the range of genetic modifications drove its decision, but did not admit that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act requires individual GE constructs and organisms to be identified, Mr Browning said.
"It also fails to acknowledge that it has previously approved other applications with similar shortcomings," said Mr Browning. A decision last September allowed AgResearch to experiment on cats, dogs, pigs, guinea pigs, sheep, mice, rats, rabbits, possums, cattle, goats, and chickens using genetic material from almost any form of life.
AgResearch's latest four applications, submitted in 2008, were to import, develop and field test genetically-engineered GE cows, buffalo, sheep, pigs, goats, llamas, alpacas, deer and horses using DNA from humans, African green monkeys, possums, and smaller species of laboratory animals, such as cats, dogs, pigs, guinea pigs, hamsters, mice, rats, rabbits, and chickens.
AgResearch applied biotechnologies general manager Jimmy Suttie said the range of target species would now be limited to " mainly cattle, sheep and goats". It wants livestock to produce antigens, biopharmaceuticals, enzymes, hormones and other products with possible commercial applications.
