Northland wants strict GMO regulations

Auckland and Northland residents want stricter regulation of any genetically modified plants and animals grown in their areas, a survey has found.

More than two-thirds of those surveyed by Colmar Brunton last year on behalf of district and regional councils supported regulation of at least a strength that would make users of genetically modified organisms GMOs legally responsible for any environmental or economic harm – either through local regulation or by changing national legislation.

The poll was commissioned by the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options.

Its purpose was to gauge the degree to which communities were willing to accept risks associated with the outdoor use of GMOs, and to test options for responding to these risks.

There is currently no outdoor use of GM plants or animals in Auckland and Northland.

Two-thirds or more of the residents polled also wanted the councils to regulate GMOs in their areas – either by setting local rules or by changing national legislation.

Support in each council’s territory ranged from 66 to 75 percent.

The survey also showed that about half the residents – between 44 and 55 percent – wanted councils to be able to ban genetically-modified plants and animals.

The council could do this by setting local rules or allowing communities the right to reject the use of a particular GMO when national regulator the Environmental Risk Management Authority ERMA is processing applications.

When questioned about the extent to which the councils should set rules in addition to those set by ERMA, levels of support ranged from 40 to 49 percent for individual council areas.

Among those respondents who support their council setting rules, total prohibition is the most favoured level of regulation – a range of 39 to 57 percent – with strict liability provisions the next most-favoured – a range of 22 to 32 percent – and prohibiting only GMOs for food production the least-favoured – a range of 18 to 27 percent.

The most common reasons for supporting local regulation was that there was not enough known about the consequences of genetic modification, that users of GMOs should be held accountable if something goes wrong, and that people shouldn’t interfere with nature.

Reasons for not supporting local regulation included respondents being in favour of genetic modification, that central government should set the rules, and that ERMA should make decisions about GMOs.

Support for the councils having a regulatory role is stronger in Northland than in the Auckland region.

There was considerable variation between councils in the Auckland region. Levels of support for regulation were significantly higher in the Waitakere, Auckland city and Franklin communities.

Support for not having local regulation was significantly higher in Manukau and North.

In Rodney and Papakura, the levels of support for and against local regulation were more-evenly matched.

However, all communities strongly favoured making users of GMOs legally responsible for any economic or environmental harm caused by GMO land use activities.

About two-thirds of those polled wanted regulation to make users of GMOs strictly liable for any harm caused, with support ranging from 63 to 72 percent for individual councils.

Under current law, the user is not liable for damage resulting from an activity carried out in accordance with ERMA approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

There is also no requirement for applicants to prove financial fitness in case of damage and no requirement to post bonds to cover costs should damage occur.

Therefore, costs from unexpected events or ineffective national regulation will tend to lie with affected parties –neighbouring land users and local authorities.

Support for local regulation is strongest among Maori, particularly in Northland.

It is also strongest among semi-rural and rural residents while urban views vary by region.

Rural residents are more likely to favour banning GMOs in both Northland and Auckland than semi-rural or urban residents.

Women are more likely to support local regulation than men, and support is greater among 18 to 39-year-olds than older age groups.

The poll also found that there is clear support from the Northland and Auckland communities for only producing food that is not genetically modified, but strong support for leaving options open for genetically modified plants and animals in the future.

Views were split over whether genetic modification will harm the local tourism industry with Northland indicating yes and Auckland indicating no.

However, both Auckland and Northland residents believe that genetic modification will harm the local food industry.

In many communities, the majority view was that genetic modification will not provide economic benefits, although the Auckland region as a whole believes it will.

Those councils that commissioned the survey through the working party are Whangarei, Far North, Kaipara and Rodney District Councils, Waitakere City Council, and Auckland Regional Council.

The Northland Regional Council is a member of the party but did not help in commissioning or funding the survey.

The councils on the working party will now examine options for responding to community concerns identified by the survey.

These include renewed lobbying of central government to amend the national legislation governing GMOs.

The changes sought include putting in place a full strict liability regime for harm caused by GMOs and/or to allow local and regional
councils the right to reject GMOs in their jurisdictions when applications are made to ERMA to trial or release GMOs.

Also to be further evaluated are options for local or regional regulation by formulating draft objectives, policies and rules under the RMA.

A decision on introducing rules for the Auckland region would most likely have to await the establishment of the new Greater Auckland Council in October 2010.

- © Fairfax NZ News