Genetic Engineering

Forest and Bird, Issue 300, 1 May 2001, Page 3

Genetic Engineering

I’m writing to express my disappointment with the latest issue of Forest ¢ Bird. Although its content is excellent (as usual) in many respects, there is a conspicuous absence of any information on the critical issue of genetic engineering. Considering that the Royal Commission of Inquiry into this new and unproven technology is in full swing, and that several branches of Forest and Bird have Interested Party status, this is a serious oversight. I understand that Peter Maddison is ‘in charge’ of overseeing this important issue — can we not hear from him or the branches doing admirable work in addressing this issue? I wish to express my thanks to the Northern branch of Forest and Bird (in particular, the chairman Steven Westgate and secretary Ngaio Davis) for their support of GE Free Northland in lobbying the local council to class GE as a prohibited activity in the district plan, and pressuring Northland Regional

Council to take responsibility for protecting both biodiversity and Northland farmers from transgenic pollution. Zelka Grammer, Chairwoman, GE Free Northland, Member, Whangarei Forest and Bird

As previously reported, Forest and Bird’s policy with regard to genetic engineering was decided at the June 1999 Council meeting when branches resolved to urge ‘the Government to adopt a precautionary approach to genetic engineering because of the significant uncertainty of the environmental risks of genetically engineered species or their hybrid derivatives becoming established in the wild, to the detriment of indigenous biodiverity or to domestic animal or crop species’.

The Society was still developing its position for the Royal Commission when we last went to press, so no article was available. Dr Maddison, who chairs the national executive's committee on biosecurity, reports on the Society’s evidence on page 46 of this issue.