Whether or not Northlanders support local control of genetically modified organisms in the environment should be known early next month.
An inter-council working group that has been evaluating the risks of GMO land uses says councils will have the results of last month’s Colmar Brunton telephone poll by the end of the month.
Working group chairman Dr Kerry Grundy says 400 people were surveyed in each district represented by the group, including the Far North.
"They were asked if they supported regulation at the local level in addition to national regulation and what form of regulation they would prefer," he says.
It will be up to the seven Northland and Auckland councils that comprise the working group to decide how to use the poll results.
"At some point in the not-too-distant-future, councils will have to decide what their stance is from this point on."
Options include:
- Not regulating genetically modified crops or livestock which are controlled by the Environmental Risk Management Authority – ERMA
- Banning or requiring resource consents for some or all genetically-modified crops or livestock
- Requiring people who grow or farm these to post a bond to cover damages if they become invasive or contaminate non-genetically-modified crops.
Meantime, GE-Free Northland has accused the Northland Regional Council of weakening its precautionary genetic engineering policy.
Spokeswoman Zelka Grammer says the council removed from its 10-year plan words opposing field tests or releases of GMOs, despite submissions supporting a precautionary approach.
"The second version leaves the control and management of genetically engineered organisms to ERMA, despite recent cases and inquiries that have shown lapses in management by the central government agency," she says.
The lobby group is preparing a complaint to the ombudsman and auditor- general alleging improper process at the council.
The Northland Conservation Board is also concerned about changes to the plan and is writing to the council.
"A lot of submissions went into that wording initially, so it’s strange that it’s been changed," says chairman Kevin Evans.
Regional council chairman Mark Farnsworth denies his council has weakened its precautionary policy.
Councillors changed words in the 10-year plan to better-reflect what is achievable under the law and what they intended when they adopted the policy, he says.
"The policy wording as it was called for prohibition which was not intended and not workable.
"If you can’t enforce it, it’s not appropriate to have it in there."
The council remains committed to the policy, despite changes to the plan.
"The precautionary approach was always about lobbying the government to ensure adequate safeguards are going in.
"Our policy now better reflects what we can actually do."
© 2009 Fairfax New Zealand Limited
