Evidence of a cover-up - Policy change to allow a cover up

1. MYTH - A tolerance threshold of 0.5% for GE contamination was never Government policy.

FACT - Cabinet papers confirm that a 0.5% threshold level was created and existed until July 2001 when zero tolerance was reinstated.

Evidence

The cabinet paper from Marian Hobbs presented on 11 December 2000 stated "Ministers are advised that for purely practical reasons, the system would have to be set up in relation to a very low but nevertheless explicit level of allowable inadvertent contamination. The present interim proposal is for a maximum of 0.5% contamination in sweet corn" .

If a tolerance threshold of 0.5% was never Government policy, why did Bas Walker, the head of ERMA and other senior members of ERMA believe until at least late February that it was and that it represented a significant change in Government policy?

And why is there no record of anyone correcting the apparently openly mistake?

The Cabinet paper on 11 December 2000 clearly articulates how the threshold allowed the Government to cover up the incident:

"an interim system for inspection is being developed for sweet corn in New Zealand based on obtaining a high level of assurance (99%) that any contamination is less than 0.5%; and that information on present sweet corn seed imports is that, against these parameters, there is no reliable evidence for concern about GM contamination."

The key phrase here is "against these parameters". By changing the definition of contamination to being any level above 0.5%, the Government was able to justify allowing the plants to remain in the ground. They shifted the goal posts to suit their political needs at the time.

By 25 January 2001, Government officials identified that the threshold was illegal saying:

"As currently worded there is no doubt that the interim protocol [allowable threshold] is completely illegal."

Therefore prior to the next growing season in 2001/02, the rules changed again. This time the threshold of 0.5% allowable contamination was replaced with a number to describe how accurate the tests are.

This means that the tests have to be set up so that there is a 99% guarantee that they can find contamination of 0.5% or more. The bigger the sample size, the bigger the statistical guarantee that the answer that you've got is the right one.

The 99% guarantee of finding contamination of 0.5% or more was still inadequate. "A stricter testing regime would be technically feasible" according to Jill White, Chair of ERMA. Larger sample sizes would allow detection of 0.1% contamination. The Government's testing regime is much weaker than it could be.