Questions and Answers

GE corn contamination cover-up

July 2002

Was contaminated corn in the shipment?

Yes. The only scientific paper conducted at the time, written by ERMA scientist Dr Donald Hannah, confirmed there was contamination. Subsequent questioning of the test results did not involve re-testing the shipload, so the initial scientific paper stands.

GeneScan Australia, one of the testing companies wrote to Novartis seeds saying "Our experiences in qualitative testing leads us to believe the samples received contain trace amounts of GM sweet corn."

However, the Government changed the rules to allow a degree of contamination to occur.

Did the Government cover up a release of GE corn?

Yes, there was a cover-up then, and it's continuing now.

The Government denied the presence of GE contamination to the public and the Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering. They changed the rules to allow a level of contamination. They confused the science to minimise understanding and used a public relations spin to deliver a 'sanitised' version of events to the public.

For instance, at the time, when the Government finally chose to tell the public there had been a shipment of GE contaminated corn into NZ, it was buried five paragraphs into a media statement put out in the week before Christmas 2000, six weeks after the initial warnings, and couched in hypothetical terms.

Now, Bas Walker, head of ERMA is not prepared to say that there was no contamination, whereas the Government has been denying any contamination occurred.

If the corn was contaminated, why were some of the samples negative?

In a confidential memo from ERMA to Marian Hobbs on 24 November 2000, Bas Walker states: '… the contamination (if it exists), is probably at a very low level which is possibly why some samples have shown positive results while most have shown negative results.'

Despite receiving both positive and negative results from various samples GeneScan Australia said on 5 December 2000 (and no subsequent analysis has ever been done): 'Our experience in qualitative testing leads us to believe the samples received contain trace amounts of GM sweet corn.'

GeneScan go on to explain the reason for getting negative readings in other samples is because the quantities are at low levels and the testing accuracies are not 100%. This means it is not always easy to find the contamination even though it exists.

What's the difference between threshold levels and contaminant levels?

The threshold of 0.5% was put in place because the industry argued that there would never be 100% guarantee of no contamination, and we'd have to be happy with a small amount of contamination. That's not acceptable. The regulations in the EU and what's being proposed for NZ, is called 'zero tolerance within technical limits.' This means that we do not accept a threshold for contamination, and that all testing that detects GE presence means the seed is rejected. It does allow for the current testing regime (PCR), which can reliably test to 0.1% (ie 99.9% reliable) but not 100% to give us the best possible guarantee of GE free. It's worth noting that testing is getting better as the technology gets more sophisticated, and the reliability will increase over time.

So, what ERMA and the Government are saying is that there was no contamination because the level of GE detection fell under this threshold. They're not saying no contamination occurred, just that it was small enough to be dismissed. Conclusions that GE contamination was below 0.5% were re-interpreted to mean "no GE was detectable".

That threshold changed in June 2001, and 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.

Wasn't the contamination related to soil and talcum powder?

The only scientific analysis at the time was Dr Donald Hannah's report, and he dismissed the idea that it was lab error or other contaminants. Also, one of the samples that was positive, came from an unopened bag which could not have been contaminated with powder or soil.

He also concluded that lab error was unlikely because the labs ran identical tests on 'controls' (seeds known to be GE-free) and these registered negative while the Lot NC9114 seeds registered positive. His opinion was that the contaminant was genetically engineered 'Bt11' sweet corn.

Did ERMA mislead the Royal Commission?

Yes, because ERMA did not tell the Commission the whole story, and gave a very sanitized series of events. Like the public, the Commission heard about the events with the threshold re-interpretation - and even people within ERMA felt uncomfortable with it.

Bas Walker, head of ERMA said 'this statement could be seen as misleading…. There is no way that [the 0.5% contamination allowance] can be construed as simply a continuation of existing policy. It presents a shift in policy, which (in my opinion) will probably require legislative change to formalise.' Walker was stating that the decision to 'tolerate' contamination up to 0.5% went against the existing law and that the Royal Commission should be told, which they weren't.

Have there been other shipments of GE corn or other seeds into NZ?

We don't know. Prior to the 2000-2001 season there was no testing requirements in place by MAF for importers. The threshold was instigated for the 2000-2001 season. When MAF changed the rules again for the 2001-2002 season, the degree of accuracy could have been better, and the ERMA chairperson at the time said so, "A stricter testing regime would be technically feasible."

Now MAF is reconsidering the regime for the next season, which is why we must say 'zero tolerance' to the highest degree of confidence possible, that is 0.1%.

Why would the Government have wanted to cover up a release of GE material?

In November 2000 the Government were presented with a dilemma - spark a public debate on a highly contentious issue or accept GE industry and lobbyists positions and pressure from the US that some level of contamination in imported seeds is now unavoidable (as many of NZ's seeds come from countries with a large uptake of GE produce - i.e. the US - the argument put was that contamination could not be avoided).

The Government chose to accept the later argument.

Did ERMA fail in their duties as a regulator?

ERMA failed the public, as one of their mission statements is "Promoting public awareness of the risks of hazardous substances and new organisms" and one of their goals is, "Monitoring and coordinating compliance with the (HSNO) Act".

ERMA failed to inform the public of this release and letting this GE seed into the environment was in breach of the HSNO Act.

Where is Greenpeace's evidence of a cover up?

The Government released over 400 pages on July 12, 2002, and this has informed our opinion. Also we have reviewed the evidence contained in Seeds of Distrust.

The Government has attempted, since release of the book, to discredit anyone they can associate with the GE issue. The Green Party (who had nothing to do with the publication) and the author have come under particular attack. In addition, the Government has attempted to confuse the issue by suggesting bureaucrats were at the time confused by the science.

Aren't you scare mongering?

Far from it. This example highlights the inadequacy of the controls over GE in this country. Concerns with GE are being voiced the world over and there remains considerable scientific uncertainty about GE organisms.

Greenpeace believes GE outside the laboratory poses significant environmental problems. Evidence of genetic transfer between and within species; concerns over the health impact of consuming GE organisms, and negative impacts on ecosystems are some of the reasons we have a 'keep it in the lab' policy.

Are you trying to get the Greens into Parliament?

Greenpeace is non party political. Greenpeace receives no corporate or political donations and will always guard its independence carefully. It is this independence which gives Greenpeace the ability to criticise any groups it considers are harming the environment. We have campaigned on GE since 1992.

Why are you targeting Helen Clark?

Helen Clark was the Prime Minister at the time the incident occurred. Greenpeace does not have anything personal against Ms Clark and has worked effectively with the Prime Minister and the Government on other environment issues, such as whaling and nuclear waste transportation.

However Governments must be held accountable for their actions and it is clear in this case the Government failed in its responsibilities. We want to ensure that this doesn't happen again in the future.