Annex 1
ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
DECISION ON GROUNDS FOR REASSESSMENT OF A
NEW ORGANISM IN CONTAINMENT
Application Code
REA99002
Considered by
Genetic Modified Organisms (GMO) Standing Committee
acting under the delegation of the Environmental Risk
Management Authority.
Date
4 August 1999
Request Details
Applicant
Bas Walker, Chief Executive, ERMA New Zealand
Category
Grounds for reassessment of a substance or contained organism
[section 62(1)(b) of the Hazardous Substances and New
Organisms Act 1996]
Date Application Received
20 April 1999
Description
The request invited the Committee to decide whether there are grounds for reassessing three
field tests of genetically modified canola, and is made under section 62 of the Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act).
The controls for these field tests were set on the recommendation of the Interim Assessment
Group (IAG) and transferred to the HSNO Act when the Act commenced for new organisms.
The proposed grounds for reassessment are that the post-harvest monitoring arrangements and
periods specified in the current controls may not be sufficient to ensure that there is no
germination of canola seed remaining in the soil at the field trial site, given that canola seed has
been shown to remain viable in soil for periods of up to 10 years. The current controls require
isolation zones of 2km for No.s 42 and 43 and 400m for No. 60 to be monitored during the trial
and for a subsequent four years, or one year beyond the time when no new seedlings appear.
Decision
The Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Standing Committee agreed that Grounds Exist
to Reassess the following three field tests of genetically modified canola, originally approved by
the Minister for the Environment on the recommendation of the Interim Assessment Group
(IAG), and deemed approved under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 as
Trial Numbers 42, 43 and 60 in the New Zealand Gazette Issue No. 101.
Annex 1
Trial Number
Applicant:
Trial Management Company:
Organism(s):
Location(s):
Approval period:
Trial Number
Applicant:
Trial Management Company:
Organism(s):
Location(s):
Approval period:
Trial Number
Applicant:
Trial Management Company:
Organism(s)
Location(s):
Approval period:
42.
Zeneca Seeds. Inc. Canada
Cropmark New Zealand Ltd. Ashburton
Brassica napus and Brassica rapa resistant to Monsanto
Corporation’s Roundup ReadyTM gene for glyphosate herbicide.
Pukeuri, North Otago
November 1996 to November 1997, with monitoring to be
maintained for subsequent 4 years (to July 2001) or one year
beyond the time when no new seedlings were found.
43.
Crop and Food Research Limited on behalf of Plant Genetic
Systems, Belgium.
Enzol Holdings, Ashburton
Brassica napus subsp. oleifera and Brassica rapa modified by (a)
Barnase gene and Bastar gene for male sterility and restoration,
(b) neomycin phosphotransferase gene (NPT II) for kanamycin
resistance, and (c) phosphinothricin gene (PAT) from
Streptomyces virichromogenes for resistance to glyphosinate
herbicides.
1. Dromore, Canterbury
2. St Andrews, South Canterbury
November 1996 to November 1997, with monitoring to be
maintained for the subsequent 4 years (to April 2001) or one
year beyond the time when no new seedlings were found.
60.
Mr Neil Rampton on behalf of Zeneca Seeds. Inc. Canada
Cropmark New Zealand Ltd. Ashburton
Brassica napus and Brassica rapa modified by Monsanto
Corporation’s Roundup ReadyTM genes for tolerance to
glyphosate herbicide.
Hendley Block, Shands Road, Lincoln
November 1997 to November 1998, with monitoring to be
maintained for the subsequent 4 years (to May 2002) or one
year beyond the time when no new seedlings were found
Relevant Legislative Criteria
Section 62 of the HSNO Act sets out grounds that may be considered by the Authority in
deciding whether a reassessment is justified. By implication the use of the phrase ‘take into
account’ other grounds may be considered as well.
Reasons for the Decision
Although the circumstances of each trial differ with respect to geography, nature of the
modification, and the monitoring regime, a common factor is that canola seed, remaining in the
soil after the trials may remain viable for long periods. Periods of up to 10 years are quoted in
Annex 1
the literature. The monitoring periods stated in the current controls are significantly less than
this.
It is concluded that there is sufficient uncertainty as to whether the current monitoring regimes
are adequate to ensure that no genetically modified canola seed will germinate in or around the
trial site, for grounds for reassessment to exist.