ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY DECISION ON
GROUNDS FOR REASSESSMENT OF A NEW ORGANISM IN
CONTAINMENT
Code
REA99001
Considered by
Genetic Modified Organisms (GMO) Standing Committee acting
under the delegation of the Environmental Risk Management
Authority.
Date
4 August 1999
Request Details
Prime Contact:
Category
Date Application Received
Bas Walker, Chief Executive, ERMA New Zealand
Grounds for reassessment of a substance or organism
(section 62(1)(b)
23 April 1999
Description
The request invites the Committee to decide whether there are grounds for reassessing New
Zealand King Salmon Limited’s genetically modified salmon development in containment, and is
made under section 62 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act).
This work is being carried out under the terms of controls which were originally set on the
advice of the ACNGT, and transferred to the HSNO Act when the Act commenced for new
organisms. The proposed grounds for reassessment are that the controls attached to the
transferred approval may not be in full accordance with the requirements of the Third Schedule,
Part 1: Matters to be addressed by Containment Controls for Development and Field Testing of Genetically
Modified Organisms of the HSNO Act. The request also asks the Authority to determine whether
any subsequent reassessment should be treated as a non-notified development, a notified
development or a field test (notified) application.
Decision
The Genetically Modified Organisms Standing Committee has decided that there are Grounds
for Reassessing genetically modified salmon in containment at New Zealand King Salmon
Limited’s Kaituna Hatchery, Blenheim, Approval number 156, New Zealand Gazette Issue No.
101. Any reassessment resulting from this is likely to be considered for as a non-notified
development.
Relevant Legislative Criteria
Section 62 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 sets out grounds that
may be considered by the Authority in deciding whether a reassessment is justified. By
implication (the use of the phrase ‘taking into account’) other grounds may be considered as well.
Reasons for the Decision
The following items in the Third Schedule Part 1 of the HSNO Act are especially relevant:
1(a)
1(e)
Requirements for treatment and decontamination to prevent escape by way of expelled air, discharge of
water or liquid wastes, removal of solid waste or goods, or breaches in the facility, and
Requirements for the disposal of any biological material.
Grounds for reassessment exist because of uncertainty over whether the current controls
adequately assure containment of the genetically modified fish and gametes. In particular, it is
not clear whether the existing controls are sufficient to ensure that viable fish, eggs or sperm
cannot escape from the trial site, and whether the ability of the present controls to allow disposal
of the fish by offsite burial poses unacceptable environmental risks.
Should a reassessment be subsequently applied for, it is the Committee’s view that it should be
processed as a development application. The reason for this is that a fish grow-out facility is
similar in concept and effects to a greenhouse, used to grow genetically modified plants,
following development in a containment laboratory. The greenhouse is a direct extension of the
laboratory as is the grow-out facility. The type of fish grow-out facility involved also does not
have the characteristics of a field test environment, ie it is constructed purely for the purposes of
growing the fish, is as contained as is feasible for that purpose and is not explicitly similar to the
environment in which the salmon would be released (a river or the sea).
The GMO Standing Committee has delegated authority to decide whether development
applications require public notification. The test in the Act is that of whether there is likely to be
significant public interest. The default position is not to notify. The Committee’s view is that
while there may be public interest in the trial as a whole, the focus for a reassessment would be
on technical matters relating to the adequacy of containment. Given this focus, the Committee
considers that public notification is not justified.
Signed on behalf of the Authority
_____________________
Chair
_____________________
Name
Page 2 of 2
__________________
Date