by Steffan Browning
During the Easter break, the 375 genetically engineered (GE/GMO) pine trees at the Scion (Forestry Research Institute) field trial site were destroyed. The current experiments were for herbicide resistance and reproductive alterations, both with potential environmental and human health implications.
The destruction that occurred was direct action rather than a Scion activity, 2 fences were cut through and the ‘alive’ and electronically monitored fence was tunnelled under. Scion may have been able to discourage the direct action if its security was as good as it portrayed during its ERMA hearing, where Scion suggested surveillance cameras would be operating. It appears that Scion failed to even notice the damage for at least 3 days.
I visited the Rotorua GE tree field trial site last Friday, at least 6 days after the event, and saw one of the scientists inspecting the perimeter of the electrified enclosure fence line. Last time trees were cut down there in 2008, rabbits were coming and going under the heavy security fence, and Scion were not meeting the then approval conditions, of weekly fence inspections or correct management of prunings.
The level of non-compliance and general slackness in the past included potted GE pine cuttings in the open developing pollen cones. This gave those following the ERMA hearing process, no confidence that pollen wouldn’t happen again, especially when ERMA said that non-GE control trees within the site could produce pollen, and approval conditions would deal with the risk of GE pollen escape. That was exactly what they had said about the pollen risk from GE brassicas (cauliflower, broccoli, cabbage and kale) at that ERMA hearing only a few years before. Even while an appeal to the High Court was being heard against the GE brassica decision, the brassica scientist (a friend and colleague of the Scion GE crew) had her GE brassicas planted and flowering in the open, and I discovered a further open pollen event at her ‘secret’ site months later.
The public have been able to actively scrutinise Scion’s operations for compliance to the EPA (formerly ERMA) approval requirements. Scion would prefer to operate in secret rather than have their activity monitored, and damage such as has occurred may encourage the EPA to allow a secret location.
As a Member of Parliament, I cannot condone illegal activity, but as a participant in the Scion GE tree and Plant & Food Research GE brassica hearings, I know why activists can feel the need to overstep the badly managed processes and take the law into their own hands. Legislation is a better way of correcting GE in the environment of New Zealand, and the sooner a government does it the better.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Steffan Browning on Tue, April 17th, 2012
Tags: environment, genetic modification, scion, Steffan Browning
More posts by Steffan Browning | more about Steffan Browning
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
6 
18 (-12)
Luxury extremists like this are just as much a part of the problem.
Like or Dislike:
16 
10 (+6)
Farrars engineered accusations
The risk to New Zealand’s horticultural industry from slack GE trial controls cannot be overemphasized. In 2009, New Zealand had exports and domestic sales of $6 billion, making horticulture a top performer and crucial for our economic stability…
Like or Dislike:
6 
9 (-3)
Well if anything demonstrates how much of a clown show the green party is, it is this.
You claim to be worried about pollen contamination etc, then sympathise with a bunch of oafs who break through all the security controls and precautions put in place by legislation, to f*ck around with things they have no knowledge of, probably leaving covered in the very pollen they are so worried about.
Like or Dislike:
5 
9 (-4)
Shunda, perhaps those clowns were aware of things like this:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/gm-plant-canola-wild.html
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
It would be quite nice if there was official condemnation of this sort of reckless destruction. If you don’t like the science, use science to disprove it.
Otherwise, this thinly-veiled endorsement looks a lot like the traditional extremism that the Greens have been associated with, and that I find really quite abhorrent.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
What a daft thing to say. There’s not much notoriety to be had when you remain anonymous, nor (unless you know who these people are) are you in a position to pass judgements on their motives or knowledge. Making bold statements from a position of ignorance just reflects on you.
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
are you in a position to pass judgements on their motives or knowledge.
Absolutely I am.
It’s called being opposed to a lawless society where everyone does what the feel is right in their own eyes.
Put it this way, if a group of disgruntled West Coast miners decided that they needed to cut down Tane Mahuta in protest to anti mining attitudes of the Greens, you, Sam, could not disagree with their motives or actions.
You guys are the biggest single threat to the environment if you endorse vandalism and lawless behaviour as necessary “for the cause”.
And you call me daft. Get a friggin grip on reality for a change, switch your head on and think for a bit.
Like or Dislike:
4 
8 (-4)
“It’s called being opposed to a lawless society where everyone does what the feel is right in their own eyes.”
No it isn’t, this is quite another matter.
Saying “I disagree with these people’s actions, therefore they are ignorant” is always a stupid thing to say. And saying “these people’s motives are such and such” when you don’t even know who they are, is stupid. There’s lots of highly intelligent people who I disagree with, and lot’s of things that happen that I can’t even guess at the motives of the people doing them. Jumping to conclusions and passing them off as fact does you no credit.
“if a group of disgruntled West Coast miners decided that they needed to cut down Tane Mahuta in protest to anti mining attitudes of the Greens, you, Sam, could not disagree with their motives or actions.”
Tane Mahuta is a threat to the livelihoods of West Coast miners? I never heard any miner suggest so.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3 (0)
After looking at the pic of Mr Browning, I was thinking the exact opposite (No offence intended Steffan).
“If you don’t like the science, use science to disprove it”
The Greens are a science based party. However it should not be up to the GP to ‘disprove’ the safety of a new organism.
Unfortunately the “science” being undertaken on GM crops is largely money driven. Companies like monsanto are only out to prove one thing and they’re proven to fabricate the results to show it. Their contracted research labs have been fined millions for fabricating data.
What’s worse, is that any future profits from such ventures will be going back to monsanto as they will ‘own’ the organism’s genes. Any loss, of course, will be bourne by us.
These trials are jepodising our GE free status which is part of our ’100% pure’ marketing advantage on the world stage. Isolated in the south Pacific, we are in a unique position to stay GE free for longer than the rest and we are fools to squander this opportunity.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3 (+5)
Absolutely I am.”
Maybe I can put this more clearly – if you want to pass judgement on their actions, which is something you actually know about, go ahead. If you pass judgement on their motives or knowledge, which is something you (presumably) don’t know anything about, what you say is daft.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3 (+4)
Sam, what you are saying is daft, end of story.
These protesters are at at least just as guilty of the same “sins” you are accusing me of, so how the hell can you defend them and maintain your lofty ideals at the same time?
Get off your high horse and smell the leaf litter, you aren’t making a shred of sense.
Like or Dislike:
2 
11 (-9)
Tane Mahuta is a threat to the livelihoods of West Coast miners? I never heard any miner suggest so.
Oh for crying out loud, do you seriously not understand what I am saying??
Here, I will spell it out for you again.
If the actions of these GE tree choppers is to be commended because they really feel strongly about it then the same damned logic can be used in protest against ideals or “things” you hold dear.
And guess what? it is happening more often against the environment than for it, but go ahead and stick to your logic like shit to a blanket, but don’t for a second think you or these GE chopping clowns are doing anything beneficial with such appalling values.
And for the record, I hate GE.
Like or Dislike:
2 
10 (-8)
“If the actions of these GE tree choppers is to be commended because they really feel strongly about it then the same damned logic can be used in protest against ideals or “things” you hold dear.”
Quite right, but nobody ever said their actions should be commended because “they feel strongly about it” did they?
Like or Dislike:
10 
3 (+7)
“they are ignorant and ill informed”
I wonder how you know this about them? Have they revealed their identities.? Otherwise, you’re guessing, based on their actions, which I suggest, you misunderstand. It would be more circumspect to criticize their actions.
“they care about nothing but themselves”
It seems obvious that they care about the proliferation of GE organisms, based on the effort they made.
” and their own pathetic notoriety.”
Someone’s already pointed out the problem with gaining notoriety whilst remaining anonymous.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2 (+6)
Someone’s already pointed out the problem with gaining notoriety whilst remaining anonymous.
What an odd thing to say.
Notoriety (for someone that wants it) is achieved by seeing themselves a certain way, it is often irrelevant how others perceive them.
I was referring to it in the sense that it is likely a personality disorder.
How do you feel about folks using your same stupid argument regarding issues against the environment? you know Robert, like your Southland friends that see their activities as “for the good of the nation”?
Stop being a friggin hypocrite.
Like or Dislike:
1 
9 (-8)
You think dairy farmers are enjoying the notoriety they’ve attracted over dirty waterways?
Perhaps people might enjoy anonymous notoriety, but you’re only guessing that that was the motivation of the tree-cutters. I think you are wrong about that. My guess, and it is like yours, only a guess, is that they did it because they are very strongly opposed to genetic modification trials in NZ.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
1. the state, quality, or character of being notorious or widely known: a craze for notoriety.
no·to·ri·ous
adjective
1. widely and unfavorably known: a notorious gambler.
2. publicly or generally known, as for a particular trait: a newspaper that is notorious for its sensationalism.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
Why don’t you DO something about it, instead of just talking. Make some publicity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While I support many green policies the totally anti GE isn’t one of them. GE needs to be tightly controlled but will be valuable in addressing biodiversity and planetary boundary challenges.
Kit Howden
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)