**** REPLY OFFLIST PLEASE !!! *********
**** REPLY OFFLIST PLEASE !!! *********
**** REPLY OFFLIST PLEASE !!! *********
**** REPLY OFFLIST PLEASE !!! *********
**** REPLY OFFLIST PLEASE !!! *********
**** REPLY OFFLIST PLEASE !!! *********
**** REPLY OFFLIST PLEASE !!! *********

I'm sending this out to a few techo friends in NZ who MIGHT be awake plus
the PICList

A prompt offlist reply from anyone who can be bothered checking my thinking
processes would be greatly appreciated. If this is "not you" please just
ignore it

This is a check of logical conclusions to be drawn from the subject matter.
It relates to Genetic Engineering BUT does not seek an opinion on what you
(or I) think about GE - just whether the following implications appear
logically correct.
____

Definitions:

HSNO Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996" (HSNO) and amendments
ERMA Environmental Risk Management Authority
GMO Genetically Modified Organisms.

GIVEN THAT

The HSNO specifies that

1.    The criterion for release of a GMO into containment is [[verbatim from
act]]

 "... the beneficial effects of having the organism in containment outweigh
the adverse effects of the organism and any inseparable organism should the
organism escape; "

2.    "`Containment'' means restricting an organism or substance to a secure
location or facility to prevent escape; and includes, in respect of
genetically modified organisms, field testing and large scale fermentation."


IS A FAIR SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE:

1.    Field testing (and large scale fermentation) are defined to be a
subset of "containment"

2.    Applications to release GMO's into containment must compare

        benefits of release into containment
with
        the effect if the organism was to escape containment.


BASED SOLELY ON THE MATERIAL UNDER "GIVEN THAT" ABOVE -
IS IT REASONABLE TO CONCLUDE THAT:

1.    When assessing release into containment, while the "normal"
expectation might be that the protection afforded by the containment is
taken into account when assessing whether the degree of benefit is
justified, the legislation does not allow the protection afforded by
containment to be considered. In effect it requires that the worst case
effect of open release be considered in assessing all field tests or other
releases into containment.

2.    Quite separately from the above, the act specifies that the benefits
to be considered are those appertaining to the release into containment -
and not the benefits which might be expected from the overall introduction
of the organism when or if it is finally openly released. The legislation
does not allow the expected benefits from end use or ultimate applications
to be considered (except perhaps indirectly, inasmuch as they follow on from
the benefits obtained from release into containment.).

3.    As field tests and bulk fermentation are expressly defined as being
"release into containment" all the above points apply to them.



Thoughts?
Can be as brief as basic yes/no comments.



            Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads