[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] New Zealand Law Commission

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Download] [Help]

2. Definitions

10 A USEFUL STARTING POINT when considering the possibility of a new liability regime is its perimeter. To establish this it is first necessary to define clearly the terminology in the Law Commission’s Terms of Reference.

11 The Terms of Reference for the Royal Commission defined genetic modification as:

the use of genetic engineering techniques in a laboratory, being a use that involves –

(a) the deletion, multiplication, modification, or moving of genes within a living organism; or

(b) the transfer of genes from one organism to another; or

(c) the modification of existing genes or the construction of novel genes and their incorporation in any organisms; or

(d) the utilisation of subsequent generations or offspring of organisms modified by any of the activities described in paragraphs (a) to (c).[5]

12 Excluded from the definition of genetic modification was the generation of organisms or products using modern standard breeding techniques (“including cloning, mutagenesis, protoplast fusions, controlled pollination, hybridisation, hybridomas and monoclonal antibodies”).

13 The Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference defined a GMO as “an organism that is produced by genetic modification”.

14 We adopt the definition of genetic modification[6] and GMO specified in the Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference.

15 The Law Commission’s Terms of Reference refer to the “development, supply, or use of genetically modified organisms” which is narrower than the Royal Commission’s Terms of Reference that encompassed “genetic modification, genetically modified organisms, and products”.[7] Genetically modified products not involving live organisms are unlikely to present the same challenges to a liability regime. Therefore, in accordance with the Terms of Reference, the Law Commission has focused on GMOs rather than products derived from genetic modification.