The National Party would relax ultra-strict regulation of gene editing and modification in New Zealand, if elected in October.
Party leader Christopher Luxon announced the policy on TVNZ’s Q+A on Sunday morning, alongside a press release from Judith Collins, the spokesperson for science and technology.
National’s ‘Harnessing Biotech Plan’ would end an effective ban on gene editing and modification, and create a dedicated regulator to ensure safety and ethics.
Collins said allowing more genetic modification to take place would unlock enormous benefits for climate change, agriculture and health science.
“It has been used in New Zealand laboratories since the 1970s, but restrictive rules, drafted in the 1990s, make research outside the lab all but impossible. This means our scientists must head overseas to conduct further research,” she said.
National would introduce a biotechnology regulator that would regulate all forms of gene technologies and non-GE/GM biotechnology, taking that role away from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
“The regulator’s role will be to protect human health and the natural environment and manage ethical concerns while allowing New Zealanders to access the benefits of advanced biotechnology,” Collins said.
Any human embryonic genetic editing or modification would not be authorized in New Zealand.
National’s policy document said that NZ was not capitalising on the research and development that was needed to grow the economy.
It gave the example of bio-fuel company Lanzatech, which left New Zealand in 2014 partly due to not being able to easily use genetic modification in its production processes.
The company, which has since listed on the Nasdaq, is valued at over $1.3 billion.
There are also hopes that genetic modification could help reduce emissions from farms, a tricky issue that NZ has yet to tackle.
For example, a methane inhibitor called Bovaer has the potential to lower livestock emissions by 30%, but faces a four-year approval process in New Zealand.
National’s policy document said Kiwi scientists had been forced to go offshore to conduct field trials of genetically modified grasses designed to reduce methane emissions in livestock.
Relaxing regulation of gene modification has wide support in the scientific community, including from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Juliet Gerrard.
"It's a bit like having an act which imposes a greater penalty on electric cars than petrol cars because electric cars were not invented in 1998,” she said in 2019.
Peter Gluckman, a former Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, has said the science was settled and genetic modification could now be considered safe.
“There are no significant ecological or health concerns associated with the use of advanced genetic technologies... If we are to remain a biological economy, we will have to have another conversation about it."
45 Comments
This has been the position of anti-ge groups but has been largely discredited. Great example is Tasmania. Anyone that has been on a farm knows New Zealands 100% Clean, Green image is a falsehood. We already eat GE food (eg Dominos impossible pizza), wear clothes made from GE (basically all cotton) use GE medicines (eg Insulin). Basically all washing powders contain enzymes are created by GE. We already use it in our every day lives… but we import it all
Change will come as the entire world is changing. It’s like trying to ban the internet or AI. If you don’t embrace is NZ will be left behind.
It's not so much the quantifiable stats. Once you open up that can of worms, you can never ever close it again.
Look at the USA and Monsanto; where a farmer plants GMO crops, the wind blows the seeds into the neighbours paddock, then the neighbour gets sued to oblivion by Monsanto for growing, and it is despicable that this has been allowed, trademarked GMO crops on their land even though they didn't plant them.
I could be wrong, but isn't the issue presently that we can import products that have been developed via GMO technology, but we cannot release GMO crops into NZ's environment without getting permission for those trials via the EPA.
So, we're not actually GE-free here, but we are highly regulated with respect to the release of GMOs into our environment?
This is correct. However restrictions are so tough it hinders work even in the laboratory. It’s not just crops but fermentations like Lanzatech and gene therapy medications which are starting to come through.
Instead as a country we import it all, while pretending we are GE free. Currently there is about 70 foods that have approval for import.
Also worth remembering random mutagenesis created by using radiation or chemicals is allowed in Nz. (As it’s name suggests mutations created are random). These are sold on our shelves as organic…..
As an aside, I thought Luxon did quite well on Q+A, but if I were him I'd sell off my rental properties, so I didn't need to go into the election as "seven houses Luxon".
And I think he said he purchased all those rental properties after returning to NZ in 2015. The implication I got from the discussion was that they are speculative purchases with the main motivation being to get a high, tax-free return on the capital invested. He's likely got enough other-than-property investments such that banking the capital on these rental properties would be the way to go anyway, given house prices are falling.
Where housing policy is concerned, there is no way he can try to say he has no (or only a minor) conflict of interest in this regard.
i cannot see how there is no conflict on owning rental housing and setting policy to ensure those that own them get great returns, as for owning only 4 he didn't count the two that the NZ taxpayer pays for, his electoral office and his wellington apartment, is that an oversight? or just another sign of i am entitled to claim those benefits so i claim them to the max, which i find standard for national and ACT mps whilst the decrey every other NZ person that tries to claim any entitlement.
if he was serious he would sell all his rental houses put the funds in a blind trust and invest in some productive enterprises here and offshore.
at interviews if he said i invest in companies and entrerprises that employ people, supply services and bring in foreign exchange to the economy iwould be impressed. i am never impressed by a rental housing investing as they are taking the lazy easy path , income and capital guaranteed by government subsidy and very low risk.
He clarified that of the 7 properties he owns, 3 are personal residences and 4 are rentals.
Yes, I agree - it is a conflict of interest. I've proposed regulation of the rental market in NZ to Parliament - and yeah, how can any residential landlords look at this proposal objectively?
https://petitions.parliament.nz/976f3ed6-afd2-4824-a6eb-da6940d67d88
Glad you liked it. Your calculation is close, but you would need to add the variable ('x') into that equation;
And so, by way of example, to calculate ‘x’ for the Auckland region: the equation assumes a median RV of $1,300,000, and uses 30% of $1,726 (the median weekly household income for the Auckland region), giving;
(1,300) – x% = $518/week, or as an algebraic equation,
1,300(1 - x) = $518/week
therefore, x = 0.6 or 60%.
The variable in the formula 'anchors' median rent to median income in the district/area of the property, based on the 30% of gross income affordability measure. To make it easy for market participants (both tenants and landlords) to understand the formula's application, there would need to be a 'look up' by address tool provided on the tenancy.govt.nz website.
Plus he claimed we are the most efficient farmers in the world, yet in the next breath said we had been left way behind.
A rye grass that is 23 % more efficient, and a microbe that reduces a cows methane output by 30%,why aren't farmers falling over themselves to tell us about these things?. Me thinks some fact checking will be in order.
As far as the houses go, I thought woods airport shares could be a trap labour set, and national walked into.
why aren't farmers falling over themselves to tell us about these things?
I think that's because the mass market viability of the new variant is as yet, untested and unavailable. He referred to the tests needed that allow for the GMO to be released into the environment on an industrial scale, having to be done in the US (or elsewhere overseas, as I understood it).
Once proven safe and viable (cost-wise to produce), I think we would be able to then import and/or manufacture the product here. The license to manufacture would likely be held (in part or in whole) by the NZ organisation (AgResearch in this case) that developed the new genome.
And it is this type of emissions reduction measure that National are arguing farmers need to be able to wait for before having to reduce ag emissions (i.e., the reason National have walked away from support for he waka eke noa - as it wants to bring farmers into the emissions reduction scheme, even if there in no viable new technology at the time of entry, 2025 - I think).
Given the political hot potato housing is, I’ve never understood why no one told Luxon to sell off four (I’m assuming one is main home, one is electorate office, and one is Wellington apartment and/or bach). He could have redeployed the funds into commercial property. Luxon lacks political instinct. While often compared to Key, Key is very different to Luxon and had great political judgment (if not policies). Luxon is maladroit like Brash and could cost National an election it should really win.
He came across as completely out of touch. At a time when people are counting every cent trying to feed and clothe their families, Luxon claims that he doesn’t know how much his property portfolio is worth. Must be nice to make $1.5m and not even give it a second thought. It does make me wonder if he can be trusted with the Nations finances - if he isn’t even across the detail of his own investments.
"seven houses Luxon" will be appealing to many rich supporters and could even convince the recent FHBs that 'Seven Houses Luxon' could save your lost equity
But the embarrassing fact was the he said "he doesn't know how much the valuations have gone up" for his 7 houses. So definitely he need a good finance minister to keep track of the govt accounts :-)
The one issue nobody seems to want to discuss is that of gene patents. Allowing private ownership of the building blocks of life has major moral and ethical implications, and because life replicates spontaneously of its own accord without any manual intervention, it has the potential to expose people to serious undue risk.
Farmers in the US and Canada have been sued by Monsanto for having the Roundup-ready gene found in their crops, presumably carried over by wind, bird or insect from neighboring farms. What happens when genetically modified bacteria is found in the guts of cows by farmers who haven't paid for it? What happens when farmers are mandated to drop methane emissions by 30%, and the only way to achieve this is through a gene which a single company owns the patent for?
As Jonas Salk said following his discovery of the polio vaccine: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"
Am I right that you are referring to this law suit;
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/06/01/dissecting-claims-about-m…
And the Jonas Salk quote is so very relevant.
Of course didn't the English monarchy tax the sunlight arriving through windows in Irish homes at one time?
But wasn't the GLP set up by Monsanto as an astroturfing enterprise?
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Genetic_Literacy_Project
watched it and jack really does have a bee in his bonnet about climate change, but im glad he called luxon out on his BS about slowness of construction of new renewable power supply. that is only coming on stream as quickly as it because the companies building them will only do so when they have a decent return on capital, in other words bring them on to quick and you could increase supply to much and lower price and return on capital. most of the power companies already have projects fully consented, planned, and ready to go.
the biggest problem we have coming is with transpower and moving electrical supply around the country, labours lake battery is the wrong idea, in the wrong part of nz, with new tech around and the shape of our country, we should be looking more at what australia have done and build a battery storage facility in the top half of the north island, that can be used in peak hours and recharge in off peak time being more efficient for operating our hydro dams and help out when the grid goes down
they can be built in numerous places in the north island
also the australia government has subsidies for home solar and battery storage systems
all would be far cheaper than labours grand scheme
What is battery storage? - Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)
Renewable power incentives | energy.gov.au
There is plenty of storage possibilities in the NI to cover night time periods and the odd windless day or even week. But for the once or twice a decade when the SI has a dry year and the lakes do not fill enough to cover 3 months+ of winter demand then our options are less plentiful. Onslow would do it, but it is three times as costly compared to what was initially suggested. So there is some head scratching hesitancy. Given National policy is NZ fully electrifies as quickly as possible. This means our economy will become even more dependent on electricity energy production and supply disruptions will be even more painful. National need to explain how they will manage this "NZ battery" risk. If not Onslow then what?
We are building a battery storage facility, although it is in the top of the North Island (I guess a combination of land price, grid accessibility and proximity to Auckland?). When fully charged it will be able to generate 100 MW for two hours.
https://www.meridianenergy.co.nz/news-and-events/ruakaka-energy-park-un…
When Onslow is fully charged it will be able to generate 1000 MW for about 230 days, non-stop.
These things are not comparable.
Given that Onslow is not fed by a significant river , and silting up is the usual reason a dam comes to the end of its life , I would say it would have an indefinite lifespan.
But there are a lot of other factors , the biggest been it is storage , not production. My current questioning is why not go for overkill in production , and how that would stack up vs storage ?. For e.g 250 M.W of storage equals 2.5 M.W of production for 100 days . How do the costs compare.
One advantage of P>V solar vs wind and run of the river hydro , is that they can be switched off without having to deal with the power produced. The perceived disadvantage of too much solar disrupting the network balance can be dealt with by simply turning them off, using smart control gear .
Couldn't finish watching the interview as Tames style and Luxons tolerance of it was no good for my health.
However this issue is one of the main things holding us back .We are a primary production economy and most of these technologies are directly applicable. Why can't we have informed interviews and debate not loaded questions to an ill prepared ambushed politician.
By the way Shepherds interview style with Willis the day before was nothing short of disgusting . I will not be watching these "shows" ever again .
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.