Enthusiasm and caution from agricultural industry groups over government moves to open up gene technology to commercial use

There is relief in many agricultural circles at government moves to end an effective block on Genetic Technology, chiefly Gene Editing (GE) products, after almost two-and-a-half decades. 

But in some sectors, stubborn questions remain.

The Government says New Zealand has lagged behind countries such as Australia, Britain and Canada, and wants to allow researchers and companies to develop and commercialise their GE products.

It is seeking public input to determine the best way forward, but in the meantime wants a special body to approve GE, following a pattern established in Australia. 

While this slow process of reform is going on, some primary industry sectors are already dusting off some of their favourite projects, while others are giving hesitant approval pending more research. 

Dairy is the queen of the primary industries, with exports worth $24 billion. Its main body, DairyNZ, says the industry has got several projects already waiting offstage. One of them would use GE to improve the quality of ryegrass to combat heat stress and ryegrass staggers in cattle. This technology was developed in New Zealand but cannot be tested in field conditions under current policies.   

Another change to ryegrass could increase lipid content in the leaf, which would boost nutrition and energy benefits for livestock eating the grass, and could also reduce nitrogen loss and greenhouse gas emissions.

An extra technology would spread the availability of condensed tannins within the white clover plant, which could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen leaching from cows. Other benefits could be reduced bloat and internal parasites, along with an enhanced milk yield. This technology was also developed in New Zealand, but is currently under restriction. 

DairyNZ lists other gains, such as more productive output from animals bred without horns for farmer safety and animal welfare reasons. There could even be a programme of developing cattle with lighter-coloured coats so they absorb less heat from the sun. 

Also keen on GE is the forestry sector, whose exports were worth $5.9 billion in the June-year. One well known benefit is the potential for making trees sterile, which would limit the spread of wilding pines. At first sight, this process would appear to help the wider environment, rather the economic interests of the forestry sector itself.  

But the Biosecurity Manager for the Forest Owners Association, Brendan Gould, says breeding sterile trees could increase the areas where Douglas Fir is permitted to be planted, thus improving the economics of the industry. 

“The current rules on GE are quite stifling, so, we very much support making them a little bit more progressive and enabling,” he says. 

Gould adds GE could mean radiata pine is grown in a wider variety of conditions. It could even overcome site-specific problems, such as the fact that trees can grow well on one side of a hill but not the other.

Then there is the density of wood argument. Environmentalists have long argued that more wood should be used in large-scale construction, to displace emissions-intensive steel or cement. But hardwoods are often rare or protected, and toughened pine could help overcome this problem, Gould says. 

Gould is also worried about the risks to the pine industry from diseases, such as red needle cast and dothistroma, which both disrupt tree growth by killing pine needles.  

“If we can develop stock that are more resistant to red needle cast, we can plant in those areas which are more prone to outbreaks,” Gould says, adding there could be less spraying of forests with fungicides.

Making trees grow faster is another benefit claimed by the forestry industry, since it would reduce the amount of time wasted on dead capital, and would capture more CO2 into the bargain. 

“I think what people generally say is you can get up to 10% (more productivity) with each round of breeding,” says Glenn Thorlby, who’s a senior scientist at the forestry research institute, Scion.

“Using GE in other species (overseas), people have got sort of 40% to 50% increases in productivity, though that is obviously at the high end.”

Red meat is another big export earner, with foreign sales worth over $11 billion in the June-year. 

The Meat Industry Association (MIA) welcomes the announcement on GE by the Government, but is not giving many details at this stage. 

“This technology has great potential to help us grow the red meat sector’s productivity, as well as potentially supporting farmers to address agricultural greenhouse gas emissions,” says its chief executive, Sirma Karapeeva. 

“We support a balanced approach to gene technology, one that ensures access to our global markets is not impacted, and an understanding of how consumers of our red meat and overseas regulators are likely to react.

“The precautionary approach to gene technologies over the last 30 years categorised all gene technologies as a risk and removed the ability to test its potential while accounting for risk.”

The main beef and sheep farmers’ group, Beef + Lamb NZ (B+LNZ), is more cautious. It wants direct input from farmers, meat processors and exporters, and cites earlier research which showed mixed opinions on GE. 

That research found 69% of farmers had limited knowledge of GE in food production, though 53% supported its use, albeit on a cautious, case-by-case basis.  Men and large farmers were more likely to support GE than women or small landholders. 

Some farmers felt it could help combat animal welfare problems such as internal parasites, facial eczema, and fly-strike. 

But a majority, 58%, expressed concern about the impact of GE on New Zealand products in world markets. This was a reference to the long-expressed fear that GE or other environmental matters could be used in disingenuous attacks on New Zealand products by commercial competitors in world markets. 

“The Government will need to consult with farmers during this process and we will be advocating for it to make as much information available as possible so farmers can fully participate,” B+LNZ says.  

“B+LNZ will be seeking direct input from farmers and insights from meat processors and exporters to inform our position on behalf of the sheep and beef sector.”  

Horticulture is even more restrained. It is a $7 billion export industry, and its members have a wide variety of views on genetic technologies. 

“We acknowledge that a review of the legislation was necessary, and our focus is on gauging the views of growers,” says Michelle Sands, general manager for strategy and policy at Horticulture NZ (HortNZ).

“Our industry is diverse….we are committed to understanding the full spectrum of views of our growers. This will enable HortNZ to come to a considered position. 

“We encourage all growers to stay engaged and contribute their perspectives as the review unfolds. Every viewpoint is vital in shaping the future of our sector.”

Meanwhile, the MIA is raising reservations about the total benefits of GE. 

“The Government will need to keep in mind that gene technology, if implemented, will not be a silver bullet,” Karapeeva says.

“It is just one of the tools available to tackle the issues agriculture faces. It should be viewed in conjunction with other technologies, their availability and usefulness.”