Potential dangers to New Zealand’s agricultural exports must be included in any risk assessments of gene technology, according to several primary sector organisations.
That is despite most of them supporting gene technology reform in principle.
Their worries follow many years of warnings that gene technology in New Zealand could deter overseas consumers from buying New Zealand exports, possibly under pressure from persistent and possibly misleading campaigns by activist non-government organisations (NGOs).
Concerned farm groups don’t specifically name NGOs but warn any potential threats to trade must be weighed up alongside other risks such as cross contamination.
“Market access and trade risks must be added to other risks when assessing gene proposals,” says one powerful body, the Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand (DCANZ).
This comment comes in a submission on the Gene Technology Bill, which passed its first reading in December and is now subject to submissions before Parliament’s Health Select Committee, which starts hearings shortly.
The new law is intended to liberalise rules on gene technology which were introduced over two decades ago and have long been superceded by improved scientific techniques. Those old rules did not explicitly ban genetic modification but made it almost impossible to put it into effect.
When the new bill was being developed, the Government argued it could give access to better cancer treatments, help control wilding pines, increase productivity for farmers and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
“Restrictive rules and time-consuming processes have made research outside the lab almost impossible,” the then Science Minister Judith Collins said at the time.
“These changes will allow New Zealand to catch up to global best practice.”
The thrust of the proposed changes will replace the precautionary principle of the past with “risk-proportionate regulation”. They would also bring flexible arrangements to cope with fast changing technology as well as an alignment of rules in New Zealand with those prevailing in its main trading partners.
They will replace parts of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act) and establish a Gene Technology Regulator within the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). This body will be assisted by a Technical Advisory Committee, and a Māori Advisory Committee.
DCANZ supports the Bill, saying farmers should have access to genetic technologies to help with productivity, environmental issues, animal health, and biosecurity.
“At the same time, we underscore the importance of regulatory systems that support exporters to continue meeting the diverse requirements from the markets and customers we do business with."
"DCANZ has requested the Bill be amended to include trade and market access as a risk consideration in registration of new technologies.”
DCANZ represents dairy processors who are vital for New Zealand’s $25 billion a year export industry. A related body, Dairy NZ, serves the interests of 10,500 dairy farmers. It says there was not nearly enough consultation on the changes as they were being developed.
“At the outset, the Health Committee should be aware that the primary sector has had very limited opportunity to contribute to the Government’s reform process, digest the details of the Bill and accompanying material, and engage meaningfully with farmers,” Dairy NZ says in a blunt comment on the way this reform went ahead.
As a result, it says several issues received too little attention.
One was the need to better protect co-existence between GE producers and non-GE producers such as organic farmers. While wind-blown pollen would make real controls difficult to achieve, a start could be made by having a special primary producers’ committee attached to the Technical Advisory Group to assess the risks of cross contamination and its potential economic impacts.
It could, for example, require buffer strips around GE crops, or isolated cropping, which echoes a practice already used by non-GE arable farmers to prevent the wrong crop from growing in the wrong paddock.
Dairy NZ also mentions risks to market access from liberalised rules on gene technology.
“New Zealand dairy exports are highly regarded for their quality, safety and sustainability,” it says.
“This reputation underpins access to high value markets, supports trade agreements, and differentiates New Zealand products in competitive global markets. Maintaining this status is crucial for economic successes, therefore the benefits of gene technology must be carefully balanced against potential market risks. Dairy NZ is concerned that the Bill does not provide for trade and market access risks. We seek amendment to the purpose of the Bill to achieve this.”
Both DCANZ and Dairy NZ share another concern: The bill exempts “minor” genetic alterations from needing to get approval. Both groups say this principle needs to be reined in. They also stress the need for “traceability”, so that the source of gene edited organisms in the supply chain can be identified and recorded, which would give assurance to markers and identify potential liabilities in advance.
Another lobby group, Beef + Lamb New Zealand (B+LNZ) also supports a review of New Zealand’s gene technology legislation.
“There have been significant scientific developments internationally in the last couple of decades and a review of New Zealand’s regulatory settings is appropriate,” says the group’s chair, Kate Acland.
“There are potential opportunities to improve our farmers’ productivity and environmental impact. However, there are also a number of potential risks that still need to be addressed in the proposed legislation. These include potential market or trade implications, traceability and co-existence, and how risks are classified.”
The Crown science body, Agresearch, has been at the forefront of this technology for some time and has experiments underway which could create low-methane fodder or insect-resistant plants.
“We see the Bill as providing the opportunity to align New Zealand's activities and regulations with those of our major trading partners (e.g. the USA, Australia, China, potentially the EU),” Agresearch says.
“We envisage that the Gene Technology Bill will enhance research with potential for improved human health, export revenue, reduced environmental impact, and so on. We anticipate a reduction in the number of time-and-resource-intensive processes set by regulations that are not aligned with risk.”
The organisation says the real-world use of any organism developed through gene technology would be driven by the actual benefits to the users, rather than the benefits having to be predicted during the research and development phases.
It also questions worries about co-existence, saying this has proved possible in Australia and the United States.
4 Comments
Can't use clean green New Zealand if GE released.
Terrible idea!
What impact would different genetics have on "greenness" or "cleanliness"? Surely if you could have a cow that has a genetic modification so that it produces less methane, that would be a boon for our image?
I always thought that one of the few opportunities offered by our geographic isolation is that we can evolve into the last GM free island on earth. Surely that would be a hugely appealing sales point as we export our produce?
For some reason some people think we would be best to compete with the rest of the world on their terms at what they are best at. It's unfair to use our advantage.
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.