National's science spokesperson Judith Collins says New Zealand will be left behind if it does not overhaul restrictions on genetic modification. Photo / NZME
National's science spokesperson Judith Collins says New Zealand will be left behind if it does not overhaul restrictions on genetic modification. Photo / NZME
The National Party says New Zealand will be left behind if it does not overhaul restrictions on genetic modification and it plans to address the issue if it leads the next Government.
National’s science spokesperson Judith Collins told Morning Report changing the rules wouldresult in huge advances in gene technology which would help the economy grow.
“We have some of the best scientists - and so many of them - in New Zealand, on all sorts of agri-tech, med-tech, climate change issues, and right at the moment they can’t take what they’re doing outside of the lab.”
That meant the country was losing both an “enormous amount” of intellectual property and the opportunity to “really deal with things like climate change and to be world leaders in this, as well as in agri-tech and med-tech”, Collins said.
She said National planned to tackle the issue with a three-stage plan:
Ending what National calls an “effective ban on gene editing/genetic modification in New Zealand”
Creating a dedicated regulator “to ensure safe and ethical use of technology”
Streamlining “approval for trials and the use of the non-GE GM biotech, in line with other OECD countries”.
Collins said some trials were waiting three to four years to be approved here, despite the products being used in other countries.
“It’s so highly regulated that there is no commercial use of GE in New Zealand other than a vaccine for horses... everything else is basically trialled in health for humans around things like T Cell therapy for cancer, and those are still trials.
“It’s effectively banned and that’s why we’ve used that word ‘effectively’.”
The science had moved on since that “effective ban” on genetic modification had come in 20 years ago, she said, and the establishment of a dedicated regulator would ensure the safe and ethical use of biotechnology.
Collins noted that many other overseas jurisdictions such as the United States, Canada, Brazil and Argentina did not have any regulation of genetic modification at all.
“When people are drinking their soy lattes, if it’s coming out of the States, it’s most likely GM, so people need to understand that that is something already in the food chain.”
Australia had liberalised its rules on the issue and had brought in a gene technology regulator, she said.
“We’re saying a bio-technology regulator - very similar.”
Jon Carapiet says consumers all over the world value non-GMO food. Photo / NZME
‘We’ve been very well served by regulation’
But critics of National’s plans say the existing restrictions on genetic modification in the country are there for a reason.
GE Free New Zealand spokesperson Jon Carapiet told Morning Report the group was disappointed to see National “basically throwing the door open for the biotechnology industry and kind of throwing both the public and protection of nature under the bus”.
New Zealand had been “very well served” by existing regulations, he said.
“What National is saying is they’re gonna actually not end a ban - because there is no ban on GE in New Zealand, there’s requirements to test for safety for the environment and people’s health; what they’re actually doing is ending effective regulation.”
While gene editing was a “more advanced approach to genetic engineering”, the technology’s power had not gone away, Carapiet said.
“The actual technologies that are used to create gene editing do sometimes use transgenics and the point is that they’re operating at a level of the genome that has huge implications if it’s not regulated and controlled.”
He claimed the moves to make changes to the regulations were being pushed by the biotechnology industry and were “driven by IP (intellectual property), but they’re not carrying liability - one of the big issues in New Zealand is the liability for damage to the environment from approved GMOs”.
“Every event of a genetic engineering practice is unique and it needs to be examined and checked to see what else you may have changed in the genome, and those are the kind of rules and regulations that we’ve got,” he said, adding that National was proposing “a kind of Clayton’s regulation”.
Carapiet questioned what the “literal real benefits” had been for places like the United States, which deregulated the use of genetic engineering years ago, saying pesticide use there had massively increased over the same period.
“We’ve had lots of benefits from having that precautionary approach by avoiding things like the spray of chemicals into the environment.”
Consumers all over the world valued non-GMO food, he said, and the whole structure of our food system had to be questioned, which included supporting farmers to become “genuinely and authentically more sustainable”.
Peter Gluckman says just like every technology it was how it was used that determined whether it was safe or not. Photo / NZME
‘We need to have the biological toolkit available to us’
Biomedical scientist Sir Peter Gluckman - who was the chief science advisor to the prime minister from 2009-2018- told Morning Report he did not believe there was any evidence that a nation’s GMO status was a concern for consumers.
“I don’t think that there’s evidence in the world that that matters, people - as long as food is labelled what it’s made of - people will pick and choose accordingly.”
A policy such as the one National was proposing was long overdue and would open up valuable opportunities for science, he said.
Asked whether gene editing and gene modification were the same thing, he said: “There’s a range of ways of manipulating genetic information, they range from inserting whole genes - which is called genetic modification in popular language - to changing one letter in the alphabet soup of the genetic information, which is called gene editing”.
Just like every technology, Gluckman said, it was how it was used that determined whether it was safe or not.
The key issue was that New Zealand was “the only place where we regulate a technology per se and effectively ban it, as opposed to the use of the technology”, he said.
“What we should be doing, like everybody else does, is regulate the use of the technology.”
The science on genetic modification had become very clear over the past 30 to 40 years, he said.
“Most importantly, because of our advances in gene sequencing, we can be sure that the change in the gene that’s desired, is the one that’s achieved.”
Gluckman said while food security was not presently a concern for New Zealand, “our agricultural products are at risk with climate change ... both because of the impact on the climate and the environment, but also because the climate would change what is produceable”.
“Therefore, if we’re going to be an agricultural, biological economy, we need to have the biological toolkit available to us.”
The changes proposed by National would be an appropriate balance of precaution and innovation because they included the establishment of a regulator, he said.
“If there’s no regulator, then obviously one would be concerned, but there’s a regulator.”
