A cross-sector group of concerned citizens is urging the Government to reconsider its position on the proposed Gene Technology Bill.
Thousands are calling for a complete halt as the agricultural industry approaches the contentious bill with caution, warning there’s only one chance to get the legislation right.
A petition by Lisa Er, founder of Lisa’s Hummus, was presented to Labour MP Deborah Russell at Parliament yesterday requesting work on the bill be paused.
Signed by at least 6058 people - including scientists, health professionals, and organic producers - the petition seeks to create a Royal Commission of Inquiry “into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens”.
Green MP Steve Abel spoke at the rally, with New Zealand First MP Andy Foster, the Green’s Scott Willis, and Labour’s Rachel Brooking also attending in support.
The bill will establish a new system for regulating gene technology and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), replacing the current framework under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act).
It intends to liberalise gene technology laws by excluding “minimal risk” gene-editing activities from regulatory oversight.
Er said the bill, currently before the Health Select Committee, fails to consider Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and lacks adequate protection “from the risks of GE contamination”.
The Royal Commission, she said, would “allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation” before changes to gene technology law proceed.
The petition will now go before the Petitions Committee and be presented to the House by Russell once a tally is complete.
It’s been 25 years since NZ’s gene technology laws were last updated, and a review into the current settings has been long overdue.
But among those urging a cautious approach is Beef + Lamb NZ, which says many farmers support reform in principle but are concerned about traceability, export risk and a lack of engagement.
“We have been clear throughout this process that not enough time has been allowed to consult properly,” the organisation wrote to stakeholders in May.
“We again wrote to the Health Select Committee to reiterate our concerns about the timeframes and again request that they slow down the process to enable proper engagement and ensure we get the settings right.”
Beef + Lamb said “a lack of clarity in how different levels of risk will be determined” makes it difficult for farmers to assess the implications.
In its Select Committee submission, Beef + Lamb requested changes that included market protections and traceability guarantees to ensure farmers still have the ability to remain GMO-free.
DairyNZ echoed a similar sentiment in its submission, supporting an overhaul to NZ’s gene technology laws but requesting more engagement over traceability, cross-contamination risk and the consideration of Māori cultural values.
Prevar, a Hawke’s Bay company developing new apple and pear varieties for market, supports the Bill, arguing it brings NZ up to speed with the rest of the world and will enable the horticultural industry to stay “at the forefront of science”.
“The global apple and pear market is worth approximately $130b, yet NZ accounts for less than 1% of that in market share,” chief executive Tony Martin told NZME.
“The only way we are going to continue to compete globally is through innovation.”
The Government’s position is that the Gene Technology Bill would modernise regulation, unlock innovation and align NZ with Australia’s legal framework.
The bill was introduced by Judith Collins during her term as Science, Innovation and Technology Minister before Shane Reti assumed the role in January.
It passed its first reading in Parliament at the end of last year, with support from the governing parties.
Tony de Jong, manager of biotechnology policy and regulation at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), said it’s been “based on Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000 and modified to a NZ context”.
“Applications will be assessed under a risk analysis framework.
“This means we will regulate activities proportionate to their risk and exclude some minimal risk gene-editing activities from regulation.”
However, critics argue the exemptions create a dangerous lack of oversight.
Dr Elvira Dommisse, a former government crop researcher during the first wave of GMOs in the 1990s, called the bill “the Wild West of genetic modification”.
“These politicians don’t realise that if they let the genie out of the bottle, it’s going to be their food and their kids’ food and their grandkids’ food that’s also going to be adulterated.”
Claire Bleakley, president of GE Free NZ, said several gene-editing techniques could be used without public notification or traceability.
“It doesn’t matter whether you are a home gardener or a commercial grower, you will not know because it won’t be labelled.”
Labelling requirements are set by Food Safety Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), which is concurrently reviewing proposal P1055.
P1055 aims to clarify what constitutes GE food within the Australia NZ Food Standards Code to determine which food products require pre-market safety assessments.
De Jong said while the outcome “may result in minor changes to GM product labelling requirements”, FSANZ’s proposal is separate to the Government’s Gene Technology Bill.
“The Bill does not, in any way, impact or address food labelling in NZ.”
Despite this, critics worry that deregulation could harm NZ’s GMO-free export reputation.
Organic Aotearoa NZ commissioned the NZ Institute of Economic Research to conduct economic modelling on the bill’s effects in November last year.
The study estimated primary sector exports could lose up to $10-20 billion in value - roughly 40% of the agricultural export economy - from dropping NZ’s GMO-free status if the bill was passed.
De Jong confirmed MBIE hadn’t “specifically commissioned economic research” but said existing reports had been produced by the Royal Society.
The Royal Society took a more holistic view, looking at economic implications alongside social, cultural, legal and environmental ones across different sectors such as healthcare, primary industries and pest control.
It was noted in various scenarios that gene technology showed strong potential for strengthening local food production and improving crop resilience.
Yet the Royal Society still warned that the risk of consumer backlash to GE products was clear and that ensuring farmers had the choice to remain GMO-free was imperative.
Bleakley argued the natural solutions to agricultural problems of today “are being ignored for the patenting and the money” expected to be made from biotech.
One of NZ’s leading GE risk experts, Professor Jack Heinemann, was not consulted on the bill before it was presented to Parliament.
“I have never been contacted by either officials or government to discuss the Gene Tech Bill,” he said.
“It is no secret that I do not support the bill in its present form.”
Submissions on the bill were opened to the public from December 20 to February 17.
The Health Select Committee is due to report its findings back to Parliament by July 31.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.