The constitutional tool that broke Ireland’s deadlock on abortion law could yet bring about a change in New Zealand’s genetic technology regulations.
Pre-eminent professor and scientist Sir Peter Gluckman is leading the push for a citizens’ assembly to decide whether NZ should revisit its genetic technology regulations.
Sir Peter was the first chief science adviser to the prime minister, for John Key.
Rules around genetic technology became an election issue over 20 years ago, prompting a Royal Commission and a “proceed with caution” approach from the government.
However, little research has been done in NZ since, due to the expense and restrictions that NZ’s ensuing regulations on genetic engineering or genetic modification bought with them.
Sir Peter, a longtime critic of NZ’s regulations, said he is using his role as founder and director of Koi Tū, the Centre for Informed Futures, to push for an assembly on an issue he said is too important to be left to politicians to decide.
A recent survey conducted by Christchurch company Research First highlights that the majority of New Zealanders are either comfortable or neutral about gene editing being used in healthcare and farm production. That support ranges from 48% support to use GE to speed up plant genetic gain, to 62% to protect native taonga species. Those saying they are neutral range from 27%-36%, with opposed ranging from 8%-28%.
“That higher acceptance rate does not surprise me at all,” Sir Peter said. “In the early days there was some hesitancy about the new technology, but in 30 years of experience with it we have had no catastrophes. Any hype about the lack of safety is long gone.”
He said this is reinforced by the irony that much of NZ food now has GE-modified ingredients in it, whether it is the rennet in cheese or the soy component of chicken feed.
“The issues are long gone and what remains is politics.”
A citizens’ assembly would remove the politics by recruiting a cross-section of the public to study the issue, almost in a jury-type arrangement, presided over by a pre-eminent judge who would request expert opinion on the matter as required.
Sir Peter is seeking out more interested parties to see if it would be possible to raise the estimated $2 million required to run an assembly, hopefully in 2024.
Koi Tū, based at the University of Auckland, aims to incorporate thinking from across disciplines to deal with areas of national and global concern.
Its backers are a who’s who of NZ philanthropists, including the Tindall Foundation, the Rank Group and the David Levene Foundation.
As a small-scale dry run, Koi Tū is hosting a citizens’ assembly over August and September in Auckland trialling the process. It involves 40 Aucklanders, considering the issue “What will Auckland’s next water source be?”
A GE assembly could involve 100 citizens who represent NZ’s population profile. They would ultimately vote on whether to make changes to the GE regulations or not.
Sir Peter said an assembly differs from a referendum, removing any political element from the debate and the risk that minority groups could hijack that debate with misinformation.
In Ireland, the assembly was asked whether or not to replace the eighth amendment banning abortion in almost all circumstances. This was the first time since 1983 that citizens had a say on the divisive topic.
After consultation and deliberation, they decided overwhelmingly that the provision on abortion was not fit for purpose.
Sir Peter said NZ’s GE regulations, while ostensibly allowing GE trials here, are strongly focused on the technology rather than the outcome.
“We regulate GE more tightly than we regulate nuclear power,” he said.
His efforts to push for reform in the regulations are shared by Dr William Rolleston, co-founder of biotech company South Pacific Sera, and chair of the Life Sciences Network.
Rolleston has long advocated for more open GE regulations, particularly in light of editing technology that enables specific changes to gene sequences.
“Genetic technology was a divisive, political issue early on, but it is much less so now. Society has seen the value of science through covid-19 vaccinations and how only a vocal minority keep trying to push a narrative to create misinformation,” Rolleston said.
Minister for the Environment David Parker told Farmers Weekly that the government is not considering any amendment to regulations on field testing or the release of genetically modified organisms, or research on heritable cells.
It is, however, considering what practical improvements could be made to regulations on research, particularly for medical/human health purposes.
But Sir Peter lambasted this.
“That does not deal with the issues. We have been using GE modified hormones for diabetes for a long time, and all hepatitis vaccines have been GE for years. It is a cop-out.”
Rolleston accused the minister of hypocrisy in giving the green light for a review of GE use in human health, while leaving farmers unable to pursue emerging technology that may help reduce greenhouse gases or lower farms’ nitrate impact.
“To keep their position, the government would have to argue forever that GE does not bring any value or benefit, and this is going to become increasingly harder to do,” Rolleston said.
