The National Party has reopened the debate around genetic modification, but the reaction from critics seems more muted than the heated public debate which went down towards the end of the 1990s.
The party’s spokesperson on science, innovation and technology, Judith Collins, and party leader, Christopher Luxon, launched their policy on “harnessing biotech” in Auckland on Sunday and fielded questions from the media at an event that morning.
Luxon downplayed the economic benefits of New Zealand’s clean green GMO-free image.
He said there was “only economic upside” to allowing more genetic engineering in NZ. He stressed the promise these technologies showed in helping pare back carbon emissions from the agriculture sector.
Collins said NZ is a global leader in ag-tech, but will not remain so without changes to the rules around genetic engineering, modification and editing.
“We are losing, in a way, because we’re not giving the scientists the tools that they need,” she said.
National has three key proposals in this area: New legislation to allow more gene editing and modification; a new biotech regulator styled on the Gene Technology Regulator in Australia; and getting the regulator to streamline approvals of trials by tasking it with reducing delays and having it approve trials involving products that have already been approved for trial in two OECD countries (or one European Union country and one OECD country).
A key issue around all of this is allowing more trials to happen out in the field as opposed to the lab. National has said it would retain labelling requirements around genetically modified food.
Pressure for change in this area has been building in recent years.
In 2019, an expert panel set up by the Royal Society Te Apārangi concluded there was a need for urgent discussion and debate around gene editing.
In a press release accompanying the findings, expert panel co-chair David Penman was quoted as saying there was a need to move beyond a black-and-white view of genetic modification.
“[There’s a need for] a much more nuanced view that recognises a wide range of applications of the technology, some of which may be more acceptable to New Zealand communities than others.” Penman also highlighted there had been no review of gene technologies since a Royal Commission on the issue presented its findings in 2001.
The government announced a review of gene editing regulations in June last year.
In August, the debate around Carvykti, a treatment for a previously incurable form of blood cancer, rekindled public interest in the issue.
Carvykti became only the second genetically modified organism approved for use in NZ.
Then, in an interview with the Herald last year, the prime minister’s chief science advisor, Juliet Gerrard, expressed frustration that a US company’s therapy, to alter a person’s genetic code and permanently reduce their risk of heart attack, could be tested on humans in NZ but would have had difficulties being developed here.
The Productivity Commission also made a remark in its Frontier Firms report which was supportive of a loosening of regulations around genetic modification.
There have been similar calls from those involved in the biotech food sector.
In an interview earlier this year, Impossible Foods’ country manager, Alex Worker, said the company had managed to change some regulations around the importation of an important ingredient in its “impossible” burger meat patties into NZ.
The “impossible” meat is made through the fermentation of genetically engineered yeast, but Worker said there were regulatory burdens in conducting the fermentation process in NZ.
“Because of this political year, everyone’s very wary about are we embracing GE production in New Zealand or are we remaining GE-free? Because they are quite different country-of-origin strategies.
“I’m not actually proposing one or the other but I think the debate needs to be had, and done well, and that needs to be led by government but we have to do this quickly and it requires leadership.”
Collins said NZ is losing out on opportunities because it has effectively banned trials around genetic engineering and modification from taking place here.
She gave the example of research into ryegrass at AgResearch which could reduce methane emissions but couldn’t be used and tested here.
“That should be something that New Zealand is leading on, instead what we’re doing is the research in labs and then we’re sending it to the US, and now Australia, for them to trial it and then use it.
“I mean what a travesty that this wonderful technology and science discovery is being used elsewhere in the world and New Zealand farmers can’t use it.”
The terms “genetic modification”, “genetic engineering”, “gene editing” and “genetically modified organisms” are often used interchangeably, but there are important distinctions between all four.
Genetic engineering is the act of changing an organism’s genetic material to create genetically modified organisms. Gene editing is a more modern technique for making very specific changes to the DNA sequence of an organism.
Genetic engineering used to be a hot-button issue in the electorate and in the past was a major point of difference between Labour and the Greens, but on Sunday there were some signs things had changed.
At an event launching the Green party’s new tax policy on Sunday, party co-leader James Shaw answered a question about whether the issues of gene editing and genetically modified organisms were still as big for the Green party of today as they had been in the past.
“It’s not going to be an issue that we’re fighting this campaign on and frankly the announcement from the National party today is nothing new, it’s been their position for at least 10 years,” Shaw replied.
Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said policies around genetically modified organisms are already being reviewed by the government.
“We are comfortable with the government reviewing the settings, including with medical care, and we also always have to prioritise reducing climate pollution and not just leaving it all up to technology alone.”
However, others are urging caution on loosening the regulations. One of them is GE Free NZ spokesperson Jon Carapiet.
Carapiet was quick to push back against the portrayal of current regulations around genetically modified organisms as a “ban” – a word the National party had used.
Carapiet said people could still apply to conduct research around genetic engineering and genetic modification, they just have to comply with the “precautionary principle” and prove the safety of their research.
He also drew a distinction between the issue of genetically modified food on supermarket shelves, products he said should remain fully labelled, and research work, which he thought there could be a case for some changes around.
One of those changes could be to use new advancements in technology so people could properly consider research requests.
“I don’t want to say ‘Oh, yes, the regulations [around research] need to be looked at’, they may do, they may need to be looked at, but I don’t want to get rid of them, I want to use the modern technology to make them fit for purpose and achievable for the applicant.
“At the moment they won’t apply [for GE research] because they’re saying it’s all too difficult and it’s all so complex – it’s not that complex.”
When it came to food involving genetically modified organisms (GMO), Carapiet said he was worried about what processed and genetically modified food might do to processes in the human gut.
He also argued that genetically modified food could be worse for the climate when you took into account emissions expended in all the inputs put into creating these types of food.
Carapiet said NZ products also attract a premium overseas for their GE- and GMO-free status and he wants to see more work around quantifying this benefit so decision-makers and the public would have a better idea of what they were giving up if they decided to embrace National’s policy.
“It can’t just be a scientific debate because the scientists have got a particular lens, often quite narrow in their speciality.
“They don’t think about Mum buying her kids’ breakfast and thinking ‘Uh, do I want to give my baby organic food or do I want to give it some processed product from America?’”
