NEWS | MATIHIKO | TECH
Written by Caeden Tipler (they/them) | @caedentipler | Contributing Writer
Edited by Evie Richardson (she/her) | @evi3m4y | News Editor
The Gene Technology Bill, introduced by the government late last year, aims to ease restrictions and open up development on genetic modification in Aotearoa.
Genetic modification is the process of making specific changes to the DNA sequence of an organism. This is normally for purposes such as protection against disease or to lower greenhouse gas output. The changes would encompass gene editing across plants, animals, and bacteria.
The bill intends to establish a new framework for regulating existing and future gene technology in Aotearoa. It would allow for a more straightforward approval process than the current rigorous one and would be monitored by a new regulator of the industry.
The last time gene technology was given significant attention by the government was during the 2001 Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. The commission resulted in a heated debate on the topic, including a 10,000-strong march against genetic modification on Queen Street. Since then, politicians have strongly avoided the topic - until now.
Members of the scientific community, such as University of Auckland Biological Sciences Professor Andrew Allan, have praised the bill for being “modern” in its risk assessment. Currently, gene technology is regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996.
“If passed, new rules and regulations for gene technologies will be a vast improvement on the previous law. This is because the suggested settings are more modern, and will regulate DNA-techniques based on real, measurable risks.
“Previously low or no-risk activities were very restricted, and had to be treated like they were all very risky. Now we may be able to see more of the benefits of these efforts in medicine, agriculture and conservation.”
Supporters of the bill have also argued genetic technology can help lower carbon emissions in the agricultural sector and stimulate economic growth and development.
However, critics of the bill worry about the impact any changes could have on our export market.
The Japanese Consumers Co-operative Union (JCCU) wrote that they were “alarmed” by the bill in an open letter. The JCCU represents 30 million Japanese consumers and has successfully lobbied against gene editing technology within Japan. In 2023, New Zealand exports to Japan included $450 million in dairy, eggs and honey, $307 million in fruit, and $220 million in meat.
In their submission on the bill, the Sustainable Business Network wrote that the bill could harm our “clean, green” image that has supported our premium food production and tourism industries. This image has been estimated to be worth billions of dollars.
They also noted the risk of the bill to organic producers, which have recently made significant gains in organic certification processes. They warned that organic producers could lose their certification due to unintentional contamination with genetically modified organisms.
Hāpai Te Hauora, an organisation focused on Māori health, have expressed concern over what the bill could mean for Māori. Their areas of concern include the bill's impact on kai sovereignty, environmental risks, the lack of means for accountability for the new industry regulator, and economic implications. They emphasised that “Māori have long opposed GMOs” which is especially concerning given the context of “Māori as kaitiaki (guardians) of the environment and taonga.”
In her submission, lecturer at Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiarangi and researcher at Purangakura, Lani Rotzler-Purewa (Tūhoe, Ngāti Pūkeko) emphasised that the bill was a breach of Te Tiriti, writing that “Tino Rangatiratanga is once again being dishonoured and disregarded through this legislation, breaching the contract between the Crown and tangata whenua [...]”. Rotzler-Purewa cited the lack of “risk analysis on environmental, human health, and economic risks”, particularly given the context of our reputation as ‘GE free Aotearoa.’
University of Auckland PhD Candidate Katie Henderson, who specialises in food technology acceptance and adoption, says more could have been done to explain the bill to the public. In her research, she’s found that people generally want to know more about topics like genetic modification but want to hear it from sources such as universities, scientific institutions, and farmers over politicians.
She told Debate that “building trust won’t happen overnight” but more needs to be done to break the “taboo” surrounding genetic modification that has stifled open communication on the topic. One way dialogue could be opened is through the implementation of the bill itself, however, the first projects approved under the new regulations need to be “beneficial and understandable” to bring the public on board.
The bill is also notable as it’s the first time Generation Z are included in the debate on genetic modification. In Henderson’s words, “I was alive during the Royal Commission [on Genetic Modification] but I would have only been about 3-years-old. Gen Z hasn’t had a chance to have a say on this topic before. We’re hearing older people's opinions, but we’re not hearing young people's views. That’s why it’s cool to have this debate now, we can hear whole new perspectives.”
Submissions on the bill closed earlier this month. The health committee is now considering the 1,700 submissions it received and will present its findings to Parliament in June.
Comments