New Zealand is considering a major overhaul of its genetic modification laws. While proponents tout the potential for more nutritious foods and reduced emissions of gene-edited products, a growing number of the country’s biggest exporters are sounding the alarm.
When Aotearoa’s restrictive genetic modification laws are overhauled, the responsibility for assessing risk will largely fall on one person’s shoulders.
Under a proposal in the Gene Technology Bill, this person, a newly minted regulator of gene technology, will zero in on two areas of risk when licensing genetically modified organisms.
First: Does it pose a risk to human health? And second: Does it pose a risk to the environment?
But amid the submissions on the bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament, there are calls for the regulator to consider a third area: the risk to trade.
“We were told in no uncertain terms that this bill was not to consider economic impacts,” says Organics Aotearoa’s Scott Wilson. The industry group went ahead and commissioned its own report from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research into the potential impact. The report said it was difficult to estimate the impact and gave a range from zero to $10-$20 billion a year.
The organics industry is a fierce opponent of GE tech, so its opposition to the bill, which aims to tackle New Zealand’s long-standing precautionary approach to gene editing, was largely predictable.
What was more surprising was that aspects of the bill also sparked concern from some of our biggest exporters.
Fonterra and industry body Dairy Companies Association NZ (DCANZ) support the legislation, but asked for an amendment to be made for trade risks to be considered. Horticulture New Zealand, which represents approximately 4500 fruit and vegetable growers, had a similar message.
Some fruit growers have raised concerns about the legislation around genetically modified food being relaxed.
There is disagreement among government officials too. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) suggested there could be a risk to trade, but the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), opted to go against MFAT’s concerns when writing the bill.
Asking the regulator to consider trade, “would require the regulator to make a speculative economic judgment outside of its scientific expertise”, MBIE noted in a Regulatory Impact Statement. It could also “create an avenue for opponents to GMO use to disrupt or prevent GMO applications beyond arguments based on risks to human health and safety and the environment”.
What’s the benefit of GMOs?
Dairy NZ chief scientist Bruce Thorrold says it is time to change New Zealand’s cautious approach to genetic technologies, which does not allow field trials of things like genetically edited grasses.
Thorrold gives an example of a “stunning piece of science” from Crown Research Institute, AgResearch. A ryegrass gene which produces more lipid - or more fat - has been stabilised. This could result in a more nutritious grass for the cows, leading to greater productivity and reduced methane emissions.
The grass has been tested in the United States, with promising results, he says, but our current rules mean it can’t be tested outdoors in New Zealand.
“We need to know that these plants express the genes in the climate and the sunshine hours and the temperatures that we have here.”
Dr Bruce Thorrold believes it is time NZ relaxed its rules around GMO. Photo / Supplied
William Rolleston is a former Federated Farmers president and Life Science Network chair and is a longtime advocate for loosening the rules around genetic technology in New Zealand. He is also a South Canterbury farmer and can envisage a future where gene technology reduces farmers’ overheads.
“If we were in the ETS [emissions trading scheme] and had to pay for emissions, and using a genetically modified ryegrass, which reduced my emissions by 20%, was going to save me having to pay those ETS bills, then I’d be pretty interested in using it.”
Other examples given of potential farming benefits include breeding polled cattle - cattle without horns - meaning farmers would not need to use a hot iron to cauterise horn buds of calves. The painful process requires the use of local anaesthetic and for calves to be kept out of the rain for 24 hours.
Would we lose access to markets?
The sticking point for many exporters is the proposed bill suggests allowing some gene-edited organisms to be unregulated. This could mean products from genetically edited animals could get mixed into products.
DCANZ executive director Kimberly Crewther explained some countries New Zealand exports dairy products to require any products from gene-edited animals go through a permissibility and approval assessment.
European Union countries require labelling, Japan approves products on a case-by-case basis. China requires importers of genetically modified goods to obtain a certificate. Indonesia and Malaysia both require the approval from food or biosecurity boards.
These markets represented 49% of New Zealand’s dairy exports, accounting for $11.7 billion, according to DCANZ.
“In terms of what we are asking for with changes to the bill, is to be able to manage those differences,” says Crewther.
This requires being able to trace animals through the supply chain so exporters can provide correct information to markets. Milk from gene-edited polled cows, for example, would be able to be identified, and even kept apart for milk from non-gene-edited cows, much the way organic milk is processed separately currently.
It all relies on knowing what animals are gene-edited, says Crewther. “Without visibility, you can’t actually set up traceability, it’s like looking for invisible needles in haystacks.”
Modified rye grass could reduce emissions, but cannot be used in NZ.
The bill in its current form allows one type of gene-editing SDN-1 to be unregistered, this is where DNA is modified, but no foreign DNA is inserted. Rather than have a blanket rule that SDN-1 altered organisms be registered, DCANZ has asked for market risk to be considered by the regulator. Crewther says this could allow traceability where needed for export markets, and not have it imposed where it’s not needed.
Her response to MBIE’s concern that a regulator might not have the expertise to consider market risks was that experts are available to call on for advice.
“We suggested a market access panel or market access committee,” she says. This panel could call on expertise from the Ministry for Primary Industries, MFAT, or industry experts.
Crewther has seen the report which Organics Aotearoa commissioned, which estimated $10-20 billion in exports per year could be affected. Her view is more moderate.
If there’s no ability to track products from gene-edited animals with a traceability scheme, then “there could be costs associated with it”, she says.
“We don’t think that it’s a case of liberalisation of gene tech and maintaining market access, maintaining trade value needs to be mutually exclusive. We think it can be managed with changes to the bill.”
Rolleston was less diplomatic about the estimates in NZIER’s report, saying it applied premiums from some products across the board. “Then it said, if we have the genetic bill, that we’re going to wipe all those premiums out. That’s just not credible.”
He is not in favour of the regulator considering trade risks when assessing gene-edited organisms as it would require “a whole new set of skills”. Reports like NZIER’s demonstrate how subjective economic estimates can be.
“How’s the regulator going to weigh all those things up? Because at the end of the day, they are speculative.”
Overseas countries do not require trade implications to form part of decisions around allowing the release of organisms.
“What they do is trust their industries to actually manage the trade situation themselves.”
Wilson says the organics industry contributes just under $1 billion a year to the country. He describes the industry as philosophically driven, as well as market driven. Even if there were assurances from scientists that testing had shown no risks from gene-edited organisms, he believes customers seeking natural products would try to avoid them.
Currently, New Zealand produce can claim to be GMO-free without the need for costly traceability schemes. It’s an advantage Wilson says other countries are jealous of. If the rules change to allow the release of gene-edited organisms, then proving that status becomes harder.
For DCANZ, the main concern is products from gene-edited animals. Export markets don’t insist on assurances the food the animals eat is also GE-free. In fact cows in the United States and South America commonly eat GE soybean and maize crops.
But for the organics industry, grasses and crops are more of an issue.
Organic produce can fetch a premium. Photo / A. Schippers
An organic farmer’s neighbour might choose to use a GE-free ryegrass. While measures can be taken to reduce the spread of the grass between farms, such as buffer zones on boundary areas, grazing or mowing to make sure seed heads weren’t produced, or different flowering dates for ryegrasses on each farm, the organics industry still worries there’s a chance of cross pollination.
Organic products can earn a premium, but this often reflects an increased cost of production.
Wilson acknowledged NZIER struggled to put a figure on what the changes could mean to exports.
“The main takeout from it was we have a lot to lose, whether that’s $1 billion or $10 billion or $20 billion to lose - there is a loss.”
The Green Party’s Steve Abel has sat through many of the oral submissions to the select committee for the gene tech bill. A common thread among primary producers is concern around risks to exports. He finds it “staggering” there hasn’t been substantive analysis of the value of New Zealand’s current gene editing free status
He described the bill as “radical deregulation” of New Zealand’s current approach.
The party’s stance on genetic technology is support for medical use, and support where organisms are contained. The party is opposed to the release of any organism that has the ability to self-replicate.
“We have a point of difference, and we as an island nation have this ability to maintain that non-GMO status. We know there’s a huge and growing global market for GM-free food, that seems to be an obvious advantage that we should retain and not forfeit for some speculative benefits from GM products.”
He’s sceptical about any benefits from gene technology being introduced to food production. “There’s no clear evidence people want to consume GM food,” he said.
When it comes to gene-edited crops, like ryegrass, the impact to farmers’ bottom lines are unknown while testing is still under way.
“These speculative benefits can’t be costed because they haven’t been achieved and they haven’t been proven.”
The bill is currently before the select committee. The committee will prepare a report with recommended changes before the bill has a second reading. The report is due on July 31.
