Set out below is our submission to the NZ Parliament on the Gene Technology Bill. You are welcome to adapt this to make your own submission. Submissions close 17 February 2025.
Commonsense Organics Ltd is an organic retailer. We have five supermarkets; four in the Wellington region and one in Auckland. We cater to a growing proportion of consumers in Aotearoa who are concerned at the quality of our soil and who want organic food and environmentally-friendly products to continue to be available for themselves and their families and friends.
We are all dependent on the soil for our food, yet soil science is a relatively unappreciated discipline. Agricultural research has tended to be focused on chemical inputs, rather than microorganisms in the soil that keep it healthy.
We do not know the long term effects of genetically modified plants on the soils we rely on for our existence. We do, however, know that we are uniquely placed as an isolated group of islands to profit from our GE free status. Our business takes every precaution to ensure that the goods we sell are GE free. This Bill threatens our ability to do this.
We note that the Purpose of the Bill is ‘To enable the safe use of gene technology and regulated organisms in New Zealand’[1]
Commonsense Organics considers that the Gene Technology Bill does not achieve its stated objectives which are:
‘to provide for—
- risk-proportionate regulation:
- efficient application and decision-making processes:
- a flexible legislative framework able to accommodate future technological and policy developments without frequent amendment:
- international alignment, including with key trading partners, to facilitate trade and improve access to new technologies:
- ways to recognise and give effect to the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.’[2]
Our submission addresses each of these objectives and makes alternative recommendations.
Objective 1 - Risk Proportionate Regulation
We do not support the framework of risk tiers and authorizations in the Bill for the following reasons:
- We are most concerned that all decisions regarding risk and definitions of what fits into which risk tier, is left to the Regulator. It is not a strong protection to rely on one person to make the decisions for the safe use of this complex technology. Even if the Regulator is an expert on one aspect of the technology, this is a highly complicated area and it is unrealistic to expect one person to be across all the relevant considerations for a good decision-making process.
- We reject the concept of exempt activities which could be applied not only to plants, but also to animals and micro-organisms. We note that the Bill enables the Regulator to include within ‘exempt activities’ any gene technologies and genetically modified products they deem to be safe. This is an alarming move away from safe protection as it could entail the release of existing GM products into the environment with few safeguards and no public notification.
Recommendations
- We recommend the removal of exempt activities as a risk tier.
- We recommend that the structure of authorisation is a continuation of a process-based framework and that all types of GM products and processes are regulated.
- We recommend that decisions are not made by one person, the Regulator, but by a panel of experts.
Objective 2 - Efficient Application and Decision-making Processes
We note that the proposed decision-making process may be efficient for companies and corporations who are in the business of providing and profiting from GMOs. It is far from efficient, however, for businesses who have built their markets on traceability and freedom from GM contamination. It is also potentially highly detrimental to the Hua Parakore verification system which is grounded in te ao Māori/the Māori world. According to a study by New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) our primary sector exports could reduce by $10billion to $20billion annually were genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be released into the environment.[3]
One possible mitigation would have been a continuation of the democratic right for territorial authorities to implement precautionary and/or prohibition policies regarding GMOs within their own area. Such measures are currently in place under the Resource Management Act, but this Bill removes that right. This will mean that farmers and growers opposed to the release of GMOs within the environment will bear the costs of contamination risks. We note that the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE) in its Regulatory Impact Statement is specific in its assessment of who will incur the costs of these changes, but vague in its actual assessment of increased costs. The report states the impact will be:
‘Unquantified costs to organic/non-GMO primary producers. At present this sector operates without risk of inadvertent contamination to their products from GMOs, because under the status quo there have not been any environmental releases of GMO products that could cause such contamination. Under the proposal, it is expected that eventually GMO products will be released into the environment which would require new supply chain management approaches to avoid contamination of non GMO products. There would also be additional costs for organic and other certified non-GMO supply chains to meet assurance requirements’ (the rest is redacted)[4]
One way of ensuring there are supply chain management approaches to avoid contamination of non GMO products is to make the companies responsible for releasing GMOs into the environment liable in law for contamination of non GMO products. But the only liability within the Bill applies to ‘breaches of the regime’. This leaves organic/non-GMO primary producers unfairly exposed. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) also expressed concerns, indicating:
‘The regulator should be required to consider trade and market access risks in assessing organisms for environmental release. This is due to the complex assurance processes for gene technology in key export markets, and the unpredictable nature of the international trading environment where gene technology has been historically controversial.’[5]
If there were a robust liability process included in the Bill, this could at least address some of these concerns.
Recommendations
- Commonsense Organics recommends that gene technology be used only in certified containment facilities.
- We strongly recommend that a robust system of liability for GM contamination be included in this Bill.
Objective 3 - a flexible legislative framework able to accommodate future technological and policy developments without frequent amendment:
There is a very real danger that the desire to introduce a flexible legislative framework has outstripped the need for safe science. This Bill leans too heavily towards enhancing the profits of a few gene technology companies at the expense of the safety of New Zealanders.
We reject the notion of accommodating ‘future technological and policy developments’ in gene technology. As the science of gene technology evolves, it will bring products to market with unknown risks. There must be adequate regulation to ensure such products are safe.
Recommendation
Commonsense Organics recommends that this Objective be amended to exclude ‘able to accommodate future technological and policy developments without frequent amendment’
Objective 4 - international alignment, including with key trading partners, to facilitate trade and improve access to new technologies:
It appears the New Zealand legislation, if enacted, will introduce a regime that is more extreme than any other in the world. According to the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety of the University of Canterbury:
‘The proposed changes in our gene technology laws do not align us with trading partners. We would open our borders to, or produce within our borders, unregulated outcomes that our trading partners regulate.
- Of all countries that have changed their gene technology laws, only Canada and Australia have no mandatory notification requirement (and for Canada, changes are restricted to only plants).
- The United States also limited the number of modifications and their distribution, such as
no more than one modification per gene, that could be made to plants that are exempt from GMO regulations. New Zealand could under the proposed Bill have no limitations of this kind.
- Australia but potentially not New Zealand defines the use of SDN2 and oligonucleotide mutagenesis (ODM) as distinguishable from conventional breeding.
In short, in at least one significant way, New Zealand proposes to accept risks to human health and the environment unacceptable to any other country.’[6]
We are most concerned that Aotearoa/New Zealand is considering a regime that is more permissive than any other in the world. Not only would it allow New Zealand gene companies to experiment in unknown ‘future technological developments’, but it could open the door to foreign entrepreneurs willing to take risks in our country and our people that they are unable to do in their own countries.
Objective 6 - ways to recognise and give effect to the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi
The Gene Technology Bill intends to ‘create a process to enable the management of risks to Māori kaitiaki relationships with indigenous species.’ A Māori Advisory Committee will provide the Regulator with expert advice.
Commonsense Organics notes that there is already one claim before the Waitangi Tribunal that involves genetic modification – WAI 262. In considering the protection of the kaitiaki relationship with mātauranga Māori and taonga species, the report recommends that:
Māori should sit at the decision-making table in partnership so that their voice is not only heard but is also effective in the balancing of interests[7]
The powers of the Māori Advisory Committee do not reflect this recommendation. The Explanatory Note to the Bill states that:
the Regulator will take expert advice from the Technical Advisory Committee and may seek advice from the Māori Advisory Committee where an activity may have a material adverse effect on Māori kaitiaki relationships with indigenous species. The Regulator may also seek and receive advice from other agencies. (emphasis added)[8]
In other words the Māori Advisory Committee is reduced to the status of ‘other agencies’. It is at the discretion of the Regulator whether the Committee is consulted at all.
In its Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) MBIE points out that:
‘use of gene technology engages Māori rights and interests under te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi. These include rights to exercise kaitiakitanga (often translated as guardianship) for specific species and places, and for equitable access and outcomes in areas such as health and economic development.’
It is clear that the proposed structure for the Māori Advisory Committee does not ‘recognise and give effect to the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi’.
Recommendations
Commonsense Organics recommends that the legislation retain this objective and implement it by ensuring that Māori have a seat ‘at the decision-making table in partnership so that their voice is not only heard but is also effective in the balancing of interests.’[9]
Conclusion
Commonsense Organics is not against gene technology and supports a robust scientific approach to the regulation of technologies such as genetic modification. We acknowledge the power for good in gene technology, particularly in the area of medicine, but we note that this application of genetic modification is confined to the laboratory and specifically targeted.
The Gene Technology Bill, however, goes a long way beyond the use of genetic modification in medicine. It creates unacceptable risks for our growing sector and it risks jeopardizing the safety of all New Zealanders. We urge the Committee to accept our recommendations.
[1] https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0110/latest/whole.html
[2] ibid
[3]https://www.oanz.org/newblog/NZ%20exports%20risk%20multibillion%20dollar%20hit%20if%20GMO%20rules%20deregulated?rq=nzier
[4] https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/29936-regulatory-impact-statement-reform-of-gene-technology-regulation-pdf
[5] ibid
[6] https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/items/6eb0792a-0692-4813-8687-47e34caff74a
[7] https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_68356606/KoAotearoaTeneiTT2Vol2W.pdf, p347
[8] https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0110/latest/whole.html
[9] https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_68356606/KoAotearoaTeneiTT2Vol2W.pdf, p347