From the Beehive: GE-free status should not be traded away lightly
Mark Patterson
April 10, 2025
NZ First MP Mark Patterson says the party will be asking the tough questions around the The Gene Technology Bill.
Mark Patterson is an NZ First MP.
OPINION: Legislation that goes through Parliam...
Getting the Gene Technology Bill right for farmers
Source: https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/opinion/getting-the-gene-technology-bill-right-for-farmers/
April 22, 2025
Regulation of all GMOs is critical, say these three hill country sheep and beef farmers.
The rush to push the Gene Techno...
Northland Regional Council slams Gene Technology Bill’s threat to GMO-protected zone
By Susan Botting Local Democracy Reporter nzme 24 Feb, 2025 06:00 AM
Source: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-regional-council-slams-gene-technology-bills-threat-to-gmo-protected-zone/U47MLXJTQBFM5L5KRKQISZRWXI/
- Northland Regional Council opposes the Gene Technology Bill, fearing it could weaken GMO-free protections.
- The Bill centralises decisions on genetically altered organisms, potentially removing local authority control.
- Councillors and community leaders stress the importance of maintaining local regulation and Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations.
- The Northland Regional Council has hit out at the controversial new Gene Technology Bill amid fears it could destroy New Zealand’s most protected GMO-free food-producing zone.
- The Government says the bill aims to enable the safe use of gene technology and regulated organisms to bring “enormous benefits” to New Zealand – including access to better cancer treatments.
- However, there are concerns it could potentially weaken controls on the use of genetically engineered material across almost 14,000 square kilometres in a unique Auckland/Northland zone.
- Land across Auckland and Northland from the Bombay Hills to Cape Rēinga is the country’s only multi-council protected GMO-free food-producing zone.
- The bill proposes centralising decision-making on allowing genetically altered plants, animals and other organisms in the zone.
Gene tech bill “a slap in the face to farmers, experts”
Deregulating gene editing technologies has wider consequences than the Government has considered, farmers and researchers say.
The contentious Gene Technology Bill is in its final week of receiving public submissions.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the bill would help the agriculture sector in his state of the nation speech.
“Enabling gene technology is about backing farmers, it's about embracing growth, and it's about saying yes instead of no.”
“I [want] New Zealand’s scientists working on high-yield crop variants, and solutions to agricultural emissions, that don’t drive farmers off their land and risk the very foundation of the New Zealand economy.”
He also announced the restructuring of the Crown research institutes and said they’d prioritise commercialisation.
“I want us to commercialise our brilliant ideas, so that our science system makes us all wealthier, because we are going for growth.”
Minister for Defence and Space Judith Collins broke news of the bill in August last year.
“New Zealand has lagged behind countries, including Australia, England, Canada and many European nations in allowing the use of this technology for the benefit of their people, and their economies.
She mentioned that New Zealand’s biotech sector - think plant modification, vaccine development and cell research - generated $2.7 billion in revenue in 2020.
“The changes [will] allow researchers and companies to further develop and commercialise their innovative products.
“It can also help our farmers and growers mitigate emissions and increase productivity.”
The government has pitched the bill as a long-needed overhaul of old rules, but researchers fear they’ve swung too far in the other direction.
University of Canterbury professor of genetics and biology Jack Heinemann is amongst the academics calling the bill “radical.”
In a submission to the Health Committee, he and other academics allege the bill will lower the burden on regulators but “substantially” risk the health of people and the environment.
“We would be outliers in the international scene.”
