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 Technology Bill through parliament is unfathomable, say hill country sheep and beef farmers Ruth and Mike Williams and Nick Collins.
Reading Time: 3 minutes
By Ruth and Mike Williams and Nick Collins. Hill country sheep and beef farmers.
New Zealand is on the cliff edge of making a decision on the Gene Technology Bill. A regulation review is reasonable, considering the age of our existing legislation. But there are contradictions and many unknowns. We should have had a better opportunity to understand and give feedback on proposed changes that could impact on our farm businesses and livelihoods. The rush to push this Bill through parliament is unfathomable.
We all have different views about how GMOs could benefit our farm businesses (or not). We all want different outcomes. Retaining choice is fundamental here. This Bill will impact on all farmers and growers – whether or not we choose to use GMOs. A real conundrum for the Health Select Committee is whether this Bill will deliver genuine choice for farmers and growers.
We have a science that’s not yet fully understood. Scientists disagree about how to define gene technologies. They also disagree on the level of risk from changing gene technology regulations. If the scientists can’t agree, how can we as farmers and growers have certainty about the potential impacts of this Bill on the primary sector?
To add to the contradiction, the regulation is yet to be finalised. This Bill proposes exempt categories of GMOs. If a GMO falls in the exempt category anything can be developed and released without external knowledge or oversight. The science could be used by anyone, anywhere, with potentially random results and unintended consequences.
On top of this the GMO will be untraceable and able to contaminate. Regulation is needed for the safety of our businesses, environment and biosecurity. To put some gene editing techniques into a category exempt from regulations is inappropriate when the science tells us it produces unintended changes.
Market access is vital for our primary products, and with the current tariff wars, we look to be heading into uncertain times. It is essential we have full traceability and verification of the GM status of our products. An export shipment could be rejected if a contaminant cannot be identified.
We keep hearing that co-existence works overseas so it should work here. But there are no GM grasses commercially grown in the world. For a small country with 40% in pastoral land, New Zealand would be venturing into virgin territory on the GM grass front.
Hopefully it’s becoming clear to Wellington that it would be almost impossible to achieve practical coexistence for GM grasses. We’ve heard some submitters say that ryegrass spreads only 24m. We all know ryegrass travels much further by wind, in hay, on machinery and carried by animals.
We’ve also heard some suggest that we set up buffer zones, mow our boundaries and choose a flowering date to contain GE grass and prevent spread! That’s impractical for farmers and growers and unworkable in hill country.
Contamination is also a real issue. Published reports from the United States detail how a GM grass escaped field trials. The company did try to clean up the escaped grass but were unsuccessful. Farmers were left with the problem.
Visualise a grass for golf courses and lawns – one that’s growing at half the normal rate and can’t be killed by glyphosate – running rampant through our pastures: that is what was developed and is now trying to be developed under USDA exempt categories.
We all want different things. Not all GM developments are to the farmer’s benefit. New Zealand must take heed from overseas experience and the high-risk stakes of conducting field trials. Once these grasses are out, they will contaminate farms wishing to remain non-GM.
Gene editing has been presented by some as comparable to conventional selective breeding. At best this is disingenuous and not backed by science. Science is based on evidence, not on opinions or beliefs. Scientific explanations and theories are built on data collected through observation and experimentation, which are then reported in peer-reviewed scientific literature. The scientific literature provides many examples where gene editing – even with the latest and greatest methods – produces unintended changes that you wouldn’t get from conventional selective breeding.
The primary sector must benefit from the proposed Gene Technology Bill. We need confidence that the select committee’s report will reflect the due diligence needed to get the regulation setting right around market risk, economics and choice. Regulation of all GMOs is critical.
If we don’t get this right, we risk losing our trusted and valued global point of difference.
