For nearly three decades, New Zealand’s strict regulations around genetic modification have more or less confined research opportunities to the lab. Yesterday, the government confirmed legislative reform was on its way.

Let’s start at square one – what exactly is GM?

Genetic modification, also known as gene technology or genetic engineering (GE), involves taking DNA and inserting it into the genome of another organism, so that organism can make new substances or perform different functions. DNA can come from microbes, animals, plants, or be synthetic (made in the laboratory). Genetically engineered organisms are known as GMOs. 

It’s worth noting that GM is not the same as gene editing, which involves making a change to the existing genome as opposed to introducing new DNA. But in New Zealand, both are regulated under the same act, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996.

What’s it used for?

GM has applications across agriculture, medicine and industry and climate change adaptation. For example, Crown research institute AgResearch is trialling inserting a gene into white clover to reduce the methane emissions from livestock that eat it. Field trials are being done in Australia, due to our tight regulations. 

In Wellington, scientists at the Malaghan Institute are engineering a patient’s own cells to fight cancer (CAR T-cell cancer therapies). They collect a patient’s immune cells, genetically modify the cells to recognise and kill their cancer and return the cells to the patient. It’s proved effective against B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas.

That all sounds sensible. So why’s it controversial?

Politically, GM has been a highly contentious issue in New Zealand, culminating in a scandal that came to be known as “Corngate”. In a live TV interview in 2002, journalist John Campbell grilled a furious Helen Clark, then the prime minister, about a cover-up of accidentally released GM corn in New Zealand’s food supply in 2000, which was revealed by a yet-to-be-published book by investigative journalist Nicky Hager. This was a time of major debate about the safety of GM crops, which much of the environmentally minded left saw as a dangerous, unproven practice that risked our clean, green reputation. While science has essentially settled in favour of GM, it has remained a somewhat politically untouchable subject in Aotearoa.

OK, and remind me, wth is the ‘ban’?

In 1996 New Zealand introduced the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act, which put in place a very rigorous and complex approval process before GMOs could be released out of containment (laboratories or quarantine) in New Zealand.  

As the 90s progressed, the potential health risks and environmental impacts of GMOs became a major public concern in New Zealand, with Greenpeace leading campaigns to urge supermarkets not to sell genetically engineered foods. In 1999, the Green Party presented a petition of 92,000 signatures to parliament and in response, the government announced a royal commission into genetic modification, putting in place a moratorium on the commercial planting of GM crops. The commission recommended a proceed-with-caution approach, and the moratorium was lifted in 2003, amid large protests.

So there’s not actually a ban, then?

Not technically, but the regulations are so onerous that GM research has mostly been confined to labs. It’s still regulated by the HSNO Act, which has had various amendments since 1996 but is largely based on what we knew about the risks and benefits of GMOs in the late 90s. 

OK, so what have been the effects?

As biotechnologist and geneticist Tony Conner explained last year, field tests first substantially declined after the introduction of the law in 1996, then virtually ceased after a later amendment. Amendments meant that GM plants in fields were not allowed to flower – virtually impossible to guarantee, even with manual removal of flower buds. Preventing flowering also prevents grain and fruit developing, which is usually a key purpose of field testing. Also, the procedures are cumbersome and take more effort and resource than the field experiments themselves.

As the Herald reported last year, the Environmental Protection Authority (formerly the Environmental Risk Management Authority), the body that regulates the act, had not received an application for a GM field test in more than a decade.

This has had a flow-on effect for laboratory research – there’s not much point starting something if you know you can’t finish it. Conner wrote that scientists missed out, as did consumers. We did not develop fruit and veges with higher resistance to pests and diseases, or onions that don’t make people cry. 

Since the HSNO Act came into force, only three unconditional releases of GMOs into the environment have been approved. All three were for medical uses.

Why change things?

National campaigned on updating these laws, and committed to it in both the Act Party and NZ First coalition agreements. Collins says changing the laws will “enable us to improve health outcomes, adapt to climate change, deliver massive economic gains and improve the lives of New Zealanders”. She says we’ve been lagging behind other countries like Australia, England, Canada and many European nations in allowing the use of this technology for the benefit of their people, and their economies.

Essentially, loosening the regulations will allow researchers and companies to develop and sell products (like a certain kind of crop) or healthcare treatments (like CAR T-cell therapy). The use of gene technology could help the agriculture sector mitigate emissions and increase productivity. 

What will the new legislation be like?

The full regulatory regime has not been released but the new legislation will be based on Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000. A regulator will be a single decision maker supported by an office, a technical advisory committee and a Māori advisory committee, and will manage potential risks to human health and the environment. 

There will be tiers of risk: gene modifications indistinguishable from changes that could be achieved through selective breeding or natural mutation will be considered low-risk and fall under no regulation. The sterile pines and CAR T-cell therapies fit this tier, along with things like disease-resistant maize and non-browning mushrooms. Activities including research in labs with animals would require risk assessment and management, and licences would be needed to cover field trials, clinical trials and commercial releases.

Are we sure GM is totally safe? What are the risks?

There could be some potential health risks to eating GM food, like possible exposure to new allergens and the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora. However, GM food is already available in our supermarkets, mostly imported from overseas. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) “conducts a thorough safety assessment of all GM foods before they are allowed in the food supply” that ensures “any GM food that is approved is as safe as food already in the food supply, including in the long term”.  GM foods and ingredients (including food additives and processing aids) that contain novel DNA or novel protein must be labelled with the words “genetically modified”.  

Another concern is that private companies could claim ownership of the organisms they create and not share them at a reasonable cost – like the case with Monsanto. This could hurt small farmers who can’t afford the technology and instead favour large-scale monoculture farm production. 

What do the experts reckon?

Scientists at Crown Research Institutes AgResearch, Scion and Plant & Food Research welcomed the changes, commenting that they would allow New Zealand to compete on an even playing field. “These new regulations will allow scientists to develop new plant varieties so the agrifood sector can adapt at the speed required to meet fast-moving challenges, such as climate change, and remain competitive on the global market,” said Richard Newcomb, chief scientist at Plant & Food Research.

Academics were a little more cautious in their praise, with Michael Bunce, genetics expert and honorary/adjunct professor at the University of Otago and Curtin University, saying that while an update to the law was needed, it was now time for New Zealand to have a “technical and nuanced conversation” that “requires us to pick up our DNA ‘game’ a little, and park debates from last century when gene technologies were still in their infancy. We may also have to accept that the country may remain divided on this topic – some New Zealanders will remain opposed to gene editing.”

University of Canterbury genetics professor Jack Heinemann, meanwhile, said that calling the current regulations a “ban” was “misleading hyperbole”. In comments via the Science Media Centre, Heinemann said, “There is no robust evidence that New Zealand’s regulation have prevented, or will prevent, truly useful products from coming to market.”

Josephine Johnson, associate professor at Otago’s Bioethics Centre, said reform made sense, but the approach would need to be adapted “in light of our country’s special features, and there I immediately think of our Treaty commitments and the high value we place on our natural environment”.

Labour’s science, innovation and technology spokesperson Deborah Russell said, “Unlike under National’s undemocratic and broken fast track legislation, Judith Collins must ensure its genetic modification and editing legislation includes the essential safeguards to protect our environment and is regulated to protect New Zealand’s interests.”

The Green Party’s response came from agriculture and food safety spokesman Steve Abel, who led Greenpeace’s GE campaign in the early 2000s. Speaking to the Herald, he said the party would continue to “oppose the environmental release of GE crops” though they back “ethical use of GE biotechnology in containment, including medical use”. When asked whether the Greens could be convinced to back the legislation, Abel did not rule it out, instead saying there first needed to be a “wide-ranging and robust public discussion“. In 2019, an open letter signed by more than 150 young scientists urged the Greens to change their position in light of the climate crisis, and take the lead on GM reform.

When will this all happen?

Collins has said the legislation will be introduced to parliament by the end of the year. There will be an opportunity for the public to have their say at the select committee stage – dates haven’t been set, but will be published on the MBIE website. Collins wants to have it passed and the regulator in operation by the end of 2025.