The National Party announced the policy early in the election proposing harmonisation of international policies. This
would allow any new genetic technology (GE) product approved by two of the 38 member intergovernmental organisation,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to be approved for release in New Zealand. This would
override New Zealand sovereignty and laws.
“We urge exporters across the Food and Beverage sector ask the incoming National government to rethink their
biotechnology policy for GE release.” Said Claire Bleakley, president of GE Free NZ.
Exporters are warned that this could risk losing New Zealand's competitive edge against other OECD countries and
undermine trust in New Zealand's reputation for safe, natural food and threatens the integrity of the food system and
Brand New Zealand.
New Zealand benefits from the highest standards for food safety and a reputation that benefits exporters. Exemptions
from regulation and the automatic approval of Gene Edited products if they are signed off in two overseas countries
represents a loss of control for producers and exporters. The Royal Society Te Apārangi report noted that to be in “New
Zealand’s interests, a market premium is required for “GM-Free” produce and that this premium must be weighed against
other potential benefits of gene editing.” [1]
“There is a significant threat to exports and to the economy from National's intention for open up to GE release. The
loss of a point of difference from competing OECD countries by removing current regulation will “kill the goose that
lays the golden egg,” said Jon Carapiet, spokesman for GE-Free NZ.
New Zealand's point of difference in the market is at risk, and so is the success of our food, beverage and fibre
exports. Incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has down played the value of NZ’s GE-free status. Independent figures
show a great benefit to exports. [2]
"Exporters need to have a voice and speak up for protection of the proven benefits and export demand for organic and
GE-free products," said Jon Carapiet.
The promises made for GE have not been delivered, The Newsroom report “The grass isn't greener“ exposes the illusion
behind hopes and money invested in GE-ryegrass which is cited by National and Act Party politicians as of benefit to
farmers. [3]
Consumer sentiment in international markets favours exporters being able to supply Non-GMO products as scientists
continue to disagree about the risks of Gene Editing. [4]
Although the Chief Science Advisors, The Royal Society and industry experts say the science is settled and GE is safe,
that is not supported by the scientific evidence. [5] [6] The consumer demand and economic benefits for New Zealand GE
Free exports goes against National's policy that exempts Gene Editing from current regulations.
The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, (ENSSER) point out The European
Commission’s proposal to exempt most ‘new’ genetic technologies (GE) from regulation lacks scientific basis. Kieldas et
al (2023) reported -
"the proposal will expose citizens and the environment to potentially unsafe food, feed and plants without informing the
citizens… the great power of NGTs comes great responsibility, and the way forward must be grounded in responsible
research, innovation, and regulation.” [8]
“National's policy to exempt the regulation of Gene Editing (GE) is not in the interests of exporters, farmers, or
consumers. New Zealand will lose sovereignty and control destroying the integrity of our food system. The right to
choose must be enshrined as part of the social license for the biotechnology industry to operate in.” said Jon Carapiet.
References:
[1] https://fitforabetterworld.org.nz/assets/Te-Puna-Whakaaronui-publications/WELL-NZ-Modern-genetic-technology-2023.pdf
[2]
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2023/08/04/guest-blog-jon-carapiet-premium-for-ge-free-food-adds-value-to-exports-and-to-brand-new-zealand/
[3] https://www.newsroom.co.nz/pro/grass-isnt-greener-for-gm-trial-in-australia
[4] https://ensser.org/press_release/new-gm-plants-eu-commission-has-lost-science-and-safety-from-sight/
[5]
https://biosafety-info.net/articles/assessment-impacts/a-systems-biology-approach-to-assessing-potential-unintended-effects-in-gm-crops/
[6] Antoniou, M.N., Robinson, C., Castro, I. et al. Agricultural GMOs and their associated pesticides: misinformation, science, and evidence. Environ Sci Eur 35, 76 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-023-00787-4
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-023-00787-4
[7]
https://www.organicseurope.bio/news/eu-environmental-ministers-give-clear-signal-to-commission-to-maintain-the-precautionary-principle-and-risk-assessment-for-ngts/
[8] Kjeldaas, S., Dassler, T., Antonsen, T. et al. With great power comes great responsibility: why ‘safe enough’ is not
good enough in debates on new gene technologies. Agric Hum Values 40, 533–545 (2023).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-022-10367-6