National plans to overhaul rules on gene editing
NATIONAL says it would overhaul the Act that has long regulated gene editing in New Zealand.
Party leader Simon Bridges and science and innovation spokeswoman Parmjeet Parmar this week announced their intention, if elected next year, to review the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act.
Their announcement at Auckland’s Mint Innovation was timed to coincide with the introduction of reforms in Australia, which effectively deregulated gene editing in plants, animals and human cell lines that did not introduce new genetic material.
In New Zealand, strict regulations under the HSNO Act have tightly controlled the use of gene engineering and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) since 2003.
Ms Parmar said National would make ‘‘significant changes’’ to modernise the Act, ensuring the regulation was proportionate to risk.
Asked by the Herald what precisely National intended to change in the Act, she said it would be reviewed in its entirety.
‘‘We will be taking into consideration all the feedback from the scientific community as well as the wider public.’’
Ms Parmar argued biotechnology offered benefits in areas ranging from heath to conservation and climate change, and that New Zealand should not be passing up these opportunities.
‘‘The science around biotechnology is moving faster than ever before and New Zealand mustn’t fall behind.’’
The plan, already flagged by National’s in its discussion document on environmental policy, came after a panel convened by top science body Royal Society Te Aparangi this year recommended a fresh look at geneediting laws.
The Prime Minister’s chief science adviser, Prof Juliet Gerrard, has shared with Jacinda Ardern her belief our laws are no longer fit for purpose.
Her predecessor in that role, Prof Sir Peter Gluckman, has similarly remarked that shunning evolving technologies could put New Zealand at risk of becoming ‘‘a backwater with a declining competitive position’’.
The Government has no current work to review the HSNO Act, but Environment Minister David Parker has asked officials to advise where lower regulatory hurdles ought to be considered to enable medical uses that would result in no inheritable traits, or laboratory tests where any risk was mitigated by containment.
He had also said he would consider the panel’s recommendation to clarify conflicting or inconsistent definitions of gene editing across the regulatory framework.
There remained mixed views in society as to whether new geneediting techniques modified the genome of an existing organism, and the Government was seeking advice on those issues before it decided to move forward.
Mr Parker pointed out that, although New Zealand took a precautionary approach, advancements in gene editing were not prohibited here.
‘‘There are already instances where the Environmental Protection Agency has approved the use of modified organisms, for example PexaVec used in clinical trials for the treatment of liver and kidney cancer.’’ — The New Zealand Herald