Act wants completely new GMO rules
MP claims NZ is falling behind due to outdated laws, writes
The Act party wants to overhaul the rules for genetic engineering and ensure they remain fit for purpose over time by regulating biotechnological outcomes rather than techniques.
“We want to make sure that the legislation will be fit for purpose not just for now but takes that long-term view into consideration and also the pace of development of this technology,” said Act’s research, science and innovation spokesperson, former John Key era National party MP Parmjeet Parmar.
She served as the research, science and technology spokesperson for the National party in opposition, but never made a cabinet placing.
Parmar says NZ needs regulations based on the outcome of a technique rather than the technique itself.
“At the moment, it is so dependent on technique,” she said. “I don’t want to be in a situation in 20 years’ time where we again say this legislation is outdated; what do we do.”
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and technologies are regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act.
The regulatory framework was last reviewed in 2001 and defines GMOs as those that contain or are derived from genetic material that has been modified in vitro (in a test tube or petri dish).
At the time, there were protests and dire warnings of “Frankenfood”, ranging from widespread protests led by Greenpeace to the in-your-face billboard campaign by Mothers Against Genetic Engineering in Food and the Environment featuring a fourbreasted woman hooked up to a milking machine.
A royal commission of inquiry recommended a moratorium on unfettered research that looked to be the end of it until Peter Gluckman, former chief science adviser to the prime minister, called on Kiwis to wake up to synthetic food's science and environmental benefits.
Last year, the previous government accepted a recommendation by the Productivity Commission to review genetic modification regulations without saying how it might start the conversation that's been fraught for more than two decades.
The National-led government has said it will end NZ’s ban on gene editing and genetic modification, and “the new legislation will allow for greater use of GE and GM while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment”.
It has pledged to retain “strict rules” for older generation genetic modification techniques that combine genes from different species.
The minister in charge will decide on the exact approach, but Parmar said the existing legislation needs to be rewritten.
“I would like to completely replace the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act with this new legislation rather than putting modifications through,” said Parmar.
She said it was important the legislation be applied consistently across the country to avoid any confusion.
She noted NZ had been growing and consuming genetically modified things, through selective and conventional breeding techniques, such as seedless watermelons.
“We don’t see them as genetically modified because of how our legislation defines it,” she said.
The aim was to give NZ scientists the confidence that their work would not remain confined to laboratories, but they could take it to the next level.
“Otherwise, why would scientists continue to invest in the biotech sector? We won’t get much private sector investment if they know the work can’t be taken outside of the lab.”
As a result, “there is no practical future of this work here in NZ”.
She also said NZ was quickly being left behind, noting that Australia modernised its laws in 2019.
She said the fact that NZ doesn’t grow genetically modified crops was no longer something to be proud of “because that just implies to me that we are stuck with the trial-and-error method of selective breeding”.
She acknowledged many people had different views on the topic but most people were “aligned with us making this kind of progress”..