By Parmjeet Parmar, ACT’s spokesperson for science, innovation, and technology.
Years ago, as I began exploring the potential of liberalising genetic engineering laws, I was advised to use the euphemism “biotechnology” to avoid a fearful knee-jerk reaction.
I believe New Zealanders’ attitudes have shifted. We have now elected a coalition government with all three partners signed up to freeing genetic technology from the laboratory.
Earlier this year, I surveyed New Zealand scientists with research involving genetic engineering. Their work is inspiring. Kiwis are using genetic technology to develop cancer treatments, combat crop diseases, advance new industries, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
One respondent was using genetic technology to understand the cognitive processes of insects and applying this knowledge to artificial intelligence.
In short, they are working to make both people and the planet healthier and wealthier.
They have the knowledge and the passion to make New Zealand a superpower in genetic technology. What they often lack is the permission.
A major concern reported to me is the regulation of low-risk research as high-risk. Current settings effectively bar many scientists from testing and commercialising their work, and even those working on the most mundane projects sacrifice time and resources to fulfil compliance processes.
Legislation set in Wellington has led to absurd outcomes. In one case local scientists developed a red-fleshed apple, but weren’t allowed to taste test that apple in New Zealand. They had to taste it in the United States instead.
Innovations like AgResearch’s high metabolisable energy ryegrass, which could reduce livestock methane emissions by 15% and lower nitrogen excretion, remain illegal here, even as we are told livestock emissions are a desperate problem.
New Zealand’s long-standing boast that no genetically modified crops are grown here is no longer something to be proud of. It only sends the message that we deny science and means we are stuck with the trial-and-error method of selective breeding.
For hundreds if not thousands of years, humans have modified and enhanced traits in plants and animals by selective or conventional breeding techniques to achieve desired phenotypic traits that we can see or taste. Not everything we eat has always existed naturally, and we have been growing and consuming these foods for years without questioning what those expressed traits mean in terms of changes to genetic make-up.
But now we have a government willing to do what Helen Clark, John Key, and Jacinda Ardern failed to do. We may be 24 years late, but New Zealand is entering the 21st century.
There will be some opposition. Last year, the Labour Government expressed interest in changing regulations, but it stated its proposals would not alter rules on using GMOs outside laboratory settings. This approach was not risk-proportionate and would have seen our brightest minds continue to take their research overseas.
This month, the Green Party’s Steve Abel said they would oppose the environmental release of genetically engineered crops but supported the “ethical use of GE biotechnology in containment, including medical use”.
This position is contradictory. They trust genetic technology for use on humans (who presumably will not be required to live inside a lab) but oppose it for making animals or crops in the outside world more disease resistant. The principles of risk-proportionate regulation do not change whether applied to humans or crops.
Genetic technologies are neutral, just like all other technologies. It is their applications that make them risky or beneficial. The regulatory system should allow us to harness the potential of the technology while putting safeguards in place for applications that present real risk.
ACT aims to be closely engaged in the development of legislation and the implementation of a dedicated regulator. Regulation must be proportionate to risk. While Australia’s framework is a starting point, scientists who have worked under that regime tell me it comes with its own frustrations. Our system should not just match Australia’s but surpass it.
We should never take progress for granted. The comforts we enjoy today rest on the scientific advances of those who were allowed to question, to experiment, to test their ideas outside the laboratory, and ultimately to offer the fruits of their research to a hungry world.
Likewise, many of our challenges in health and economics and the environment may in fact be the product of self-imposed barriers. ACT proposes to lift these barriers and give people permission to flourish.
