LIC is to collaborate with Scandinavian breeding co-operative VikingGenetics to improve the genetic links between New Zealand and Nordic Jersey cattle populations.  

The two breeding companies will work together on a pilot project that will bridge the genetic strengths of the two regions’ dairy industries. 

This involves exchanging sexed semen, which allows LIC and VikingGenetics to identify new bloodlines that perform well in their own dairy farming environments.  

LIC chief scientist Richard Spelman said they are deeply committed to safeguarding the future of the Jersey breed in New Zealand and worldwide.

“This forward-thinking solution will create stronger genetic connections between the Nordic and New Zealand Jersey populations and reduce the risk of inbreeding. 

“We look forward to being able to offer more genetic diversity to our New Zealand Jersey herds in the coming years.”   

 VikingGenetics is owned by more than 16,000 dairy and beef farmers in Denmark, Sweden, and Finland. They focus on animal welfare, food security and reducing climate impact in the entire production chain.

VikingJersey product manager and VikingGenetics senior breeding manager Peter Larson said the collaboration is a step forward in the overall genetic landscape of the Jersey breed, offering breeders a sustainable way to enhance herd health and profitability.

The collaboration will help address concerns over inbreeding within the two populations. 

Selected cows will be inseminated with sexed semen from top genomic sires, using stringent selection criteria to achieve the best genetic results. 

All progeny will undergo comprehensive testing, verifying their parentage, data from milk recording, health registration and classification, and more. 

Between 10 and 20 bulls from each company will be enrolled in the project annually. The ultimate goal is to have the best sires forming part of future breeding schemes.

LIC is collaborating with United States-based precision breeding company Acceligen and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to breed heat-tolerant and disease-resistant dairy cows for sub-Saharan Africa.

The initiative seeks to address food insecurity in the region by providing high-performing dairy animals to help grow sustainable dairy markets.  

It will combine LIC’s knowledge in breeding efficient dairy cows for pasture-based systems, with Acceligen’s cutting-edge gene-editing capabilities to produce animals that can produce more milk than native species. 

 LIC chief executive David Chin said the co-operative is proud to be involved with the initiative.

“Collaborating with Acceligen allows us to work with the very best in the world, whilst showcasing our advanced breeding capability to global markets.  

 “The initiative supports us to stay at the forefront of the latest technologies and is an opportunity to leverage international expertise with positive benefits for the dairy sector.”    

It is the first time LIC has embarked on a large-scale collaboration using gene-editing technologies, he said.

It successful, it could lead to similar kind of projects. It will also give LIC a good understanding of how gene editing works and the consumer acceptance of it.

“We’ll be in a much better position if the laws do change to understand how it could be used, how it could be adopted and what the technology is capable of.”

Embryos bred from LIC’s world-class pasture-based genetics will be sent to the US, where Acceligen will perform gene edits on the stem cells. 

These embryos will be sent from New Zealand to Acceligen in the last quarter of this year. The gene-editing process and birth of the calves that will grow into elite sires is expected to run until January 2026 and at that point, the bull calves are transported to Brazil where they are reared and their semen collected.

The semen straws are expected to be ready for sale in Africa through a distributer network by mid-2027.

The embryos will then be transferred into dams that will give birth to gene-edited sires. The bull calves will be transported to Brazil for rearing. The semen will be collected from these sires and sold into Sub-Saharan African markets through a developed distributor network.

Chin said the calves are being reared in Brazil for practical reasons. Brazil has a good reputation for rearing animals, it is a cost-effective option and most importantly, the country is well placed to export to other global markets including Africa.

The NZ government has committed to legislative change to enable the greater use of gene technologies, ending the effective ban on gene editing by the end of 2025. 

Chin said gene-editing technologies could help give farmers even more tools to improve their productivity and efficiency and it was something they have to explore.  

“By being involved, we do a lot of learning, we understand how this is going to work and if this is something we want to pursue, if this is something that could be interesting, then we’re in the best-placed position because we’re working with world leaders in this environment.” 

The five-year project is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with a budget of US$5 million ($8.3m). 

The organisation invests heavily in agriculture development to support farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa in their efforts to sustainably raise healthy, productive animals. 

Care is needed when pursing low-methane genetics in livestock so it does not disrupt the genetic gains already achieved that increase profitability for farmers, AbacusBio director Peter Amer says.

Speaking in a webinar on breeding for low-methane-emitting animals, he said there was already a good story from sheep and cattle breeding and it is important not to disrupt these gains in the pursuit of adding on low-methane genetics.

As selection emphasis shifts away from traits that drive profitability onto a new methane trait, there is an opportunity cost as more and more emphasis is put on the new trait, he said.

Some have questioned whether selecting animals for feed efficiency is a better option than selecting for methane.  

If a large, inefficient animal is replaced by a smaller, more efficient one, it could lead to a feed surplus, which the farmer would then feed to these or other animals.

“If we improve feed efficiency in a pastoral situation, we may not have any material impact on the national inventory or overall emissions,” he said.

This supported the argument for pursuing a methane trait, which improves both emissions and intensity and gross emissions.

Modelling showed that the additional benefits of this trait for the sheep, beef and dairy industries in New Zealand and Ireland came to 1-3% per decade, he said.

He believed this was a realistic amount that can be delivered through genetics.

AgResearch scientist Suzanne Row said the tools that are being developed to measure methane are becoming more advanced. 

Low-methane genetics is a relatively benign trait that is available for selection and we just need to get on and measure it, she said. In sheep, every breeder can get a breeding value for methane emissions.

“There’s still a barrier, and at the moment we’re measuring using chambers.”

Those chambers are transported using a 3 tonne trailer and the resulting transport difficulties mean they do not have the scale yet for a genetic trait.

One of the alternatives scientists have been working on is an oral swab, where DNA is extracted from the swab and analysed. The predictions from this oral sample appear to be just as good as if it were taken from a gastric tube.

“That’s really exciting when we think about larger animals, animal welfare and non-invasive samples.”

Low-methane sheep have been bred for 15 years and scientists now know the differences between the high and low emitters and what the indicators are for what is occurring in the animal as well as potential predictors.

The webinar was organised by the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and Irish agricultural research and development agency, Teagasc.

Joining the call to err on the side of caution when it comes to gene technology, the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand has officially submitted its comprehensive response to Food Standards Australia New Zealand, rejecting Proposal P1055.

The proposal seeks to change the definition of genetic engineering technologies used in food production, to accommodate new technologies and regulate foods according to the risk they pose.

The association also urges Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to extend the consultation period by at least a month to allow for sufficient time to make submissions.

“Redefining gene technology to exclude new breeding techniques (like gene editing) without proper labels and safety checks threatens our ability to choose what we eat. We stand for transparency and informed choices in food consumption, not ambiguity,” Charles Hyland, soil scientist and co-chair of the Soil & Health Association, said.

Echoing this sentiment, Jenny Lux, organic producer and co-chair of Soil & Health, highlighted the potential impacts on the organic sector. 

“Introducing gene-edited products into our food system without clear labels could inadvertently lead organic foods to contain genetically engineered ingredients. This is unacceptable and undermines the trust consumers place in organic labels. 

“People are concerned not just about what’s in their food, but also about how it’s been produced. The global market for non-GMO foods is growing.”

The public is urged to participate actively in the consultation process by making individual submissions to FSANZ. The deadline for these submissions is September 10, 2024, at 8pm New Zealand time. Submissions can be made via email or through the FSANZ consultation hub.

The government is not considering all the risks that a change to gene-editing rules will bring to both food safety and farming.

This is the warning from the CEO of organic certifier BioGro New Zealand, Donald Nordeng, who said BioGro supports the review of the existing GE regulations, but doesn’t support the uncontrolled release of GE organisms. 

“Farmers won’t have recourse if their pasture is contaminated with GE ryegrass. If they have protection under the revised regulations, that would be fantastic, but that isn’t being considered. “Organic farmers will have the most to lose as they will need to prove that they haven’t used GE ryegrass. They may even become liable for licensing payments to the seed variety patent holder, due to no fault of their own. 

“Under the FSANZ P1055 proposal, the definition of non-GMO [genetically modified organisms] will no longer apply to gene-edited foodstuffs. New Zealand consumers will lose the right to know how their food is produced and if it contains GMOs because the definition is being changed to exclude them. 

“IP protection will still be in place for patent holders; however, those patent holders’ products will be exempt from labelling rules. How unfair to our New Zealand public that overseas intellectual property owners have more rights in our country than citizens.”

Regenerative farm group Quorum Sense said New Zealand’s non-GMO and GE-free status helps all primary sector producers and exporters as it provides assurance to consumers globally.

The group disagreed with the argument that New Zealand is “falling behind” by not updating GE technology regulations. 

“Our primary sector is world leading.  The current regime isn’t holding us back. Changes to GE regulations introduce new risks.  

“The implications for New Zealand farmers with regards to the commercialisation of GE technology, including patents, threats to non-GE crops, and associated cost burdens, are unclear.

“There isn’t evidence for consumer demand for GMO food.”

Regenerative producers should be part of consultation, the group said.

Professor of Genetics at the University of Canterbury Jack Heinemann said he had questions about how Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) proposes to deregulate some products as gene technology.

“FSANZ proposes to de-regulate some products of gene technology by defining them as not products of gene technology, rather than requiring evidence that they are safe to use as food. To achieve this FSANZ makes leaps that I don’t believe are sound science,” Heinemann said.

“One of the leaps FSANZ made was saying that only the addition of DNA to an organism can make an organism with ‘novel DNA’. 

“Removing DNA from a genome [also] leaves that genome with a novel combination of DNA sequences. 

“Consumers that want fewer herbicides in their food may not want to accelerate the number of herbicide-tolerant plants being produced,” Heinemann said.

Recently a company removing DNA from the cattle genome to make hornless cows failed to report the insertion of thousands of unintended novel DNA sequences, including antibiotic-resistance genes.

“This is the kind of product that FSANZ would de-regulate,” he said.

“Anyone could use new breeding techniques to modify food producing organisms. It could be impossible to know who released a harmful organism or to find a diagnostic for the organism causing harm,” Heinemann said. 

Hawke’s Bay certified organic blueberry grower Scott Lawson said because industry focus groups who work with the Technical Advisory Group on gene tech signed confidentiality agreements, there isn’t transparency about topics discussed.

Nobody in the certified organic industry has been consulted, Lawson said.

“GE or GMO will not fix the current issues of the horticulture sector, which is market access, profitability and labour. 

“We’re an island nation. We don’t need to follow large companies in a race to the bottom of commodity pricing.”

The government should do an ethical analysis and financial analysis of the consequences, he said.

“There hasn’t been any. We don’t want to be crushed by poorly thought-out regulations with long-lasting consequences.

“The key regulatory issue around the world at the moment is defining the difference between gene editing and GMOs.

“The international organic trade market considers GE and GMO the same.”

Organics Aotearoa New Zealand GE spokesperson Brendan Hoare said certified organic products add $1 billion to the New Zealand economy every year, but the government’s Technical Advisory Group has not engaged with the sector.

Hoare said there are liability, property and propriety issues that are not yet understood.

“In New Zealand you can be fined for spray drift; we are yet to hear of gene drift and [GE] pollen drift. Liability issues are being ignored.

“This is a very intellectual property-centric [approach]. Agri tech and input providers benefit, not producers,” he said.

Hoare said indications are that gene edited food products will not be labelled as such, but with diets becoming more refined people have the right to choose what they eat.

The government’s tight timeframe for updating the rules around genetic technology is a case of moving “too far, too fast”, says a Hawke’s Bay grower.

Speaking in a panel discussion at HortNZ’s annual conference in Tauranga, Scott Lawson said the sector had everything to lose including market access and grower returns if the rules are changed.

“I don’t want to see a horticultural industry and all the good work we have  done crushed by poorly thought-through regulation that hasn’t been canvassed or discussed by the wider community.”

The starting point for the new legislation has to be that anything that puts at risk the trust and clean green image of NZ is too much of a risk to take, he said.

The government plans to end what is effectively a ban on GM and GE and create a dedicated regulator to ensure the safe and ethical usage of biotech and streamline the approvals for trials.

The government has signalled that it wants to have the legislation completed by 2025.

Lawson said NZ has to be aware of what no longer being GMO-free will do to its markets. 

“Zespri, Fonterra and many companies leverage off this GMO-free position and internationally we have to sign GMO-free declarations on phytosanitary for apples going to India – all of these emerging markets are very concerned around that.

“We need to be very aware of what our consumers think internationally and that feedback we’re reliant on.”

It also raises ethical questions around whether growers could face future restrictions around what they can and cannot grow due to patents.

He said the European Patent Office is accepting patents for gene-edited feed proposals and when people start patenting nature’s biology, that limits what breeders called “breeders bounty” – the gene pool that growers choose to grow from. 

It has caused a huge outcry among European vegetable seed growers who fear it will lead to growing restrictions.

It raises questions around who owns nature’s biology and whether NZ growers will have to recognise these patents under World Trade Organisation and other trade rules.

“We could end up selling our sovereignty,” he said.

Māori Kiwifruit Growers chair Anaru Timutimu said Māori growers have a cautious but open attitude towards having discussions around GE.

Timutimu said in his conversations with the Māori sector, they wanted protections in place for the original species.

“The whakapapa of that original species is really important.”

Turners & Growers chief executive Gareth Edgecombe said if GMO labelling has to go on a product, it will be real barrier for consumers globally.

He said NZ has a brand of high trust and high quality and the settings have to be gotten right.

It is such an important long-term step for NZ and it will still be decades before new genetically edited products will be in the marketplace.

“With that in mind, it’s more important that we get all of the settings right and bring everyone along and take our time to do that.”

BioTechNZ executive director Dr Zahra Champion said the regulations as they stand are 28 years old and are unsuitable for managing new technologies and need to be updated.

One of the main challenges in the new legislation will be how these new technologies are defined, she said.

“This is where the tension really is. It’s not about ‘Should we update the regulations?’; it’s down to those definitions.

“Where do we feel comfortable where we start calling it a GMO? I believe that is going to continue to be the big question.”

NZ is also fortuitous that it is not an early adopter of this technology, allowing lawmakers to learn from the mistakes of others.

The legislation will go to a select committee early next year followed by consultation. Champion urged growers to make submissions at that time.

“We do need to move forward, the regulations are outdated so we’re going to have to do something and we can’t just sit around and procrastinate and let those regulations sit there for another 20 years.”

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.

Ending New Zealand’s ban on gene technology outside the lab is a good move for the country, Federated Farmers say. 

The Government announced in mid-August that it will introduce legislation to end the nearly 30-year ban, saying it would bring health, productivity and climate gains for Kiwis.

Wayne Langford, Federated Farmers national president, says the announcement is a positive step forward for New Zealand.

“We’ve been advocating for a national conversation about the use of technologies like gene editing for a long time now,” Langford says.

“The last time New Zealand took a serious look at the potential use of these technologies was in the early 2000s, but the science has continued to develop at breakneck speed since then.

“Our collective understanding of some of the big global challenges we’re all facing, like climate change and biodiversity loss, has also continued to quicky develop over that time.

“This announcement from the Government opens the door for us to consider all the potential benefits, weigh them up against risks, and decide how we want to move forward as a country.”

Supporting the better use of technologies was one of Federated Farmers’ 12 policy priorities for restoring farmer confidence in the lead-up to the 2023 General Election.

“Farmers are always looking for new technologies to help them improve their production, increase their profit, or reduce their environmental footprint,” Langford says.

“There are huge opportunities to help us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, improve drought resilience, or increase our farm production using these technologies.”

He says there are also potential conservation benefits, like eradicating possums that are spreading disease and decimating our native forests, and benefits for healthcare.

“These aren’t just imaginary concepts – they’re real possibilities.

“Of course, there’ll always be risks and trade-offs that need to be carefully considered too, like how our international consumers would feel about such a change.”

Federated Farmers will be engaging in the Select Committee process on behalf of their members to ensure legislation is fit-for-purpose and adequately addresses any possible risks.

“The potential opportunities here are too great to just leave them sitting on the table without even taking a look at them,” Langford says.

“We would be doing ourselves a huge disservice as a country if we weren’t even prepared to have that conversation.” 

Federated Farmers, New Zealand’s leading independent rural advocacy organisation, has established a news and insights partnership with AgriHQ, the country’s leading rural publisher, to give the farmers of New Zealand a more informed, united and stronger voice. Federated Farmers news and commentary appears each week in its own section of the Farmers Weekly print edition and online.

The excitement of landing a big fish when out fishing is how Emma Poole describes the reward of landing a healthy calf on the ground from an embryo transfer. 

This is her third season operating an embryo recipient business, where high genetic value embryos are implanted into cows with lower breeding worth.

She said it is a risky, stressful business but it can be really rewarding. The idea came about after buying 150 high genetic merit cows. Some had contracts with LIC and some became part of the Generate programme.

“We are testing the waters and getting to know the cows and processes,” she said. 

“It is tricky to manage and there is a lot of money involved, and it requires intense skills but between my husband Chris and I we seem to be covering the bases well.

“Our priority is the welfare of the surrogate cow and the embryo transfer calf. We wouldn’t be doing it if we couldn’t assure that.”

They rear the calves to 100kg and then send them to their owners. The concept is popular and they are at capacity this year. It is also contributing to minimising the number of bobby calves in the system.

“We rear about 1000 calves each year, mostly beef along with the replacement calves and the embryo transfer calves too,” Emma said.

“The home farm is split calving so we start rearing calves in March and keep going till October, November.”

Emma and Chris are in equity partnership with his parents, John and Anne Poole, on their family farm 10 minutes from Te Awamutu in Pirongia.

They have reduced cow numbers in recent years, from 750 to 620. They focused on reducing the amount of imported feed, growing more maize on the platform and growing crops in the back paddocks to reduce how far the cows have to walk.

They also purchased another farm last year that milks 400 spring calving cows.

Chris oversees both farms with his brother-in-law, Ben Shilt, working on the new block and his father running the support block where all the young stock go. Emma manages the embryo business and they have two young boys, Beau, who is two and a half, and Sullivan, who is three months old.

Emma is a veterinarian by trade, having asked her father so many questions on the farm growing up that he suggested she go find out the how and why of things – so she did.

She didn’t make it into vet school on her first attempt at Massey’s Albany campus, so she moved to Palmerston North to pursue an agricultural degree, which was where she met Chris.

He coaxed her into joining Massey Young Farmers in 2014. She had heard about the organisation and her brother, Tim Dangen, was involved in the Lincoln club.

She entered her first FMG Young Farmer of the Year district final by default; the region had organised one specifically before exams to suit the Massey club, but nobody entered.  Emma was on the club committee at the time and had to step up.

“I remember being super scared on my way there. I was putting myself out there in front of all these people I had just made friends with.”

She soon realised everyone was in the same boat, and enjoyed giving it a crack.

In her final year of university she made it to a regional final, which was a whole new level of competition. She underestimated her workload during the weeks leading into the contest so didn’t prepare as much as she wanted, but still placed second overall.

And she knew she wanted to give it a better shot the following year.

“It was my first year of work after uni so I knew it would be tough, but I also knew I would soon lose a lot of the general knowledge we gained at vet school.”

By this point she had moved to the home farm with Chris and was working for VetOra in Te Awamutu. She won the Waikato Bay of Plenty Young Farmers regional final and competed in the national final in Hawke’s Bay.

She then went on to compete again in 2023 and won the national final title, making her the first woman in contest history to win.

“Being the first female winner bought a lot of media attention, it was quite overwhelming to start with.”

This year, she and Chris, who has also been a grand finalist, have been involved with organising the contest, which was held in Hamilton in July.

“Chris and I have both got a lot out of the contest ourselves so we wanted to give back.”

She has also recently been awarded the Young Veterinarian Award for 2024 by the New Zealand Veterinary Association.

Between having the boys Emma did some veterinary consulting work with Fonterra. Part of her work involved travelling around New Zealand to deliver some emissions roadshows, largely to a veterinary audience.

“It was really insightful as a Fonterra shareholder to work for them.

“I enjoyed being on the inside and it built my confidence around the direction of the business.”

She was able to demonstrate first hand some of the challenges dairy farmers face trying to juggle so many things, and got a lot out of it herself.

“It’s been cool to practice what we preach and show that reprioritising can have an impact and it is achievable.”

Going forward, the focus is driving efficiency within the farming business, spending time together as a family and supporting other young farmers to give the contest a crack.

I was really pleased to hear Science Minister Judith Collins tell me that laws prohibiting the use of gene editing technologies would be relaxed in New Zealand from next year. 

It’s been talked about for years and I applaud Ms Collins’s courage in actually making a decision.

Past governments of all colours have refused to make that call. They let the rest of the world pass us by.

Speaking to politicians over the decades I’ve heard a lot of excuses as to why we shouldn’t allow gene technology into NZ. Most of the excuses I would describe as idiotic, irrelevant and in several cases, stupid.

Mind you, the anti-GE sentiment had been fanned by zealots of the likes of Greenpeace, who never let a solid fact get in the way of a money-earning position. It seems to me their anti-GE stance would have been a real cash cow for the organisation.

Last week after the government’s announcement Greenpeace was quickly out of the blocks with a media statement below the headline “GE not the solution to NZ’s dairy pollution”. I was blissfully unaware it was, but the Greenpeace focus was on GE nitrogen inhibitors. GE is much bigger than that. 

They also claimed that “GE techno fixes” are a risky distraction. Unsurprisingly, I disagree.

For a start, genetic engineering isn’t new. It was first mooted way back in 1934. Putting that in perspective, GE was talked about before computers, cell phones, space travel or Elvis Presley.

In the United States the first GE lab was functioning in 1973. That’s over 50 years ago. Field trials in the US were started in1994, 30 years ago.

There are 422 million diabetics in the world, all needing insulin. That insulin has been produced using genetic modification since 1978.

Australia started laboratory trials in 1976 and then passed the Gene Technology Act in 2000. Our legislation is going to be loosely based on that but the reality is that Australia has almost a quarter of a century lead on us.

That further highlights, in my humble opinion, the blinkers that were worn by our politicians over the decades.

Our biggest trading partner, China, was growing GE crops in the field in 1992 and progressed to genetic modification for disease control in humans in 2015.

By the mid 1990s there were genetically modified crops available for human consumption. They included squash, soybeans, cotton, corn, papayas, tomatoes, potatoes and canola.

I remain totally ignorant of anyone’s bollocks falling off for having consumed any of those GE crops at any time over the previous 30 years.

Over 30 years ago the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agricultural Organisation worked together to develop international guidelines and standards for genetically modified organisms.  

In 2007 bread made from genetically engineered wheat was 25% cheaper to produce and that is considerable.

Lincoln University outlines four benefits of genetic engineering and they are: reduced production costs, increased yields, reducing environmental damage and the production of food with extra benefits.

Why wouldn’t you?

It has been estimated that 75% of processed food in a supermarket, “from soda to soup, from crackers to condiments” contains genetically engineered ingredients.

So what’s the problem?

Talking to prominent academic and farmer Professor Jacqueline Rowarth was interesting. As always she had some pertinent points to make.

“Time has passed, education has improved and the need has increased,” she told me. “The original concerns about genetic modification, which in New Zealand prompted the Royal Commission investigation in 2000/2001, have not been proven to be grounded in reality. In contrast, predictions of increasing hunger and difficulties in producing food have come true.

“What the world needs is a pragmatic adoption of all precision tools that allow increased food production, with minimal inputs, from current land.

“The new Gene Technology Bill proposed by Minister Collins will allow New Zealand to join in the scientific challenge of reducing hunger while protecting the environment and the biodiversity it holds.” 

Professor Rowarth is a scientist, I’m not. As a layperson, however, I have no argument with any of the points she makes.

It also seems to me that ethical science has always been on the side of GE. 

I desperately tried to find any reason for us not to embrace GE. I googled the countries that “banned GMO imports and cultivation” and there are eight.

Among the countries are Algeria, Kyrgyzstan, Bhutan, Madagascar and Peru. I’m unaware of any significant trade or trade potential with any of them.

The politics have been interesting. It was a cornerstone of the ACT party’s negotiations. National promised, pre-election, to reverse the ban on GE. Labour’s Deborah Russell urged caution and wants proper consultation, which is fine.

That tells me the legislation will be passed and stay passed no matter who is in power.

Minister Collins made the point that introducing GE will provide “massive economic gains” for NZ.

We need them.

Ideas That Grow Podcast | Nuffield insights from across the globe