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.
