As the deadline for public submissions approaches on February 17, the Gene Technology Bill 2024 is facing mounting opposition from farmers, environmental groups, Māori leaders, and organic food producers.
The bill, introduced in December 2024, hopes to modernise the country’s gene technology regulations by deregulating certain genetic modification (GM) techniques. However, critics argue that the rushed legislative process, lack of consultation, and potential economic, environmental, and ethical risks outweigh the promised benefits.
A Rushed Process and Lack of Consultation
One of the main concerns raised by opponents is the speed at which the bill is moving through Parliament. Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ), which represents organic farmers and food producers, has criticised the government for failing to conduct a proper economic assessment of the risks.
“This is about basic fairness for all farmers, growers and food producers,” said OANZ Chair Rob Simcic. “The new Gene Technology Bill has the potential to transfer all the risk and uncertainty onto food producers while offering them no answers about what it will cost or how it will work.”
The bill passed its first reading in December and was referred to the Health Select Committee, which opened the public submission process just 13 hours after the reading. Critics argue this timeline does not allow for meaningful public engagement.
Deregulation and Safety Concerns
The bill proposes the removal of regulations on gene-editing techniques deemed “low-risk” or similar to natural genetic changes. Supporters, including Science Minister Judith Collins, argue that the changes will unlock innovation in medicine, agriculture, and environmental management.
“Gene technology can deliver enormous benefits for New Zealand, including access to better cancer treatments and increased productivity for farmers through such things as disease-resistant and drought-resistant grasses and tools to help meet emissions targets,” Collins said.
However, groups such as GE-Free New Zealand warn that deregulation could lead to unmonitored genetic modifications in the food system. Without clear labelling or traceability requirements, consumers may be unable to identify genetically modified products.
“The exemptions in the Gene Technology Bill from any regulation creates a Wild West for the gene technology industry,” said Jon Carapiet, spokesperson for GE-Free NZ. “Companies will not have to prove their Gene Edited organism has no unintentional changes and evidence of safety to people and the environment will not be required.”
Economic and Trade Risks
New Zealand’s reputation as a GMO-free nation has been a key selling point for its agricultural exports, particularly in European and North American markets where consumer demand for GMO-free products is high. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) estimates that the environmental release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could cost the country’s primary sector between $10 billion and $20 billion annually in lost exports.
Farmers are also concerned about potential cross-contamination between genetically modified and non-GM crops, which could make organic certification more difficult and increase compliance costs.
“It doesn’t matter what your production system is, everyone is asking the same question: what will this cost me and my farming business? And the Government has no answers,” said OANZ Chief Executive Tiffany Tompkins.
Māori Concerns and Treaty of Waitangi Implications
Māori leaders have raised concerns that the bill undermines traditional environmental stewardship and threatens food sovereignty. The Wai 262 claim, a landmark case on Māori rights over indigenous flora and fauna, has long emphasised the role of Māori as kaitiaki (guardians) of the environment.
“The Gene Technology Bill ignores these concerns, threatening the balance of mauri (life force) of the natural world,” Māori public health organisation Hāpai Te Hauora stated in a recent analysis.
Additionally, critics argue that the bill’s Māori Advisory Board has been given a weak role, failing to reflect the partnership principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi).
Lack of Accountability and Oversight
Another major point of contention is Clause 187 of the bill, which grants legal protection to those involved in gene technology from civil or criminal liability. Opponents argue that this could leave New Zealand without recourse if genetic modifications result in environmental damage, health issues, or economic harm.
“There will be no monitoring of changes to a gene pool or of impacts on Nature as use of unregulated organisms scales up,” GE Free NZ said in a press release.
The bill also allows for the automatic approval of GMOs already approved by recognised overseas authorities, effectively removing public consultation from decisions on foreign GM products entering the New Zealand market.
Animal Welfare Concerns
The bill has also sparked criticism from animal rights groups, who argue that it lacks ethical protections for genetically modified animals. Unlike some international regulations, New Zealand’s proposed law does not include specific safeguards against genetic modifications that could cause suffering or deformities in animals.
“The Bill has no ethical criteria for the protection against the cruelty and deformities suffered by animals from being modified through genetic engineering technologies,” GE-Free NZ stated.
A Divided Scientific Community
While opposition to the bill is growing among environmental groups, organic farmers, and Māori organisations, some scientists support the proposed changes, arguing that New Zealand’s current regulations are outdated and overly restrictive.
Professor Kjesten Wiig of the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research believes the bill could accelerate the development of life-saving treatments.
“The changes will speed up and simplify the process of bringing life-saving therapies like CAR T-cell therapy to New Zealand and facilitate research into RNA therapies,” Wiig said.
Similarly, Dr. Richard Scott of AgResearch views the bill as a necessary step for New Zealand to remain competitive in global biotech innovation.
“Much of the rest of the world has already made changes, or is in the process of making changes, to accommodate these gene technologies that are now more precise and safer than they have ever been,” Scott said.
However, critics argue that deregulation does not guarantee safety. Professor Jack Heinemann, a genetics expert at the University of Canterbury, warns that the new approach could increase environmental and trade risks.
“The legislation risks trade disputes and environmental degradation based on unrealistic expectations that the technology mainly creates what we want it to. That can’t be assumed,” Heinemann said.
What’s Next?
With just days left for public submissions, opponents are urging New Zealanders to voice their concerns before the February 17 deadline. The Health Select Committee will review the feedback before the bill moves to its next stage in Parliament.