• Genetic Engineering (GE) involves directly manipulating an organism’s DNA using biotechnology to **insert, remove, or alter specific DNA sequences.

• Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)are organisms that have been produced by genetic engineering, often with DNA from a different or a number of different organisms. The DNA inserted by GE may be of natural or synthetic origin.

• Gene Technologynormally refers to newer gene editing techniques, such as CRISPR, which may or may not introduce foreign DNA into the GE organism. Either way, the DNA is rearranged, resulting in intended and unexpected biochemical changes to the organism created.

GE/GMOs are not permitted in organic regulation. Therefore, the organic sector’s main concern is that GE/GMO could compromise the integrity of organic farming by leading to genetic contamination.

GE/GMO crops pose a threat to the genetic integrity of organic farms, which must remain free from genetic modification to meet certification standards and consumer expectations. Allowing GE would create an unpredictable environment, jeopardising the organic sector’s commitment to natural processes and biodiversity.

Allowing GE in New Zealand would make it difficult, if not impossible, for organic farmers to prevent cross-contamination between GE crops and their organic counterparts.

Pollen drift from GE crops could easily contaminate organic crops, putting their certification and marketability at risk.

This could also damage New Zealand’s reputation for producing clean, GE-free products, which is a key selling point, not only for the organic sector, but for all primary production sold domestically and internationally.

A specific example of GE contamination could involve pollen seed drift and plant material. For instance, if a neighbouring farm grows GE ryegrass and pollen or seed is carried by the wind onto an organic farm, the organic farm would become contaminated with GE traits.

This is very likely to result in the loss of organic certification for the affected crops, forcing the organic farmer to destroy the contaminated produce or sell it at a lower price.

It would also compromise the trust that consumers place in organic labelling and cause financial loss for the farmer.

To ensure consumer choice, the organic sector is advocating to protect New Zealand’s GE-free status across farmland and in the environment, so consumers who prefer non-GE products, especially those which are organic, can continue to have access to them.

Because we currently have no GE/GMO crops in the field. New Zealand’s agriculture must remain GE-free to protect biodiversity, soil health, and the country's international reputation.

Being GE-free is also a key differentiator in the global market, where many consumers seek out non-GE, natural products.

Keeping New Zealand’s agriculture GE-free preserves the integrity of organic practices and ensures that organic producers can meet certification standards and consumer demand.

New Zealand’s GE-free status is a major selling point for its agricultural exports, particularly in high-value markets where consumers demand natural, GE-free products.

Organic exports benefit from New Zealand's clean, green image, allowing them to fetch premium prices internationally.

Maintaining a GE-free status helps New Zealand retain its competitive advantage in global markets, especially for organic products that are increasingly sought after for their sustainability and health benefits.

The organic sector advocates for organic regenerative farming practices as preferable alternatives to GE.

These approaches focus on enhancing soil health, promoting biodiversity, and using natural processes to solve agricultural challenges. For example, crop rotation, natural pest management, and building healthy soil can effectively address issues like pest control and soil depletion without the need for GE.

Case studies from around the world show that these methods are considerably more effective than GE in improving yields and reducing environmental harm.

Environmental and productive challenges are not usually just genetic, but much more likely to be a combination of epigenetics and sound agro-ecological practices.

Globally, countries have varied approaches to GE regulation. The European Union has strict rules around the use of GE and requires extensive testing, approval processes, and labelling.

Other countries, such as the United States, have more permissive regulations and are more focused on commercialisation. New Zealand has maintained a cautious approach, keeping strict controls on GE usage and field trials, which aligns more closely with the European model. However, recent discussions about deregulation could shift New Zealand closer to the US model, undermining its current GE-free reputation.

Deregulating GE could make it much harder for organic producers to maintain their certification, as the risk of contamination would increase significantly.

Organic certification requires that no GE material is present in the production process, so any deregulation that allows more widespread use of GE crops could lead to accidental contamination, forcing organic farmers to implement more costly and stringent measures to ensure their farms remain GE-free.

In some cases, this may not even be possible.

While proponents of GE technology argue that it may offer solutions to agricultural and environmental challenges, there is limited long-term evidence of its overall effectiveness.

There is also evidence of potential and actual environmental and health impacts. Some studies have raised concerns about the unintended consequences of GE crops, such as the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, pesticide-resistant pests, reduced biodiversity, and the destruction of soil macro and microbiology. 

Soils with no biological life are degraded, rather than being healthy. Additionally, there are studies that show harmful effects on animals fed with GE crops.

Long-term effects of consuming GE foods are also likely to be detrimental to human health, but unless food consumption is closely monitored in surveys, this can be difficult to prove.

As a result, many experts advocate for a precautionary approach to GE technology, given the potential for unforeseen consequences on both ecosystems and human health.

GE is being positioned as a tool to possibly meet global food security needs and address climate change by developing crops that are more resilient to environmental stressors.

However, this position assumes that resilience is controlled by a single gene or a few genes. Resilience is a combination of genetic and epigenetic factors and is always dependent on the health of the soils and therefore the crops.

To date, there has been no GE crop produced that is more nutritious, higher yielding and better for the environment than what we already have with non-GMO crops. Most GE crops are produced so biotech companies can earn money from the patents granted for them. 

The organic sector knows that all of these challenges can be addressed through regenerative and organic farming methods, which offer solutions without the risks associated with GE technology.