WE NEED YOUR VOICE NOW!
JOIN US IN OPPOSING THE GENE TECHNOLOGY BILL

Act Now to Protect New Zealand’s GE-Free Future

The Government is rushing radical changes to New Zealand’s gene technology laws, putting farmers, growers, and exporters at risk of unfair costs, trade disruptions, and market losses. The Gene Technology Bill has passed its first reading and is now with the Health Select Committee.

Have Your Say!

Public submissions are open until 11:59 p.m., Monday, February 17, 2025.

Why It Matters:

The Gene Technology Bill:

  • Jeopardises New Zealand’s GMO-free reputation, threatening high-value exports.

  • Risks GE contamination for organic and non-GE farmers and growers.

  • Reduce traceability, limiting consumer choice for non-GE or organic products.

Together, we can protect New Zealand’s environment, trade, and consumer rights.

OANZ Submission Guide: Get Involved and Share Your Voice

It’s easy to submit! To help you prepare a submission, view our guide below, outlining how to make a submission and key points for opposing the Bill.

Submissions are due Monday, 17 February 2025, to the Health Select Committee of Parliament.

How to Make a Submission:

  • Visit the submission website here.

  • Enter your contact information.

  • Choose one of the following options:

    • Option 1: Upload your submission as a document.

    • Option 2: Copy and paste your thoughts into the two fields provided:

      • Comments: Share your thoughts about the bill.

      • Recommendations: Provide your suggestions to the select committee.

  • Follow the prompts to complete and submit your form.

Key Points in Creating Your Submissions:

  • Make It Personal:

    • Edit, reword, or add your own points to ensure your submission reflects the unique perspective of your sector, business, or organisation. 

    • This is your opportunity to tell your unique story – seize the moment! 

    • A diversity of submissions is essential, so make yours stand out and share your distinct voice.

  • Share Widely:

  • If possible, upload your submission to your website.

  • Share the link to your submission page with your membership, networks, and friends via email or social media to encourage others to take part.

  • If you don’t have a website, email your submission to your networks and ask them to write their own submissions as well. Send them a link to OANZ’s Activation Toolkit: https://www.oanz.org/gefree-future-activation-toolkit

To help you craft your submission, we’ve outlined some key reasons for opposing the Gene Tech Bill. Please edit into your own words. DOWNLOAD AS A WORD DOC HERE.

KEY REASONS FOR OPPOSING THE GENE TECH BILL

Keep our precautionary approach and robust GE regulation:

  • The Bill would shift New Zealand’s approach from its current precautionary stance to a much more permissive one, which is not in the best interests of our country.

  • The Bill could make New Zealand an outlier globally, with even less regulation for GE than those of countries with well-established GMO industries. This will make us vulnerable to potential economic sabotage.

  • We want to keep the current precautionary approach to GE for the safety and protection of people, agriculture, markets, the environment and conservation estate.

  • Precaution is needed as the scale of risk from gene technology will expand when combined with AI, synthetic biology and nanotechnology.

All GMOs must be regulated:

  • Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (1996) requires all GMOs to be regulated.

  • However, this new Bill empowers a single person, the ‘Regulator’, to exempt from regulation whatever gene technologies and GMOs they deem to be safe.

  • This means many types of GMOs could be released into the outdoor environment with no public notification and few, if any, safeguards.

  • We want all processes and products involving all types of genetic engineering to be regulated.

  • The claim that some GMOs, such as specific types of gene edited organisms, can be presumed safe is not scientifically valid. Gene editing has been shown to result in many unexpected changes to the DNA. Therefore, there is risk, and where there is risk, we need regulation.

  • We strongly recommend re-establishing a Bioethics Committee to address the ethical issues surrounding the use of genetic engineering. The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification originally recommended creating a Bioethics Council, which was established but later abolished, leaving a critical gap in ethical oversight for gene technology.

Consumer choice, traceability and labelling

  • If deregulation goes ahead, tracking and labelling all GE products through the food supply would become almost impossible, removing consumers' freedom of choice.

  • As consumers, we want clear labelling to ensure we know what’s in our food and other products, as well as how they have been produced and processed. However, if the Regulator exempts whole categories of GE, like CRISPR or other gene editing techniques, consumers would be denied the ability to make informed choices.

  • In addition, a lack of labelling could pose dangerous safety risks if new allergenic proteins are unintentionally produced in the editing process.

  • We need to keep all forms of GE – not just those that would be regulated under this Bill – identified, registered, and traceable through the food supply chain, and clearly labelled.

Environmental impact

  • Without strict regulations, GE plants, animals or microorganisms could be released into the environment, potentially disrupting primary production, local ecosystems and biodiversity in unpredictable ways.

  • Because the Bill only regulates ‘regulated organisms’ – not all GMOs – it is highly likely there will be GMOs released into the outdoor environment with no notification required, no traceability, no monitoring of the effects.

  • Once self-replicating GMOs are released into the wider environment, they cannot be recalled.

  • It would be virtually impossible to contain such organisms, mitigate their risks, or assign liability to those who use and release them.

  • The Bill poses significant risks to our taonga species and conservation estate.

Risks and costs for producers

  • The Bill has no liability provisions for users of GE to manage and mitigate risks or to have commercial insurance to pay for any damage caused because of their use.

  • Producers – both organic and non-GMO – would bear the burden of cross-contamination risks and increased costs, potentially losing an entire season’s income in some cases. Supermarkets in Europe have warned that deregulation could drive up food costs for consumers.

  • If GE plants, animals, or microbes were released into the outdoor environment, primary producers aiming to avoid these GMOs would face genetic contamination risks to their crops or stock, threatening their markets and income.

  • Stock health could also suffer if pastures were contaminated with GE ryegrass, for example, that was not safe for long-term consumption.

  • If certain types of GE were to be exempted, as the Bill in its current form allows, producers would face loss of choice, transparency and traceability for seeds, animal genetics, other inputs and ingredients.

Economic and trade risks

  • New Zealand’s reputation for clean, safe, and GMO-free products is a competitive advantage in global markets. Deregulation could damage our brand.

  • Loosening GE rules could put this advantage at risk, especially for organic and high-value exports. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research estimates that New Zealand’s primary sector exports could be reduced by $10 billion to $20 billion annually if GMOs were released into the environment.

Treaty of Waitangi and te ao Māori

  • Organic Aotearoa New Zealand is a Treaty partner with Te Waka Kai Ora, the Kaitiaki of the world’s first indigenous verification system for food and products.

  • Māori are right holders, not stakeholders, and should be treated as such. This is reiterated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples.

  • The Crown has not engaged with Māori adequately or sufficiently, and no consultation has taken place prior to the introduction of this Bill

  • The Regulator will have the power to exempt specific gene technologies from regulations, enabling Aotearoa New Zealand to rely on assessments made by overseas regulators. This is a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as it grants sovereignty to external entities rather than to iwi and hapū, who never ceded sovereignty over their lands. Article 2 of Te Tiriti recognises Māori rangatiratanga over their lands and taonga.

  • This Bill has the potential to devastate the Hua Parakore verification system, which is recognised nationally and globally for its holistic approach to food and products. This is grounded in Te Ao Māori , derived from the wisdom of Māori tūpuna (ancestors) and is supported by tangata whenua and tanga Tiriti who are seeking indigenous growing kaupapa led by indigenous knowledge reclamation. Hua Parakore offers pure products based on integrity and whakapapa, but the introduction of gene technology compromises traceability within this verification system.

  • One of the Bill’s objectives is ‘to provide for ways to recognise and give effect to the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi’. There is already one claim before the Waitangi Tribunal that involves genetic engineering – Claim WAI262. Until this claim is settled to the satisfaction of Māori, legislation for GE should not proceed.

  • The Bill provides for the establishment of a Māori Advisory Committee, but its power is weak. The Bill states that the Regulator should only ‘have regard to advice’ from the committee, which has no decision-making authority.

  • The Bill marginalises Māori as it does the public and wider community. It limits the scope of the Māori Advisory Committee to gene technology issues involving indigenous species or ‘material adverse effects on kaitiaki relationships.’ This scope must be broadened to include whakapapa and a range of cultural and ethical considerations, including mana, mauri, and wairua, while recognising that Māori concerns extend beyond Indigenous species.

Animal welfare

  • The Bill lacks any mention of ethics, particularly concerning animal welfare. Animals must be protected from gene technologies that could adversely affect their health. Past GE experimentation on cattle, sheep, and goats in New Zealand has resulted in higher rates of spontaneous abortions and severe birth deformities.

Local decision-making

  • The Bill is anti-democratic, as it prevents local and regional councils from making their own rules for GMOs within their territories. They can currently do this under the provisions of the Resource Management Act.

  • Councils must be able to retain the ability, in consultation with their communities, to set precautionary, protective and/or prohibitive policies and plans for GMOs. This is essential to protect communities, businesses, and local environments. Councils should also be able to benefit from regional development and marketing as GE-free if that aligns with the wishes of their communities.

For those that want to include medical uses of gene technology:

  • Any uses of any gene technology for human health must be transparent and only used with genuine informed consent.

  • The Bill allows mandatory medical approval of human medicines that have been approved by at least two overseas regulators. This could result in the forced use of a product with insufficient oversight, disregarding specific circumstances in Aotearoa New Zealand. It fails to ensure informed consent and could undermine protections outlined in the Bill of Rights.



MORE SUBMISSION TOOLS + RESOURCES