Posts

Critical Thinking on Gene Technology Regulation

/in ,

Layers of manipulation and obfuscation are being used to package deregulation of gene technologies as a net positive. Bonnie Flaws outlines how, and why one of New Zealand’s leading biological science professors considers regulation the best tool we have to prevent risk.

We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.

New Zealand is once again having a public debate about the regulation of GMOs, with plans to overhaul the existing system now laid out by the National-led coalition government. For decades, genetically modified organisms, and latterly gene edited organisms, have been regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO). The passing of this Act led to the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority (previously the Environmental Risk Management Authority).

This is the body responsible for overseeing the importation, development, field trials and releases of GMOs, allowing scientists to experiment with GM techniques in the lab and in contained field trials. Responsibility for GMOs in food is covered by a joint New Zealand and Australian body, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and regulated through the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act.

In Northland and Hawke’s Bay, local government restricts agricultural GMOs under the Resource Management Act. In 2014, the courts ruled that newer synthetic biology and gene editing techniques are GMOs for the purposes of regulation under HSNO, making New Zealand the first country to do so globally. Professor Jack Heinemann from the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury was the expert witness in that hearing, pointing out that it is a technology’s scalability that primarily makes it risky.

The momentum behind the latest push for loosening the rules on GMOs comes from the usual proponents – corporate interests in medicine, horticulture, agriculture and food production, as well as industrial manufacturing. They argue, on the whole, that allowing the alteration of gene function and expression will lead to new vaccines and gene therapies for disease and other useful medical substances, pest-resistant plants, prevent world hunger, and reduce greenhouse gases.

Now, the coalition government is moving ahead with plans to change the way these laws will govern gene technologies by removing restrictions and creating a dedicated regulator within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). The new regulator would streamline approvals for trials in line with countries like the US, Australia, and the UK.

The arguments that are being put forward in favour of this, as outlined in National’s Harnessing Biotech policy document, include combatting climate change, advancing health care, safeguarding the natural environment, and lifting agricultural productivity.

Importantly, it would also deregulate the use of non- GE/GM biotech, or perhaps more accurately technologies the regulator considers ‘out of scope’ for regulation, or which are not defined as GMOs, but which arguably should be.

New techniques used to advance deregulation

In a recent Soil & Health NZ webinar delving into the world of genetic engineering, Heinemann pointed out that every time a new technique is developed in this arena, it is used to undermine confidence in regulation.

Gene editing is the most obvious example, and with that battle lost in the courts we are now informed that null segregants – the offspring of genetically modified organisms, which do not contain any genetic modifications themselves – are considered ‘out of scope’. In February, the EPA clarified that as far as regulation is concerned, null sergregants will not be considered genetically modified organisms.

Heinemann says we’ve seen this tactic used repeatedly since the 1980s.
“There’s the same type of language being used now as has been used for the last thirty or forty years, on almost a repeating tape, to try and undermine people’s confidence in what they are trying to achieve [with strong regulation].”


ust because new techniques are developed doesn’t mean our laws are automatically out of date. For example, take road safety rules. We wouldn’t reconsider speed limits just because electric cars are now common. The nature of the specific risk doesn’t change.

Labelling and the right to choose

What the public hopes to achieve with regulation is worth stating clearly. It is the safe use of gene technology biologically speaking, but also in the social sense: maintaining our ability and right to choose.

Heinemann believes the biggest lever in this discussion is labelling. Despite there being very little evidence that these technologies do a good job of delivering useful products to society, vested interests continue to attempt to get rid of labelling provisions, he says.


But because removing labelling has been unsuccessful in most countries, lobbyists are now focused on deregulation for certain uses. Once deregulated, such products would no longer be subject to labelling provisions.

Contamination and detection

Heinemann points out that in an unregulated environment, if an ‘out of scope’ organism gets into someone else’s GMO-free product line, the developer would have no liability. “If it doesn’t have to be labelled and it’s not legally a GMO and they don’t have to call it a GMO, then their argument to you would be, there is no GMO contaminating your product line. Which is why defining them ‘out of scope’ undermines labelling laws and market certifications.”

Detection after the fact can also become an issue, he says. Heinemann gives the example of a space person landing on Earth. They would have no way of knowing if the flora and fauna they find is indigenous to Earth – unless people tell them.

Likewise, unless the gene technology developer gives regulators the tools and the information to identify a genetically-modified plant genome, until recently they wouldn’t be able to do so. That’s why in Europe there was a requirement that in exchange for approval, developers had to provide a technique for detection.

Heinemann notes that if deregulation were to go ahead there would be no effective way whatsoever to prevent contamination of non-GMO and organic crops, asserting that regulation remains the best way to prevent contamination. “[Regulations] are not perfect, but they are better than not having them at all. Using regulation is the most effective means we have so far invented to contain the potential for our technologies to cause harm.”

Nature vs. technology

No technology is benign, and we can’t afford to be complacent about it, no matter how sophisticated industry arguments become. Whether true or not, a technology being similar to nature is not an argument for deregulation.

“When a uranium atom decays in the environment, it is the same as a uranium atom decaying in an atomic bomb. That’s not the point. Whether the biochemical reaction of a change in a DNA sequence can be the same in a laboratory, or outside of a laboratory, is not the point. The difference is the use of a technology, which makes more efficient and scalable the production of goods,” Heinemann says.

In other words, it’s the scalability of a technology that makes it risky.

Accountability and risk assessment

Further, if deregulation goes ahead, detection techniques will be used only to protect intellectual property, not to protect consumers from unidentified genetically-modified products. Heinemann notes that developers have to be able to show a court that a piece of intellectual property is theirs, and they do this using a detection technique.

Deregulation won’t change our ability to detect them, but they will provide a licence to keep those techniques secret. Therefore, these techniques won’t improve biosafety, because they would not be able to be used for routine monitoring, or to underwrite labelling laws, he says.

From Heinemann’s perspective the important thing to do is not define something ‘out of scope’. Regulators could still use different standards for assessing various gene technologies, which is how the system currently operates under HSNO.

The most obvious example being whether a scientist is using gene technologies in a lab versus in the open environment. “You can have a different standard in a lab, because of the checks and balances built into that process. But if you deregulate a different type of tool, it can be done in your garage.”

By defining a genetic technology as ‘out of scope’, the regulator removes accountability regarding risk or safety and the public’s right to know and choose.

Bonnie Flaws is a freelance journalist who lives in Napier. She has a personal interest in organics and agroecological farming.

To GE or not to GE?

/in , , ,
We are at a critical point in decision-making about releasing genetically engineered organisms into New Zealand’s environment. Philippa Jamieson outlines some of the potential risks and benefits of our options.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.

The battle for the future of food

/in , , ,
Jon Carapiet outlines why the push for automatic acceptance of unproven technologies that have the potential to irreversibly contaminate our food and environment (aka GE) is the wrong direction.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.

Governmental plans to liberalise regulation of genetic engineering in Aotearoa New Zealand has implications for consumers and our export markets.

The push for GE is part of the international industry lobbying for more technology in agriculture. GE, AI, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology are converging. Advocates for the ‘end of farming’ are even calling for cellular lab-based food to entirely replace agriculture, purportedly to save the planet.

Public concern around genetic engineering is expressed politically and in people’s preferences which have defined today’s consumer landscape.

Politicians and lobbyists who say that strict regulation of GE is preventing innovation have forgotten the role of the consumer. They repeat old hopes for GE ryegrass, even after Newsroom published a history of failed trials on its website last year, and ignore previous field trials including 4000 GM sheep which were terminated in 2003 when the company PPL went bankrupt, and AgResearch’s GE cows reported by the NZ Herald in 2010 to be suffering cruel deformities.

The central question is: To what extent will the coalition government favour the commercial interests of the biotechnology industry over those of the environment and the public good?

National Party policy is to move regulation to a new agency under The Ministry of Business Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE) with automatic acceptance of GE products once approved by two OECD countries, and a much easier path to commercial release.

But what’s most important for regulation in the public interest is missing.

There is no mention of the importance of the Precautionary Principle for environmental protection. No requirement for commercial insurance or liability on users of GE that cause harm. No ethical framework to prevent cruelty to animals or guide the future. No mention of Māori or Waitangi Treaty principles.
And there is no mention of how the new regime will protect organic growers (or even industrialised growers) from GE contamination.

These missing pieces must be priorities for legislation.

Organic agriculture provides authentic sustainability and real climate action that people are looking for.
Research by Kantar Consulting shows New Zealand has what the world wants. “Consumers want more control and to reconnect with nature,” said researcher Dan Robertson-Jones.

The market demand for GE-free is growing.

Growth for non-GMO food is projected to reach US$144,322 million in 2031. Consumers in China and India are driving up demand for non-GMO food products.

Consumers want gene edited foods to be regulated and labelled, with 75 percent of US consumers and 80 percent of UK consumers supporting traceability for New Genomic Techniques (NGTs).
Exporters and the coalition government must take heed.

Consumer trust is vital. Leading brands have committed to avoid GE ingredients in response.
IFOAM standards exclude use of GE and build trust in the sector through certification of organics. Mandatory labelling of GE food in supermarkets has allowed consumers to influence the market.
Both major supermarkets have a GE-free policy for house-brands, including Countdown’s Own, Macro (Woolworths), and Pams (Foodstuffs).

Fonterra has a non-GMO policy but is open to GE and investing in lab-grown meat.

The science debate.

The EU Commission proposes deregulation of NGTs, against the wishes of consumers.
This is opposed by EU Ministers of the Environment who strongly support the Precautionary Principle and traceability.

Independent scientists with expertise in issues of GE safety and the environment have warned against deregulation.

Expert advice from scientists who are independent of the biotechnology industry is important. The commercial pressures in business and academia for Intellectual Property (IP) bring potential conflicts of interest in the debate.

There is a strong global lobby for cellular agriculture, synthetic biology, and GE.

In the conversation about GE we should expect more public relations hype, promises for the future, and criticism of the Precautionary Principle for ‘stopping progress’. The scientific rationale for precaution will be smeared as fearmongering. It’s already happening.

WePlanet, which campaigns for nuclear power, GE and cellular agriculture, organised an open letter signed by 34 Nobel prize winners and others.

It says the EU must “reject the darkness of anti-science fearmongering and look instead towards the light of prosperity and progress” by deregulating New Genomic Techniques.

The industry pipeline for GE shows why it is of the utmost importance for regulation to protect people and the environment.

Friends of the Earth (FOE) warn of the impending risks of commercial release of GE microbes as biotechnology companies develop GE bacteria, viruses, and fungi for use in agriculture.

Environmental groups are sounding the alarm for bees and pollinators after the US EPA approved the first sprayable pesticides using ‘RNA interference’ in the field.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says research is needed into the alleged benefits for sustainability and safety of lab-grown food which remain speculative.

We must value existing natural diversity and regenerative organic systems as real action on climate change and against biodiversity loss. The biotechnology industry should not define the future of food.

(Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Alan Lieftin – GE free march Auckland 2003)

Jon Carapiet is a consumer advocate, researcher, writer, and photographer who has followed the GE debate for over two decades. He regularly comments in the media about Brand New Zealand, the advantages of non-GMO and organic production, and for regulation of new technology in the public interest. Prior to the 2023 election, he published a series of blogs on GE and the future of food, available at  www.TheDailyBlog.co.nz. He is a Trustee for Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR) www.psgr.org.nz, and the national spokesman for community group GE-Free NZ www.gefree.org.nz.

So let’s talk about GE

/in , ,
Pro-GE lobbyists are saying we need to have a ‘mature’ conversation about genetic engineering. Originally they claimed it would solve world hunger, now they are claiming it will mitigate climate change. Philippa Jamieson logically and ‘maturely’ refutes their greenwashing.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.

It’s primarily vested interests who are pushing for deregulation or weaker laws around GE – the biotech and agrichemical industries who want to patent and sell GE technologies, and those who would get research and development funding. They are well resourced to lobby politicians, and to flood the media with press releases and opinion pieces that are often published verbatim and uncritically. But are they willing to listen? Can we have a conversation that looks at GE in a holistic way?

Technology has changed – should rules change too?

GE proponents claim that the technologies have improved and become more precise over the years, so the regulations also need to change. Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury says today’s techniques are no less risky than before and will explain this in-depth during our next webinar on 23 January. Regardless, technology isn’t the only thing regulations need to consider – there are also social, cultural, economic, environmental, ethical, and liability aspects. Indigenous and organic philosophies and practices are holistic, recognising the interconnectedness of everything. Science focuses on just one piece of the picture. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. For example, we could have nuclear power, or even nuclear bombs, but there are overwhelming reasons why this would not be beneficial.

GE conversations

In November, the Soil & Health NZ co-chair, Jenny Lux, hosted a webinar on genetic engineering featuring three panellists: Dr Jessica Hutchings (Papawhakaritorito Charitable Trust), myself – Philippa Jamieson (OrganicNZ writer on GE), and Charles Hyland (Soil & Health NZ national councillor and soil scientist).

Jessica set the scene in Aotearoa of mātauranga Māori and kaupapa Māori, and whakapapa, mauri and mana, which would be disturbed by genetic engineering. She also placed GE in the context of colonisation, biopiracy, and the current capitalist system that puts profit above people and the planet.

I talked about the GE-free movement over the past 25 years, including massive protests, the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification which gathered people’s views (2001), and the ban on GE organisms in the outdoor environment which was lifted in 2003. So far, no one has applied to release GMOs outdoors, apart from some problematic field trials – almost all of which have ceased.

Charles talked about GE ryegrass, which has been put forward by the pro-GE lobby and the National Party, as a way of reducing our methane emissions. However, this could potentially spread easily and would be impossible to recall, leading to risks not only for organic farmers but to farmers and the environment overall.

Watch this webinar online at soilandhealth.org.nz directly from the homepage, or under Our Work/Events.

Our next webinar, Demystifying GE techniques with Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, will be held on 23 January 2024, 7.30-8.30pm. See page 11 for more on our future webinars.

Gene editing – the new wunderkind

Scientists have discovered more about DNA over the years, and a notable breakthrough was the discovery of gene editing techniques over a decade ago. These techniques (such as CRISPR-Cas9) are much faster, cheaper, and easier than earlier GE techniques.

The biotech industry frequently promotes gene editing as the new, improved version of GE – precise and safe. However, numerous accidental or unintended changes occur, such as allergens or toxins being produced, antibiotic resistance increasing, and organisms interacting in yet unknown ways within ecosystems.

Are we really missing out?

Another argument continually rolled out by GE proponents is that our current laws mean we’re missing out on opportunities and are falling behind the rest of the world. There is some research that scientists are better able to pursue overseas, but there’s also lots that can be kept within the safer environment of the lab.

But rather than missing out, we’re profiting from a reputation of being clean, green, and GE-free. Imagine the benefits if all the funding going towards GE was instead channelled into organic and regenerative research? Consumers around the world want clean, safe, healthy organic food and other products, and are prepared to pay a premium for it.

Rather than missing out, we have the opportunity to lead in a safer, holistic, direction.

We don’t need GE.

What about farmers and climate change?

GE proponents claim that farmers and the climate will benefit from GE technologies, and should have the choice to do so. Yet they’re often vague about the crops or technologies. The species most often mentioned is GE ryegrass, with the potential to reduce methane emissions from ruminant animals like cows and sheep, therefore reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Nice idea! But what are the other impacts and risks? On farm and native ecosystems, workers, animals, people who eat the products, the farmer’s bank balance? Who pays for any loss of organic certification, loss of income, and cleanup after GE ryegrass spread or contamination?

GE-free solutions

There are other ways we can lower methane emissions. Selective breeding offers some promise: AgResearch has successfully bred a lower methane emitting sheep – no GE needed.

But most significantly, organic and regenerative practices can help reduce methane and other greenhouse gas emissions by multi-species pastures and cover crops, less tillage, and by building healthy soils that sequester more carbon and have more methane-consuming microbes.

Rodale Institute (USA) has run comparative farming trials since 1981, and have found that ‘regenerative organic systems, which prioritise soil health and good farming practices, like cover cropping, crop rotations, and pasturing animals, use 45 percent less energy and release 40 percent fewer carbon emissions than conventional agriculture, with no statistical difference in yields’. (rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial)

Not only do regenerative organic systems emit fewer greenhouse gases, they also have multiple other benefits – healthy soil, cleaner waterways, greater biodiversity, and healthier people and animals. No need for GE!

Philippa Jamieson, previously OrganicNZ editor, has campaigned against, researched, and written about GE for over 20 years.

The sci-fi world of targeted GE

/in

Dr Heli Matilainen explores the lightning-fast development of targeted genome engineering.

We have rapidly entered the era of ‘next generation’ genetic engineering (GE). The revolution in this field is largely due to the development and introduction of targeted genome engineering/modification/editing techniques.

These new techniques have been widely adopted in all relevant scientific areas at a very fast pace. Recent major breakthroughs and developments have enabled genome editing/engineering to get to the ‘science fiction’ level.

The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.