Submission on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill

To: Primary Production Committee
Submitter: The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
Date: June 2026
Soil & Health wishes to speak to this submission.

1. Summary position

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand opposes the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill in its current form.

Soil & Health supports efficient, transparent and scientifically robust regulation. However, efficiency must never come at the expense of the core purpose of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996: the protection of human health, ecosystems, soil, water, biodiversity and future generations from the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.

The Bill is presented as a measure to streamline regulatory processes while maintaining protection. However, the supporting policy material shows a strong emphasis on reducing delays, increasing access to products, relying more heavily on overseas regulatory decisions, and supporting productivity and economic growth.

Our concern is not that applications may be processed more quickly. Our concern is that the balance of the legislation is being shifted away from precaution and protection, and toward speed, market access and economic outcomes.

HSNO was created to protect people and the environment from harm. It exists because environmental and public health harms are often delayed, cumulative and difficult to reverse. The lesson from decades of environmental regulation is simple: harm is usually easier to create than it is to repair.

Soil & Health therefore asks the Primary Production Committee to recommend that the Bill does not proceed in its current form.

If the Committee does proceed with the Bill, Soil & Health asks that it be substantially amended so that environmental protection, human health, soil and water health, Te Tiriti obligations, public participation, organic integrity, GE-free production and the precautionary approach remain central to the HSNO Act.

Our key requests are:

Do not proceed with the Bill in its current form.

Do not use the HSNO Amendment Bill to prepare the ground for a more permissive gene technology regime while the Gene Technology Bill remains contested and unresolved.

Remove, or substantially narrow, the proposed temporary hazardous substances approval pathway, particularly for agrichemicals and novel biological, nano-enabled or gene-related technologies.

Ensure overseas regulator assessments may inform New Zealand decisions, but must not replace independent New Zealand assessment.

Keep the burden of proving safety on applicants, not on communities, objectors, iwi, organic producers, neighbouring landowners or affected sectors.

Retain strong public notification, consultation and hearing rights where approvals may affect organic producers, GE-free production, Māori interests, neighbours, waterways, soil health, biodiversity, pollinators, food systems or public health.

Keep key safeguards in the Act itself, not only in later regulations, notices, guidance or discretionary decision-making.

Explicitly require precautionary assessment of novel and emerging technologies, including but not limited to genetic engineering (encompasses gene editing), nanotechnology, nanoparticles, RNA-based sprays, gene-silencing products, synthetic biology, microbial products, biological controls and combined chemical-biological technologies.

Ensure applicants and approval holders, not affected farmers, organic producers, certifiers, councils, tangata whenua or future land users, carry responsibility for contamination, monitoring, containment failure and market loss.

Require transparent post-approval monitoring, public reporting and reassessment where new evidence emerges.

Protect the integrity of organic and GE-free production in Aotearoa New Zealand.

2. About Soil & Health

Soil & Health is one of New Zealand’s oldest organic advocacy organisations. Our kaupapa is healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people. We advocate for food and farming systems that protect soil, water, biodiversity, human health and future generations.

Organic production is built on trust. That trust depends on clear standards, strong regulation, careful assessment of risk, and the ability of producers and consumers to rely on products being genuinely organic and GE-free.

For organic producers, environmental release of, or contamination with hazardous substances or new organisms is not an abstract regulatory issue. It can affect certification, market access, export relationships, consumer confidence, neighbouring properties and the long-term integrity of production systems.

Soil & Health approaches this Bill from the perspective of public health, environmental protection, organic integrity, soil health, water quality, biodiversity, precaution and intergenerational responsibility.

3. The purpose of HSNO must remain paramount

The purpose of the HSNO Act is protective. It is to protect the environment, and the health and safety of people and communities, by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.

That protective purpose must remain paramount.

Economic benefits, productivity and access to new products can be legitimate considerations. However, they must remain secondary to the protection of:

human health

soil health

water quality

biodiversity

ecosystem functioning

Māori cultural values

organic and GE-free production

neighbouring communities

future generations

The Bill risks creating a regulatory environment in which commercial opportunity is given increasing weight, while environmental and health uncertainties are expected to be managed after approval rather than resolved before approval.

The central question under HSNO should be:

Can this product, organism or technology be shown to be safe and appropriate for use in New Zealand conditions?

The Bill risks replacing that question with:

Can this product, organism or technology be approved more quickly?

That is a significant change in regulatory philosophy.

Regulatory speed is not, by itself, a measure of good regulation. In environmental regulation, delay is sometimes evidence of necessary diligence. The costs of delayed approval are often visible and immediate. The costs of premature approval are often delayed, diffuse and difficult to attribute. That does not make them less important.

Slow harm is still harm. Diffuse harm is still harm. Harm that is hard to attribute after the fact is precisely the kind of harm that a precautionary statute should prevent.

4. The Bill must be considered alongside gene technology and ACVM reform

The HSNO Amendment Bill is not occurring in isolation. It sits alongside the Gene Technology Bill and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

Together, these reforms raise significant concerns for organic and GE-free production.

The Gene Technology Bill proposes a major shift in the regulation of genetic technologies. The HSNO Amendment Bill changes how new organisms and hazardous substances are assessed. The ACVM Amendment Bill changes pathways for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines, including products already approved overseas.

Soil & Health is concerned that the combined effect of these bills could create regulatory gaps. Products involving genetic technologies, biological controls, microorganisms, RNA-based tools, nano-delivery systems, agrichemicals, veterinary medicines, novel biological products or chemical-biological combinations may move across regulatory boundaries in ways that are difficult for farmers, consumers, certifiers and the public to understand.

The Committee should not assess the HSNO Amendment Bill as a narrow technical efficiency update. It should ask how the Bill interacts with the wider reform package and whether the overall framework remains protective enough for food, farming, biodiversity, organics and GE-free production.

5. New Zealand assessment must not be outsourced

The Bill places considerable weight on the use of overseas regulatory assessments.

Soil & Health does not oppose the EPA considering high-quality international information. International science can be useful. However, overseas decisions must not substitute for full and independent New Zealand assessment.

New Zealand is not simply a branch office of overseas regulators.

New Zealand has distinct environmental, cultural, agricultural and market conditions, including:

unique indigenous biodiversity

distinctive soils and soil biota

small catchments and sensitive waterways

high rainfall and runoff risks in some regions

wind drift and spray-drift conditions

pastoral, horticultural and mixed farming systems that differ from many overseas jurisdictions

Māori relationships with whenua, wai, taonga species, whakapapa and mahinga kai

significant organic, regenerative and GE-free production systems

premium export markets that depend on trust and integrity

consumer expectations around natural, organic and GE-free food

An approval granted in North America, Europe, Australia or elsewhere cannot automatically account for New Zealand conditions.

Regulatory decisions should be informed by international science, but never outsourced to overseas regulators.

If overseas assessments are used, the Act should require that they are only one source of evidence. The applicant should still carry the burden of proving safety and suitability in New Zealand conditions. The EPA should be required to publish how it used overseas information, what New Zealand-specific assessment was undertaken, and what uncertainties remain.

The public should not be required to prove, after the fact, that a substance or organism is unsafe for New Zealand conditions.

6. The burden of proof must remain with applicants

The burden of proof should remain firmly on applicants seeking approval to introduce hazardous substances, new organisms or novel technologies into New Zealand’s environment, food systems, waterways and communities.

Soil & Health is concerned that reliance on overseas approvals, narrowed assessment pathways, rapid approvals and temporary approvals may shift the practical burden away from applicants and onto the public, affected neighbours, organic producers, iwi, communities and environmental groups.

That would be wrong.

The applicant seeks the commercial benefit. The applicant should carry the evidential burden and the risk.

The public should not be required to prove that a product is unsafe after approval has already occurred. Organic producers should not be required to prove why their markets and certification need protection after contamination has already happened. Iwi and hapū should not have to prove that whenua, wai, taonga species and mahinga kai matter after exposure has occurred.

If uncertainty remains regarding persistence, chronic toxicity, endocrine disruption, cumulative exposure, food-chain effects, microbiome impacts, non-target species effects, soil effects, water effects or ecosystem consequences, that uncertainty should weigh against approval rather than in favour of speed.

7. “Significant effects” must not be narrowed too far

Soil & Health is concerned about any narrowing of “significant effects” so that an international pathway turns mainly on whether an objector can identify effects that are specifically New Zealand-specific and not already addressed overseas.

Such an approach risks creating a presumption that overseas conclusions are correct unless New Zealand-specific concerns can be demonstrated by the public or affected parties.

The precautionary approach requires the opposite.

Where uncertainty exists, decision-makers should require robust evidence demonstrating safety before approval is granted.

“Significant effects” should be defined broadly enough to include:

soil biological effects

impacts on microbial, fungal and invertebrate communities

Resistance development

aquatic toxicity and stream health

pollinators and non-target species

cumulative and synergistic effects

chronic low-dose human exposure

endocrine disruption

residues in food, compost, manure, silage, soil and water

contamination risk for organic and GE-free farms

cultural, ethical, spiritual and whakapapa concerns

market access and certification consequences

effects that may not become visible for years

A narrow test may improve administrative speed, but it would not improve environmental protection.

8. Temporary approvals can create permanent harm

Soil & Health is particularly concerned about the proposed temporary hazardous substances approval pathway.

Temporary approval can still create permanent consequences. Even short-term use can result in:

soil contamination

water contamination

non-target species impacts

resistance development

residue accumulation

loss of organic certification

market impacts for neighbouring producers

harm to beneficial organisms

long-term ecological disruption

Once a product has been used in soil, water or open environments, exposure cannot simply be unwound. Once residues move through waterways, drift onto neighbouring land or enter compost, manure, silage or food-chain pathways, subsequent regulatory action may not reverse the damage.

A “temporary” approval may create permanent consequences.

This is especially concerning for agrichemicals, because these products are designed to be released into the environment. It is not enough to say that a full assessment will occur later if exposure has already happened.

If the Committee retains any temporary approval pathway, Soil & Health asks that it include at least the following safeguards:

temporary approvals must not apply to products involving genetic technologies, RNA-based gene silencing, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, self-replicating organisms, engineered microorganisms or novel microbial products unless full public assessment has first occurred

the EPA must publicly notify proposed temporary approvals where use may affect soil, water, biodiversity, human health, organic production, GE-free production, neighbours or Māori interests

the applicant must submit a full application before any temporary approval is granted

the applicant must fund independent monitoring during and after use

use near organic or GE-free production, schools, public places, waterways, wetlands, conservation land and sensitive habitats must be subject to strict controls and public notification

affected neighbours and certifiers must be notified before use

clear suspension, modification and revocation powers must be retained

applicants and approval holders must be liable for contamination, certification loss, monitoring costs, clean-up costs and market loss caused by use under the temporary approval

9. Speed is not a substitute for good regulation

The policy material repeatedly identifies delay as a problem requiring correction.

Soil & Health accepts that regulatory delay can create real costs. However, the assumption that faster approval is always better is not sound in the context of hazardous substances and new organisms.

In environmental regulation, the consequences of approving a hazardous substance too quickly are often borne by others:

rural communities

neighbouring landowners

organic producers

ratepayers

future generations

ecosystems that have no voice in the approval process

The economic costs of delayed approvals are usually visible and immediate. The environmental costs of premature approvals are often delayed, diffuse and irreversible.

That does not make them less important.

HSNO should not become a system in which uncertainty is increasingly tolerated in the pursuit of economic opportunity.

10. The Bill risks privatising benefits and socialising risks

One of the most troubling features of the proposed reforms is the potential transfer of risk.

The commercial benefits of approval flow primarily to:

manufacturers

importers

technology developers

product distributors

early adopters

When things go wrong, however, the costs are often borne by:

neighbours

communities

councils

ratepayers

taxpayers

organic producers

certifiers

tangata whenua

ecosystems

future generations

This creates a profound imbalance.

The private sector captures the upside. The public carries the uncertainty.

The HSNO framework should prevent this imbalance, not enable it.

Soil & Health therefore asks that the Bill include a clear polluter-pays principle. Applicants and approval holders should be responsible for monitoring, containment failure, contamination, clean-up, certification loss and market loss caused by products approved under accelerated or temporary pathways.

11. Emerging technologies require greater caution, not less

New and emerging technologies are rapidly changing the landscape of agricultural and environmental interventions.

These include:

Gene technologies (including gene-editing)ed organisms

RNA-based sprays

RNA interference and RNA-like gene-silencing products

synthetic biology applications

engineered microbial products

microbial consortia and biologicals

biological controls

novel agrichemicals

nanotechnology and nanoparticles

lipid nanoparticles and other delivery systems

products combining chemicals, adjuvants, biologicals and genetic material

Many of these technologies are promoted as precise, targeted, lower residue and environmentally benign.

History teaches caution.

Asbestos, DDT, PCBs, PFAS compounds, neonicotinoids and numerous other technologies were once promoted as useful solutions. Only later were broader environmental and health consequences understood.

Regulators must remain humble in the face of scientific uncertainty.

Products using nanoparticles, lipid nanoparticles, nano-carriers or other nano-enabled delivery systems can behave differently from conventional formulations. They may alter persistence, uptake, transport, toxicity, cell penetration, bioavailability and environmental movement. The same concern applies to RNA-based or gene-silencing products, especially where they are delivered through sprays, microbial systems or nano-carriers.

The Bill should not allow products to receive reduced scrutiny because they are described as “targeted”, “biological”, “low residue”, “innovative” or “approved overseas”. These descriptions are not substitutes for evidence.

12. Example scenario: RootSilence-R

A plausible future example illustrates the risk.

Imagine a product called RootSilence-R. It is a spray containing lipid nanoparticles carrying RNA-based gene-silencing material designed to suppress a fungal pasture pest.

The product receives conditional approval overseas. It is promoted as targeted, innovative and low residue.

Under a more permissive HSNO pathway:

the applicant points to overseas regulator assessments

the EPA focuses mainly on New Zealand-specific differences

a temporary approval allows use before the full assessment is complete

public notification is limited because the product is framed as targeted and low-risk

farmers begin using it

the product is applied before heavy rainfall

runoff carries residues into drains, soil, streams and neighbouring properties

soil fungi, mycorrhizal networks, earthworms, aquatic invertebrates, non-target microorganisms and neighbouring organic production systems are exposed

several years later, evidence emerges of unexpected off-target effects, persistence in certain soil types or ecological interactions not identified during approval

By then, the product has already delivered financial benefits to its developers and users.

The risks have been transferred to everyone else.

The question Parliament must ask is simple:

Who should carry the burden of uncertainty?

The applicant seeking commercial gain?

Or the public, organic producers, tangata whenua and environment that receive no opportunity to consent?

Soil & Health’s answer is clear: the burden must remain with the applicant.

13. Public participation and transparency must be protected

Public participation is not an administrative obstacle. It is a safeguard.

Soil & Health is concerned that too much detail may be moved into regulations, notices, guidance or discretionary processes. That risks reducing Parliamentary scrutiny and public visibility.

Key protective thresholds should remain in the Act. Public notification and hearing rights should be retained where approvals may affect communities, ecosystems, organic producers, iwi, food systems and future generations.

The Act should require public notification where an application may involve:

environmental release

new organisms such as genetically engineered organisms (includes gene editing)

agrichemicals with broad environmental exposure

nanotechnology

RNA-based or gene-silencing technologies

biologicals or microbial products

effects on organic or GE-free producers

potential contamination beyond the applicant’s property

significant public interest

Māori cultural, spiritual, whakapapa or taonga species concerns

uncertain or irreversible effects

The people and ecosystems affected by approval decisions must have a meaningful opportunity to be heard before exposure occurs, not after harm is suspected.

14. Power should not drift away from Parliament

The Bill and related policy material move significant operational detail into regulations, notices, ministerial determinations and administrative processes.

Delegation can improve administrative efficiency. However, environmental protections should not depend primarily on the discretion of whichever Minister, Director-General or agency happens to hold office at a particular time.

Fundamental safeguards belong in legislation debated openly by Parliament.

The greater the environmental risk, the greater the need for democratic accountability.

Soil, water, pollinators, neighbours, organic producers and future generations should not be protected only by later regulations, unpublished modelling assumptions, overseas decisions or administrative discretion.

The protective threshold belongs in the Act itself.

15. Māori interests and Te Tiriti obligations require more than technical consultation

Hazardous substances and new organisms can affect whenua, wai, mahinga kai, taonga species, biodiversity and intergenerational relationships with the natural world.

Soil & Health asks the Committee to ensure that the Bill does not reduce Māori participation is active from the outset and not reduced to a technical consultation step.

Where applications may affect Māori interests, decision-making must provide for meaningful engagement with iwi, hapū and Māori organisations, and must give proper weight to mātauranga Māori, tikanga, whakapapa and kaitiakitanga.

The Bill should not allow accelerated pathways to bypass these obligations.

16. Organic and GE-free production need explicit protection

The use of genetically engineered organisms and their derivatives is prohibited in organic production systems. This includes seeds, animals, propagation material and farm inputs such as fertilisers, soil conditioners, vaccines and crop protection materials.

Organic certification is therefore directly affected by any regulatory change that increases the likelihood of environmental release, contamination, unclear product status, weak labelling, weak traceability or reduced assessment of hazardous substances and novel technologies.

For organic and GE-free producers, contamination can mean:

loss of certification

loss of markets

loss of consumer trust

loss of export opportunities

years of lost work

reputational damage through no fault of their own

It is not acceptable for the costs of contamination to fall on the producer who did not use the product.

Soil & Health asks that the Bill include explicit recognition of organic and GE-free production as affected interests in relevant HSNO decisions.

The EPA should be required to consider:

impacts on organic certification

market access and export integrity

contamination pathways

buffer zones and notification requirements

coexistence risks

liability and compensation

traceability and monitoring

protection for neighbouring producers

Organic and GE-free producers should not be treated as afterthoughts in a system that could directly affect their certification, livelihoods and markets.

17. Compliance, monitoring and reassessment must be strengthened

If the Bill creates faster pathways, it must also strengthen monitoring and accountability.

Approvals should require:

publicly available approval conditions

clear use restrictions

independent environmental monitoring where needed

residue monitoring in soil, water, compost, manure and food-chain pathways where relevant

monitoring for non-target effects

adverse event reporting

transparent reassessment triggers

public registers of temporary approvals, conditions, incidents and reassessments

enforceable duties on approval holders and users

funding from applicants or approval holders for monitoring and enforcement

Without monitoring, the system may approve products quickly but detect harm too late.

18. Specific amendments sought if the Bill proceeds

Soil & Health’s primary position is that the Bill should not proceed in its current form.

If the Committee proceeds with the Bill, Soil & Health asks that it be amended to achieve the following:

Retain the precautionary intent of the HSNO Act as the overriding consideration.

Require full and independent New Zealand assessment of hazardous substances and new organisms regardless of overseas approvals.

Ensure international regulator assessments may inform, but not replace, EPA assessment.

Reject pathways that allow environmental release before comprehensive assessment has been completed, particularly for agrichemicals, novel biological products, nanotechnology, RNA-based products and gene-related technologies.

Ensure the burden of demonstrating safety remains with applicants.

Maintain robust opportunities for public participation and scrutiny.

Retain key environmental and health protections within primary legislation rather than delegated instruments.

Require explicit consideration of impacts on soil health, soil biology, biodiversity, water quality, pollinators, organic production systems, GE-free production, Māori interests and future generations.

Ensure new and emerging technologies such as RNA-based products, genetically engineered-edited organisms (includes gene editing), engineered microorganisms, microbial technologies, synthetic biology, biological controls and nano-enabled products are assessed under precautionary principles appropriate to their complexity and uncertainty.

Require public notification where applications may affect organic or GE-free producers, iwi and hapū, waterways, neighbours, sensitive ecosystems or significant public interests.

Require applicant-funded independent monitoring for any accelerated or temporary approval pathway.

Create clear liability for applicants and approval holders where contamination, certification loss, market loss or environmental harm occurs.

Require public reporting of temporary approvals, conditions, monitoring results, incidents, reassessments, suspensions and revocations.

Ensure accelerated pathways do not bypass Te Tiriti obligations, mātauranga Māori, tikanga, whakapapa or kaitiakitanga.

Prevent speed, productivity or commercial opportunity from overriding precaution, human health and environmental protection.

19. Conclusion – Relief Sought

The purpose of HSNO is not to accelerate hazardous substances and new organisms into the market.

Its purpose is to protect New Zealanders, our soils, our waterways, our biodiversity, our food systems and future generations from avoidable harm, not to accelerate hazardous substances and new organisms into the market..

This Bill is presented as an exercise in regulatory efficiency. In reality, it represents a choice about who carries risk.

Will New Zealand continue to place environmental protection, public health, organic integrity, GE-free production and precaution at the centre of hazardous substance and new organism regulation?

Or will we increasingly accept uncertainty in pursuit of speed, productivity and commercial opportunity?

Soil & Health believes the answer should be clear.

The protective threshold must not be lowered.

Not for convenience.

Not for productivity.

Not for speed.

Soil & Health asks the Primary Production Committee to recommend that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill does not proceed in its current form.

If the Committee proceeds with the Bill, Soil & Health asks that it be substantially amended as per our submission, to keep the burden of proof on applicants, protect organic and GE-free production, retain meaningful public participation, uphold Te Tiriti obligations, require independent New Zealand assessment, explicitly address emerging technologies, and keep precaution, environmental protection and human health at the centre of the HSNO Act.

Documents and sources considered

This draft was prepared with reference to the following materials: