The Gene Tech Bill Tightrope

/in , , , , , ,

What New Zealand’s Proposed Genetic Engineering Rules Could Mean for Organics 

By Charles Hyland, chair of the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand 

When the Government released the Gene Technology Bill in late 2024, it advanced a proposal that could reshape how Aotearoa New Zealand manages genetic technologies for many years to come. We have a short and critical window of opportunity to influence this for the benefit of the organic and wider farming community, the New Zealand public and the environment.  

For decades, the organic movement has maintained an unambiguous position on genetic engineering: it has no place in organic systems.

This position is not solely about the safety or otherwise of specific technologies. It is about protecting ecological integrity, sustaining consumer trust in food systems, and safeguarding the right of communities, growers, and consumers to choose farming systems that remain free from genetic contamination.

Above: Charles Hyland

The Gene Technology Bill represents the most significant attempt to rewrite Aotearoa’s genetic rules since the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 was passed nearly thirty years ago. It therefore represents a critical juncture in the country’s relationship with biotechnology, food, agriculture, and the environment. 

A legislative reset 

The original version of the bill, introduced in late 2024, was designed to remove gene technology regulation from the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) framework and place it into a dedicated new system. This new framework would create a single Gene Technology Regulator supported by advisory committees and a risk-tiered approval system. Government ministers and officials presented the change as a necessary modernisation. They argued that HSNO was an outdated and overly cumbersome regime that treated all genetic technologies in a single, inflexible way. Some researchers and industry groups had long complained that HSNO imposed slow and costly approval processes, making it difficult to work with techniques such as CRISPR and other forms of gene editing. The stated goal of the reform was to reduce regulatory lag, streamline decision-making, and encourage domestic research and innovation. 

To the organic community, however, this proposal triggered deep concern. The original draft of the bill allowed entire categories of genetic techniques to be declared “not regulated,” which would have created the possibility of genetically engineered organisms entering our food, farming systems and outdoor environment without any public notification, without labelling, and without clear liability mechanisms if contamination occurred. To Soil & Health, the promise of streamlining looked less like efficiency and more like a structural blind spot. 

One of the most consequential elements of the original proposal is the potential redefinition of what legally counts as a “GMO” in New Zealand. By excluding certain forms of gene editing from the GMO umbrella altogether, these technologies could be treated as though they are no different from conventional breeding. This shift would not just simplify regulation; it would fundamentally alter the scope of what falls under genetic oversight, enabling some gene-edited organisms to bypass the regulatory system entirely. For the organic sector, this raises profound concerns about transparency, traceability, and market trust. 

What changed in the Health Committee’s version 

The Health Select Committee, which considered the draft Bill, received a large volume of submissions from environmental organisations, Māori representatives, organic producers, consumer groups, scientists, legal experts, the biotech industry, and concerned members of the public. Its revised text introduces several significant changes intended to address some of the concerns raised. 

One of the most important shifts is that the committee recommends restricting exemptions to specific organisms, not to entire classes of genetic techniques. Exemptions can now only be applied on an organism-by-organism basis, and only if those organisms cannot be distinguished from conventional breeding outcomes. Under the committee’s recommendations, this determination would be made by the Gene Technology Regulator, with advice from the Technical Advisory Committee and the Māori Advisory Committee. Applicants can claim indistinguishability, but the regulator must assess and verify those claims before an exemption is granted. While this represents a shift away from industry self-declaration back to the current case-by-case regulatory decision, concerns remain about how rigorously such claims will be tested in practice and who will bear the cost of verification. 

Another change is the introduction of a public schedule (a register) known as Schedule 3A. This schedule would list organisms that are not regulated GMOs and technologies that are not considered ‘gene technologies’ under the new framework. Exemptions and registration requirements sit alongside, but are separate from, this schedule. These organisms may still be genetically modified or gene edited, or the products thereof, but if they are deemed indistinguishable from conventional breeding, they will not go through the full regulatory process. While inclusion in the schedule does not trigger full oversight, it at least ensures that their status is on the public record, addressing some of the concerns from organic and environmental advocates about a lack of transparency around gene editing decisions. 

The revised bill also attempts to bolster trust by clarifying the scope of ministerial powers and embedding a broader advisory system. While the Regulator would still be accountable to the Minister, the committee’s recommendations clarify and limit how ministerial directions can be issued, including ensuring these powers cannot be delegated. The Regulator would also be required to produce annual reports on its activities.

The advisory structure has been expanded to include environmental scientists, mātauranga Māori experts, and public interest voices, aiming to reduce the risk of decisions being made within a narrow technical circle. However, several submitters have questioned why a new regulatory office is needed at all, suggesting that strengthening the existing Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) might achieve similar outcomes with fewer concerns about accountability and duplication. 

The parliamentary process: not law yet 

The Gene Technology Bill remains at the parliamentary stage. There was not wide consultation during drafting of the Bill, and no economic impact information sought. After a first reading in December 2024, the Bill was referred to the Health Select Committee, which gave a short public submission period of only two months over the summer holiday period. The Committee received about 14,500 written submissions and approximately 1,500 requests to present oral submissions. Of those, only around 400 were granted, with presenters given just 5–10 minutes each. The Committee produced its revised draft, released on 10 October 2025. The revised Bill will return to the House for its second reading. If the bill is supported at that stage, it will go through the Committee of the Whole House, where MPs debate it line by line and propose further amendments. If it passes a third reading, it will receive Royal assent and become law. 

This timeline is important because it means the content of the legislation is not yet fixed. The coming months will determine whether additional protections for the organic sector, primary producers more generally, Māori communities, and consumers are introduced, whether the bill is enacted largely in its current form, or whether it stalls for lack of sufficient support.  

Regulation and public trust 

New Zealand’s current HSNO regime is intentionally conservative, and many consumers see that conservatism as part of the country’s clean and trusted agricultural identity. Trust is not automatically guaranteed by legislation. It is built when the public can see what decisions are made, understand the reasoning behind them, and believe that independent oversight is in place. 

The revised bill attempts to build trust through structural mechanisms, including increased transparency and clear reporting requirements for the Regulator. Yet public trust is fragile. It takes years to build and can be lost in a single regulatory failure.

A single example could be a gene-edited crop or grass variety spreading beyond its intended trial site, contaminating nearby organic farms and compromising their certification, income, market access, and reputation, an outcome that has occurred overseas when containment measures have failed.

Organic producers, Māori communities, and environmentally minded consumers are wary not because they misunderstand gene technologies, but because they have seen how weak oversight has led to adverse irreversible consequences elsewhere. 

Consultation versus shared power 

The Health Committee has strengthened expectations for consultation at various stages of the regulatory process, and it requires a post-implementation review. These steps reflect recognition that gene technology decisions require more than narrow technical consideration. They have cultural, social, and economic implications. 

However, advisory input is not the same thing as actual decision-making power. Māori submitters made clear that gene technology touches whakapapa, mauri, and tino rangatiratanga, and therefore raises issues of sovereignty and responsibility toward taonga species. For many Māori, being consulted after the fact is not sufficient. They are asking for meaningful influence over decisions, not just an advisory seat on the sidelines. 

The organic sector’s concerns have some differences from those of Māori in content but are similar in how they play out. For Māori, gene technology interferes with core cultural values, and the bill does not comply with te Tiriti o Waitangi, which guarantees governance over taiao – the environment. For the organic sector, it is about protecting GMO-free production systems, certification, and market access. In both cases, meaningful safeguards rather than consultation alone are essential. If the regulatory system listens but fails to act, both groups risk having their concerns effectively ignored. 

Monitoring and enforcement: from paper to practice 

The revised bill grants the Regulator broader powers to monitor and enforce compliance. Inspectors would be able to visit both current and former sites of regulated activity. Public registers would provide visibility into what is being approved and where. Licenses could be varied urgently if new risks emerged. Penalties for violations have been streamlined and clarified. 

In practice, its value depends on whether the Regulator is adequately resourced to use these powers effectively. A well-designed legal framework cannot protect the environment or organic farmers if it is not backed by funding, staffing, and operational capacity. Many organic producers have seen this dynamic play out in other regulatory domains, where strong rules are undermined by weak enforcement. 

National control versus local autonomy 

Another contentious element of the bill involves local government. The Government has signalled an intention to move toward a nationally consistent framework, which may limit the ability of local councils to impose their own restrictions on gene technology activities at the behest of their communities. The Government has presented this as a matter of consistency and efficiency. Industry groups argue that a single national standard will reduce duplication and confusion. 

For communities, however, this represents the removal of an important tool. Several regions have precautionary and/or prohibitive plans and policies. Under the new framework, these preferences would carry little or no legal weight. This is not merely a procedural question. It touches on democratic control, regional autonomy, and the ability of communities to shape the future of their land. 

For the organic movement, both globally and in Aotearoa, this is especially significant. Around the world, local or regional authorities have often acted as protective backstops when national governments have moved toward more permissive gene technology regulation. New Zealand has followed this pattern, with councils such as Hawke’s Bay, Auckland, and councils into Northland declaring GE-free, precautionary or prohibitive positions. Centralisation would mean that if the national regulator approves the release of a genetically engineered crop, animal, insect, or microbe, local communities would have limited ability to maintain GE-free landscapes. 

International alignment and trade realities 

The bill brings New Zealand procedurally closer to international frameworks by establishing information-sharing arrangements with overseas regulators and aligning regulatory processes with international practices. The alignment is largely administrative and trade-oriented, aimed at avoiding regulatory isolation and supporting the Government’s broader strategy to position New Zealand as “science-friendly” and “innovation-ready.” 

But trade alignment is a double-edged sword. New Zealand’s competitive advantage in many export markets depends on its reputation for clean, non-GMO production. European markets, in particular, remain sensitive to genetic engineering. Many buyers in Asia also favour products that are certified organic and/or verified as non-GMO. If the new framework enables genetically engineered products to enter the food system quickly and without mandatory labelling, that premium reputation could erode. This would not only be an environmental concern but also a commercial one, and potentially a concern for health. 

Labelling: the silent gap 

One of the most striking aspects of the Gene Technology Bill is what it does not address. It is a regulatory framework for approvals, not a consumer labelling law. The bill creates no requirement for mandatory labelling of gene-edited or genetically modified products. Definitions and labelling of food is determined by the trans-Tasman body Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). This body has now exempted some new gene editing techniques from GMO labelling requirements. As a result, products using these technologies could enter the food chain without consumers’ knowledge. 

For organic – and indeed all – consumers, this represents an erosion of informed choice. For any producers who want to remain GE-free, it creates an uneven playing field in which they must continue to bear the cost of proving their products are non-GMO, while those using gene technology face no corresponding requirement to disclose. It also has implications for New Zealand’s export reputation. If overseas buyers cannot reliably distinguish between GE and non-GE products, they may simply choose to source from other countries with stricter standards. 

Contamination and liability 

Another unresolved issue is liability for contamination. If gene-edited pollen or seed drifts into an organic field, the question of who pays for the resulting damage remains unanswered. The Gene Technology Bill contains no liability framework for such events. The only liability provisions relate to protecting the Regulator from legal claims when acting in good faith.

There are no mechanisms assigning responsibility or financial liability to developers, users, or other parties in cases where genetically engineered material contaminates non-GMO or organic crops or ecosystems. This is a major gap compared with more precautionary regimes overseas. Contamination incidents in other countries have been common and costly, with organic farmers losing certification, income, market access, and consumer trust through no fault of their own.

Without a fair liability system, the risk is likely to fall on organic and GE-free farmers themselves, creating a moral hazard where those who use gene technology externalise the costs onto those who do not. For the organic sector, this is not a marginal issue but a central question of survival. 

A well-documented example of such a failure occurred in the United States, where genetically engineered creeping bentgrass escaped containment during field trials and spread across irrigation canals and wildlands, triggering years of expensive and incomplete eradication efforts. Similar issues arose with GM canola in Canada, where widespread contamination effectively eliminated the possibility of growing organic canola in many regions. These incidents illustrate how quickly contamination can spread beyond its intended boundaries, leaving farmers and communities to deal with long-term consequences and costs they did not create. 

Te Tiriti o Waitangi and governance 

The revised bill makes more explicit reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by embedding consultation requirements and the inclusion of mātauranga Māori in advisory processes. However, the Māori Advisory Committee remains advisory only, and its role does not carry decision-making authority. This procedural strengthening falls short of genuine co-governance, which is why many Māori submitters have expressed concern.

Gene technology intersects with whakapapa and mauri in profound ways, so decisions in this area are not purely technical. They touch on cultural identity, spiritual responsibility, and sovereignty. For the bill to gain legitimacy with Māori communities, it must demonstrate that these concerns influence real outcomes, not just process. Otherwise, mistrust is likely to deepen. 

Speed and precaution 

The Government has presented speed as one of the central goals of the new regulatory framework. Faster approvals are seen as a way to boost innovation and make New Zealand more competitive internationally. But speed in genetic regulation is not necessarily a good thing. Genetic material cannot be recalled once released into the environment. Drift and escape are well-documented phenomena and, unlike chemical pollutants, genetic material can replicate and spread. 

A faster system without strong monitoring, labelling, and liability provisions creates obvious risks for non-GMO and organic producers, for home gardeners, and for natural ecosystems. It also creates significant risks for conventional farms, which may face unintentional contamination, disrupted or even banned market access, and loss of buyer confidence if their products can no longer be reliably distinguished from gene-edited varieties. 

Lessons from abroad 

The experience of other countries provides sobering lessons. In Canada, the widespread planting of herbicide-tolerant GE canola in the late 1990s led to rapid contamination of non-GMO and organic canola fields. Within a few years, growing organic canola became practically impossible in large regions of the Canadian Prairies. In the United States, similar contamination occurred with alfalfa (lucerne). Even strict buffer zones and best-practice guidelines proved insufficient. In contrast, the European Union’s precautionary approach has preserved a clearer market separation and sustained consumer trust. 

A permissive, fast-moving system carries both environmental and economic risks. A precautionary system may be slower, but it preserves options for farmers and consumers who want to remain GE-free. 

Unresolved questions 

Many critical issues remain unresolved in the Bill, and some issues would only be considered later, during the drafting of regulation that sits under the Bill. Among these are the practical mechanisms for ensuring transparency, the nature of liability protections for organic and GE-free producers, the absence of a clear labelling regime, the scope of local authority powers, the resourcing of the Regulator, and the role of Māori in actual decision-making rather than purely advisory capacities. These are not minor details to be filled in later. They will determine whether the system is trusted and workable. 

A moment of choice 

The Health Committee’s revisions are improvements on the original bill. They increase transparency, tighten exemption criteria, and enhance the independence of the Regulator. But they do not change the overall orientation of the policy, which is designed to facilitate and manage the use of gene technology in New Zealand, rather than putting the health and safety of people and the environment first. Whether that future supports or undermines organics will depend on how these remaining gaps are addressed. One of the most critical of these gaps is the complete absence of a liability framework, leaving farmers and communities exposed to the costs and consequences of contamination events they did not cause. 

For organic producers and consumers, this is a moment of decision. New Zealand’s organic exports command a premium price in part because of the country’s reputation as GMO-cautious and environmentally responsible. That reputation can be eroded far more quickly than it can be rebuilt. The coming months will determine whether the organic and wider GE-free movement can help shape a regulatory framework that protects its interests, or whether it will be forced to adapt to a more permissive environment. 

Looking ahead 

The parliamentary stages that lie ahead provide opportunities for change. Amendments can still be introduced to address the labelling gap, clarify liability rules, secure adequate resourcing for enforcement, and ensure meaningful co-governance with Māori. These issues are not optional extras. They are the core conditions that will shape public trust and determine how different sectors experience the new regime, if indeed it is introduced. 

New Zealand now faces a strategic choice. One path leads toward a regulatory framework that balances innovation with precaution, transparency, and respect for community values. The other path risks weakening trust, undermining organic markets, and eroding local control. For organic growers, consumers, and communities, this is a time to pay close attention, engage constructively, and insist on a system that protects ecological integrity and informed choice. 

The tightrope has been strung high. How we walk it will shape the future of farming, food systems, and public trust for decades to come. 

FURTHER INFORMATION:

TOP IMAGE: iStock/heebyj

Gene Tech Bill threatens Aotearoa’s GE-free status, warns Soil & Health

/in , , , , , , ,

MEDIA RELEASE

13 OCTOBER 2025

Aotearoa New Zealand – The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand is calling for the Government to halt the Gene Technology Bill, warning that the proposed law would open the door to genetically engineered organisms in Aotearoa’s environment, food system and farms.

The latest draft of the Bill, which has just been released by the Health Select Committee, has only minor changes from the initial draft.

“New Zealanders have a right to know what we’re growing and eating – and to choose food that aligns with their values,” says Charles Hyland, chair of the Soil & Health Association.

“This Bill would still allow GE into our farms, gardens and food, risking contamination, loss of organic certification, lawsuits and Aotearoa’s GE-free status. Anyone who doesn’t want GE could face difficulties avoiding it.”

“In addition to the risks to food and agriculture, there are also risks to tikanga Māori, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, biodiversity, conservation and natural ecosystems, economics, trade, liability and insurance, animal welfare, ethics and more.”

“Local authorities would have no jurisdiction over GE in their territories.”

“One positive change we have identified is the inclusion of a register of all genetically modified organisms.”

“We’re urging Parliament to pause this Bill and take the time needed to address the wide-ranging environmental, cultural and economic risks,” says Hyland. “This legislation is too important to rush – it must be shaped with meaningful public consultation.”

ENDS

FURTHER INFORMATION: Soil & Health’s submission on the Gene Technology Bill

Media contacts:

Charles Hyland, Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 707 0747

Philippa Jamieson, Organic NZ editor, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 547 3929

Email: editor@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.soilandhealth.org.nz

TOP IMAGE: Organic apples at Commonsense Organics, Wellington

Soil & Health welcomes end to GE animal trials after 25 years of suffering

/in , , , , , ,

MEDIA RELEASE

6 OCTOBER 2025

Aotearoa New Zealand – The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand welcomes the end of animal genetic engineering trials that have taken place at AgResearch’s Ruakura facility for more than two decades.

“These experiments caused immense animal suffering and should never have been allowed to happen,” said Charles Hyland, chair of Soil & Health.

The Association applauds GE Free NZ for exposing the scale of the harm. Their report, based on AgResearch’s own annual statements, documents spontaneous abortions, cancers, deformities and other adverse effects on cattle, sheep and goats.

“After 25 years and tens of thousands of dollars of public money, these experiments have delivered no benefits,” Hyland said. “We are deeply concerned they could resume if the proposed Gene Technology Bill is passed. Animals must not be subjected to such cruelty again.”

“New Zealanders – and our overseas markets – expect high animal welfare standards and food that is healthy, ethical and safe. The future lies in organic and sustainable food and farming.” 

ENDS

FURTHER INFORMATION: Genetically Engineered Animals in New Zealand 2010 – 2025: Part 2 – The second fifteen years (GE Free NZ)

Media contacts:

Charles Hyland, Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 707 0747
Philippa Jamieson, Organic NZ editor, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 547 3929 

Email: editor@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.soilandhealth.org.nz

TOP IMAGE: Genetically engineered cows at AgResearch’s Ruakura facility in 2011 (Photo: Steffan Browning)

Gorse

The thorny problem of gorse control

/in ,

By Jeanette Fitzsimons 

Most of New Zealand’s pastoral hill country is badly infested with gorse. Brought by early settlers from the British Isles to make living fences for stock, in our climate it quickly spread everywhere. A small plant left alone can be a large bush in a year and a few of them can cover a paddock in five years. 

It’s not a problem in a market garden or home garden or a cultivated field, where it is simply removed like any other weed. It is manageable in an orchard where the shading helps limit its growth. But in a field of grass it goes rampant.  

In an area you are wanting to regenerate with native forest it is positively helpful, adding nitrogen to the soil, shelter and mulch for emerging seedlings, and eventually being shaded out by the growing trees. That’s what we are doing on the 80% of our land that is too steep to farm sustainably. But having given up production on 80%, we want to grow some food on the rest. 

Experts differ on whether the seed lasts in the ground for 50 years or 200 but I do know that we won’t be rid of it in my lifetime or my children’s. And fire causes it to germinate vigorously.  

I have been given lots of advice over the years on what to do about gorse, most of it totally useless. The only useful suggestion was “if you want to be organic, don’t buy land with gorse on it”. Which does rather call into question our goal of New Zealand being totally organic by 2020!  

Some methods we have used include:

1. Chainsaw and fire 

Chainsawing down old man gorse gives wonderful firewood and the rest can be stacked and burned – preferably when there is no seed on it. The stumps will regrow – but if you need firewood it is quite a good way to initially clear the land (and maybe follow up with Interceptor, a herbicide based on pine oil).  

2. Big machinery 

A digger or bulldozer costs, but can rip bushes out by the roots and pile them for burning. It leaves a bit of a moonscape but doesn’t leave roots to grow back so you only have to deal with seedlings. 

3. Chemicals 

We had tried every non-toxic chemical on stumps before we came to Pakaraka Farm – salt, diesel, caustic soda – nothing worked. And you don’t want them in your soil anyway.  

Recently we have tried Interceptor – it’s restricted if your farm is certified organic but permission can be given – to spray on regrowing stumps. Saturate the green shoots when they are about 100–150 mm long and the shoots die. (It kills everything so be careful.) If you can remember to revisit the stumps at the right time, put another application on young shoots each time they reappear and after 3–4 applications the root gives up.  

On new land with bad gorse I would recommend cut-and-burn if it is big, then spot-spray a commercial herbicide once on sprouting roots and seedlings to get a really good kill. We agonised over which chemical and opted for metsulphuron which isn’t on any of the lists of things to ban, and doesn’t have a withholding period, but of course still doesn’t comply with organic standards. We took the animals out for about three weeks. This will delay your certification process by a year but give you an easier starting point and you can try to control the seedlings that emerge with grubbing. 

 4. Animals and other living predators 

Yes, goats will eat gorse – when they have eaten everything else in sight (especially all your young trees) and are half starved. Sheep will also nibble the shoots but don’t do much damage. I’ve seen quite effective gorse control on an organic farm in South Otago by electric fencing goats intensively when snow is on the ground. You have to be prepared to sacrifice about 10% of them, and not use does in kid. You will still get seedlings germinating. 

There are various weevils, mites and other insects being tried by regional councils. They do weaken the gorse but don’t kill it, and sometimes they actually encourage seed spread. 

 5. Peasant technology – the grubber 

Most of our gorse control has been done by old-fashioned hard work – grubbing. You need to get the thick part at the top of the root out, but the thin long tail won’t regrow. Keep an eye on your wwoofers, as chopping the plants off at ground level makes them twice as vigorous next year. If you do this every year without fail to all the seedlings you will make real progress. When the plants are small and the ground wet it is possible to pull them up by the whole root, which is immensely satisfying. 

 6. Advanced peasant technology – the Extractigator 

Where this article has been heading is to introduce a new tool which makes grubbing much easier. It’s Canadian, made in strong steel and comes in two sizes which are identical except for the length of the handle, and therefore the weight you have to carry around. We have bought two so two people can work together, the stronger person taking the heavier one and tackling the larger bushes.  

With the jaws, grasp the gorse stem just where it comes out of the ground. Then you lever against a plate on the ground and with luck the whole plant pops out. We find you need wet ground – no point in tackling it in a drought. (Other soils may be different.)  

Provided the plant has a single stem that allows you to grip it before it branches, you can lever out quite large bushes. The jaws will grab a stem up to 50 mm through, though it isn’t guaranteed to come out without breaking. Sprawling bushes with several stems that run horizontally along the ground are much harder and you need to take a grubber with you and grub around them to get purchase with the jaws.  

After a while you get the feel of whether it is going to pull or break. Give it time to let go. It takes a bit of practice and I still need more of that. But I think it is a worthwhile improvement on standard peasant technology.  

It also works well to remove other weeds such as woolly nightshade, barberry, privet and broom. 

You can see it in use and New Zealand prices at www.extractigator.co.nz. 

 

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Gorse_25.jpg.webp
Gorse (Ulex europaeus) is a perennial problem for pastoral farmers up and down the country. Photo: jopelka/iStock 

 

As well as being a farmer, Jeanette Fitzsimons was the co-leader of the Green Party and patron of Soil & Health. Sadly, she passed away in March 2020.

Jenny Lux Soil and Health Assn

Organic regenerative farming needed to reduce climate change, not GE

/in , ,

New Zealand doesn’t need a loosening of GE regulation to combat climate change, it needs significant investment in organic, regenerative agriculture, says the Soil & Health Association.

Parliament recently passed the Organic Products and Production Act, with cross-party support. This should be a springboard to revolutionise our farming and exports, but making it easier to release GMOs into the environment will jeopardise that.

“By being GE-free, we’re far from ‘missing out.’ Being GE-free gives us a point of difference in the world market,” says Jenny Lux, Chair of Soil & Health.

“We already have an advantage in being an island nation in the South Pacific, and need to be really careful about any uncontrolled releases of GMOs into the outdoors. Our products are attractive to overseas buyers because they’re seen as clean, safe, natural and uncontaminated. Once we release GMOs there’s no containing them. We need to continue to safeguard our environment and our brand.”

Obvious agricultural solutions to lower greenhouse gas emissions, such as reducing or eliminating synthetic nitrogen fertilisers, have not been implemented at scale. Now there’s a renewed focus on gene technologies, which are attractive to corporates and researchers because they can be patented and commercialised.

But GE has not yet lived up to the hope or the hype. The $25 million dollar New Zealand GE ryegrass trials have not yet yielded more dry matter than traditionally bred rye grasses. These would be grown in monocultures, or with only one or two other species, which is not good for long term soil health.

“It’s already been demonstrated that diverse, mixed species pastures reduce ruminant methane emissions, and are more resilient to climate extremes,” says Jenny Lux.  “Organic regenerative farming methods are free for all farmers to adopt, and unsurprisingly, they’re not under any patents.”

Soil & Health urges all NZ political parties not to loosen regulations on GE in NZ, and instead to direct attention and funding towards expanding organic farming here. Organic regenerative farming sequesters more carbon in the soil, and uses fewer costly inputs, empowering farmers. “We need research centres dedicated to organic, regenerative agriculture and farmer extension programmes to build that knowledge in rural communities,” says Jenny Lux.

Soil & Health joins call for immediate action on farming emissions

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association is joining other environmental groups calling for immediate action to tackle farming emissions. 

Consultation on the government’s draft Emissions Reduction Plan closes today and environmental groups are united in calling for stronger action.

“It’s unacceptable that agriculture, our largest emitting sector, is the least developed and most poorly explained aspect of the Emissions Reduction Plan,” says Jenny Lux, organic farmer and deputy chair of the Soil & Health Association. 

“Too much emphasis is put on finding new technologies. Let’s use the tools we already have. More can be done, and sooner, by supporting a faster transition to regenerative organic farming.

“The Emissions Reduction Plan needs to identify a pathway to transform agriculture, with clear direction and support for immediately available solutions like organics.

“Pricing farm emissions is the key government policy right now, and for this reason agriculture must enter the Emissions Trading Scheme from 2022.

“Limits on synthetic nitrogen and imported feed are also needed as signals that we need to change our farming systems.

“Ultimately the New Zealand Government must adopt a target for increasing regenerative organic production. 

“Organics have global recognition as a low-emission and environmentally friendly farming system. International markets are moving quickly to increase organic production to reduce emissions and because global consumers are voting with their wallets.”

Our submission on the Emissions Reduction Plan is available to read here:
https://soilandhealth.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Emissions-Reduction-Plan-submission-Soil-and-Health-November-2021.pdf

Bayer Fails to Overturn European Ban on Bee-Harming Pesticides

/in , , ,

The European Union’s highest court has rejected Bayer’s bid to overturn a European law which heavily restricted the use of bee-harming pesticides. In 2013 the European Union banned neonicotinoid, or ‘neonic’ use on bee-attractive crops. In 2018 the ban was extended to use on all outdoor crops, including annual arable crops, cereals and horticultural crops.

The General Court decision, released Thursday, is welcomed by the Soil & Health Association. This decision follows a prior bid by Bayer and Syngenta which had also failed to overturn the law.

The regulation relates to the ‘neonic’ insecticides clothianidin, thiamethoxam or imidacloprid; and applies to foliar sprays, soil treatments or seed treatments traditionally used in the growing period following winter.

Bayer’s appeal primarily argued that the European Union had not applied the precautionary principle properly and should have instead, engaged in a comprehensive risk assessment.

The precautionary principle is used when science has identified that an activity produces potentially dangerous effects, but where uncertainty remains about the extent of the risk.

The General Court of the European Union rejected Bayer’s argument, stating that an ‘exhaustive risk assessment cannot be required in a situation where the precautionary principle is applied, which equates to a situation in which there is scientific uncertainty’.

The Soil and Health spokesperson for pesticides, Jodie Bruning stated ‘This is an important finding. When we have technologies such as pesticides, interacting with environmental or human health, the decisions we take must very often be precautionary. Harm that results in death, or the dying out of a species often occurs as a result of multiple indirect effects. For honeybees, pesticides and environmental stressors interact. Over time this harm adds up to reduce resilience, causing honeybee deaths. 

‘The precautionary principle is important, because there is very rarely a single ‘smoking gun’ which can be traced and then blamed, for bee die-offs or colony collapse. We know that these insecticides last a long time in soil and water. We know they harm baby bee development, and impair flight as well as navigation. We can see that neonics reduce the capacity for bees to protect themselves from pathogenic viruses and the varroa mite.’

‘Recent testing shows we have concerningly high levels of neonics in New Zealand soils. We don’t have scientists paid long-term to research the health effects of neonics, so we don’t have scientists who can inform policy. Our farmers are buying unlabelled seeds, even for flowering clover. Farmers and orchardists do not know that the treatments they use are banned for outdoor use in the European Union.’

‘Because our scientists lack a mandate to research both human and environmental health effects, and the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority relies on industry data to make safety claims, we have no authoritative expertise here. We are completely out of touch with best European practice.’

‘While the precautionary principle is only weakly applied in New Zealand, yet it has become a very important tool used by the European Union to protect environmental and human health.’

Concerns remain on improved Organic Products Bill 

/in , , ,

Concerns for the future of New Zealand’s domestic organic industry have dampened enthusiasm for the Organic Products Bill which returned from Select Committee with some significant and useful changes, says the Soil & Health Association.

“We represent the thousands of people buying, growing and selling organic products,” says Soil & Health’s general manager Pete Huggins.

“This bill will be a huge step forward for organics in New Zealand and it’s vital we get it right. Consumers, producers and retailers all want a robust system of organic verification that drives confidence and growth in organics.

“We don’t think the verification regime being imposed by MPI is the correct one. This was not the scheme we were consulted on and isn’t our preferred option. It poses risks around cost increases that the domestic industry will struggle to bear. We think MPI have misunderstood what is required here, and are failing to listen to feedback.

“We know the whole organic sector is committed to working with the government to make this Bill the best it can be. At the moment our main concern is to nurture and enhance the domestic industry under this new regime. It would be a tragedy if the incoming regulation hampered efforts to grow food more sustainably.

“Organics is booming internationally, and our export sector should thrive under this new system. But we need to see assurances that the domestic industry will be supported and not undermined through increased cost and bureaucracy.

“The Select Commitee has already improved the bill significantly and we look forward to engaging with the government further.”

Climate advice means government should support transition to organic, regenerative farming

/in , , , ,

Today’s Climate Commission advice shows we need a transition from synthetic fertilisers and other harmful practices towards organic and regenerative agriculture, said Soil & Health Association spokesperson Jenny Lux today.

“Organic regenerative farming is a huge opportunity for New Zealand, both economically and environmentally. Early movers have shown that we can make that shift rapidly. With government help the transition to producing high quality, high value food within planetary limits is achievable for most NZ farms.

“We’d like to see funding and other support for farmers to start shifting to lower emissions agriculture now.

“The Climate Commission says we can tackle agricultural emissions with the technology we already have. This includes organic and regenerative practices like phasing out synthetic fertilisers, reducing tillage, and intensifying cover cropping to build soil health and promote biodiversity.

“Healthy agricultural soils sequester carbon. The government could drive this change with a policy to support farmers with technical knowledge and the costs of transition.

“Money in this year’s budget would be good.”

Green Party organics policy adds vital ingredient to national debate on the environment

/in , , , ,

“It’s encouraging to see the Green Party reinforce their commitment to organic agriculture from their position in government,” says Jenny Lux, spokesperson for the Soil & Health Association, New Zealand’s largest organic membership organisation.

“We’d like to see all political parties exploring the opportunities regenerative organic agriculture offers in terms of environmental protection, healthy food, and resilient communities.

“We think the Green Party’s policy of creating a New Zealand sustainable food certification could finally help us meet our ‘100% Pure’ aspiration as a nation.

“However, a national accreditation would only work if it was based on measuring outcomes and met the standards for regenerative organic agriculture already recognised worldwide

“We also welcome the policy of capital investment and other support for growers wanting to transition to regenerative organic. The setup costs are often a major barrier to changing farming systems.

“Organics already earns export dollars at the same time as contributing to our Zero Carbon Act goals. Providing government funding for the organic industry and boosting funding for organic research and development is key to the future of this booming sector.

“At a time when people – consumers and growers alike – are increasingly concerned about health and environmental protection, it makes sense to be investing this way.”