Soil & Health submission on the Gene Technology Bill

/in , ,

17 February 2025

To the Health Select Committee, New Zealand Parliament

Recommendations

  • The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand opposes the Gene Technology Bill in its entirety. 
  • We recommend the Bill be withdrawn.
  • HEARING: We wish to be heard

Introduction: Who we are

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand is an incorporated society and not-for-profit registered charity founded in 1941, and is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world. We champion society’s collective responsibility to protect the health of our soils for future generations. We do this to promote the development of the best physical health and spiritual well-being of all people.

Our motto is ‘Oranga nuku – oranga kai – oranga tāngata / Healthy soil – healthy food – healthy people’.

We advocate for organic and regenerative production that works with nature and avoids synthetic fertilisers and pesticides. We’re the largest flaxroots membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in Aotearoa New Zealand. Soil & Health is also the owner of BioGro NZ Ltd, the largest organic certification agency in New Zealand.

We represent approximately 17,000 members and supporters around Aotearoa New Zealand, including consumers, home gardeners, farmers, business people, chefs, scientists and more. Soil & Health provides education and information on the benefits of organic growing, healthy eating and healthy lifestyles for Aotearoa New Zealand and the world.

Our members and supporters value food and lifestyles that enhance the environment and nourish people and animals. Organic and regenerative farming offer solutions to the threats we are facing today: climate change, soil and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, topsoil loss, degrading health and fertility both for people and nature.1

The Soil & Health Association (hereafter Soil & Health, or the Association) welcomes the opportunity to submit on this Bill.

Definitions  

We recognise that gene technology encompasses a range of technologies. What we are most concerned about is keeping robust and precautionary regulation for genetic engineering.  

Genetic engineering (GE): in our submission we use this term for all types of genetic engineering, including gene editing techniques (like CRISPR-Cas9), synthetic biology, anything with “novel” DNA and “new breeding techniques”, recombinant DNA techniques and RNAi (“gene silencing”). 

What the Bill calls genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are therefore included in the above definition. 

Submission

Summary and Overview

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand opposes the Bill in its entirety and asks for it to be immediately withdrawn. 

Our members and supporters are extremely concerned about the Bill, which represents unprecedented deregulation of the use and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Aotearoa New Zealand.

This Bill, if enacted, would mean that New Zealand would have one of the weakest regulatory regimes for GE in the world, leaving us open to being a global outlier and guinea pig. The Bill lacks the rigour, checks, balances and liability provisions that would safeguard people and the environment.

We are highly concerned about the short timeframe allowed for the drafting of the legislation and for public consultation. If the Bill is not withdrawn, we submit that at least six more months be given for adequate public consultation. 

Gene technology is a huge topic with ramifications for food, agriculture, tikanga Māori, te Tiriti o Waitangi, biodiversity, conservation, economics, trade, health and medicines, science and research, animal welfare, ethics and more. New Zealanders deserve a fair, transparent and thorough process, which the Bill and its development fails to offer.

The Regulatory Impact Statement, compiled by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, acknowledges the gaps in the RIS, including the uncertainty of benefits. It fails to adequately explore the risks, the economic impacts, and the opportunity costs. 

The provisions in the Bill leave New Zealanders and our environment wide open to risk; and the Bill only covers “regulated organisms” – omitting those genetically engineered organisms that the Regulator (a single person) can deem to be safe and therefore not covered by regulation at all. 

The lack of safeguards in the Bill pose a threat to home gardening, farming, forestry and all forms of primary production. The removal of the precautionary principle means farmers and any other primary producers risk increased costs, unwanted GE contamination, devaluation of their products and organic certification loss.

The Bill disregards consumer choice; it would take away our right to know what we are eating, how it’s produced, and the right to choose GE-free foods, seeds and other products.

The Bill is a direct breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and marginalises the interests and concerns of Māori. There has been inadequate consultation with Māori. Genetic engineering goes against spiritual beliefs, whakapapa, mana, mauri, wairua and tino rangatiratanga. 

We cannot afford the potential for risks to our unique and fragile indigenous ecosystems. Why spend millions each year on pest control, biosecurity research and infrastructure if we allow GMOs with unknown risks to spread throughout the entire country?

New Zealand’s fortunate GE-free status is the envy of other countries and gives us great economic advantages on the world market. If the Bill proceeds, markets could be lost and farmers and food producers could lose millions of dollars in export income.

While the Bill does not mention climate change, proponents of GE claim that GMOs could help reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions – this was referred to in the Regulatory Impact Statement compiled by the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. However this kind of “quick fix” is primarily promoted by vested interests, and based on a reductionist, rather than holistic and interconnected, world view. 

Such an approach also comes with a huge opportunity cost – it takes investment and focus away from regenerative, organic agriculture and research, which provide long-term, sustainable, nature-based environmental and climate mitigation solutions for future generations. 

We must keep striving for a real “clean and green” Aotearoa New Zealand, for the benefit of all. We cannot allow companies and institutions to release GE products with little or no regulatory oversight, while the liability for, and impacts of, any adverse effects would fall to GE-free producers, the public and the wider environment.

Specific Points

Regulation of Risk and the Precautionary Principle

The Gene Technology Bill’s stated purpose is “to enable the safe use of gene technologies and regulated organisms by managing their risks to—

  1. the health and safety of people; and
  2. the environment.”
  • This wording is not strong enough for robust regulation, and weakens the protections we currently have. 
  • Soil & Health advocates for the retention of our existing robust and precautionary legislation (the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act – HSNO Act), which has served us well and protected us against adverse effects of GMOs that have been experienced overseas.
  • The HSNO Act states its purpose to be: “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.” 
  • This wording acknowledges there are or can be adverse effects, and preventing them – not only managing them – is the purpose of the legislation. Soil & Health wishes first and foremost to prevent adverse effects of GMOs. 
  • The current Bill has no mention of the precautionary principle, while the HSNO Act states “the need for caution in managing adverse effects where there is scientific and technical uncertainty about those effects.” 
  • While scientific knowledge is increasing, there continues to be much uncertainty about the effects of GE, so it’s vital to keep the precautionary principle. 
  • One of the objectives of the Bill is to create “risk-proportionate regulation”. However it fails in this purpose. 
  • The four risk tiers include exempt activities: “minimal-risk products of gene editing, for example, products of editing techniques that result in organisms that cannot be distinguished from those produced by conventional processes”. 
  • Given the lack of long-term use of gene editing globally, especially outside the laboratory, Soil & Health contends we need a robust and precautionary approach. ALL GMOs must be regulated, with NO exemptions, as per the HSNO Act.  

Removal of Choice for Consumers

  • The Bill takes away choice from consumers about the food we eat and grow, and the products we buy. 
  • Our members and supporters, and the wider public, want to know not just what is in our food (and other products), but also how it is produced. We want food that is natural and unadulterated, ethically produced, free from harmful chemicals and toxins, free from GMOs, and produced in ways that enhance our soils, environments and communities. 
  • We want to know how products are produced – for example whether child labour is involved, or GE or herbicides. This is because we are concerned not solely with our own and family health, but also with the health of the wider environment and of the people who produce our food. 
  • We want transparency, traceability and labelling on food and all other consumer products. Regulation must ensure that any products using GE at any stage of production are clearly labelled as such, to allow for consumer choice and transparency. 
  • Therefore, regulation of GMOs must be both process-based and product-based (not either/or). 
  • At present, many products carry either an organic certification label, and/or a GE-free or non-GMO label. Woolworths and Foodstuffs supermarket chains both have non-GMO brand policies. 
  • However this Bill would put this kind of labelling at risk, and consumers would be left in the dark. 
  • It would also probably make organic and non-GMO products more expensive for the consumer as it would be more onerous for producers to ensure their production is GE-free.  
  • GE products are NOT the same as natural products and therefore must not be allowed to be exempt from regulation. Unintended changes in gene edited organisms occur, and are different from random mutations in nature.2 
  • The Bill allows one person – the Regulator – to decide whether a GE process or product is to be regulated or not. If not regulated, GMOs would be invisible and could enter our food chain and environment with no safety assessment, no public notification, no labelling, no traceability, and not be subject to any controls or monitoring. 
  • This creates unacceptable levels of risk and lack of choice. 
  • Lack of adequate labelling poses a health risk, as allergens and toxins can be produced as a result of gene technologies.
  • Even though humans have been eating GE ingredients for some years, we don’t know enough yet about the effects of GE foods on the human body, or on epigenetic effects, as there has been very little research on this. GE foods and ingredients may contain combinations and components never seen before by our gut bacteria and other bodily systems.  
  • We are concerned not just about the potential for adverse effects directly as a result of genetic engineering, but also any adverse effects of other technologies used in combination with GMOs. This includes herbicide residues in herbicide-resistant crops. 
  • Other emerging technologies – such as synthetic biology, generative artificial intelligence (AI), and nanotechnology – are beginning to be used in combination with GE. An example is the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the creation of GE plants.3 
  • Given the known and unknown risks of GE and AI, and the increasing ease and speed of developing gene-edited products, such combinations of risky technologies must be strictly regulated. 
  • Therefore the precautionary principle needs to be retained in our legislation of GE.

Risks for Farming, Forestry and Other Primary Production

  • The Bill gives the Regulator the ability to allow some gene technologies to go completely unregulated. This means some GMOs could be released into the outdoor environment, and/or into agricultural and veterinary inputs, with no controls or monitoring. This puts at risk all forms of primary production in Aotearoa New Zealand.
  • Farmers, growers, beekeepers, foresters, aquaculture operators and other primary producers would risk losing markets, organic or non-GMO certification if they have it, income and time, and potentially face legal costs, as has happened already in a number of other countries.4 
  • In particular the Bill puts at risk primary producers who want to remain GE-free, including organic production. GE agriculture is completely incompatible with organic and regenerative agriculture. Organic standards around the world specify that GE techniques and organisms are not to be used in certified organic systems. 
  • Co-existence of GE and non-GE crops is virtually impossible due to the many vectors of DNA. In the case of plants for example GE contamination can be spread by pollen, and by seed spread via wind, water, animals, human activity. 
  • GE ryegrass for example, if introduced, would inevitably spread across boundaries and contaminate farms, gardens and natural ecosystems, with unknown effects. In the USA, GE bentgrass spread from supposedly controlled plots.5
  • Farmers across the board are concerned about contamination because of potential impacts on productivity, market resistance, livelihood and ecological concerns, and want strong legislation to prevent GE contamination. 
  • Forestry must not be put at risk by any form of GE. Both main sustainable forestry certification schemes in New Zealand – Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forestry Certification (PEFC) maintain GE-free policies for all forests certified to their standards.

GE is Not a Solution to Climate Change and Pollution

  • A permissive GE regime is not a coherent response to the interconnected issues of climate change, loss of biodiversity, global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, topsoil loss and nitrate leaching from farming into waterways. 
  • New Zealand is in a prime position to implement coherent climate, environmental and agriculture policies. A huge part of that advantage is this country’s existing robust and precautionary policy on GMOs. 
  • GE ryegrass and clover have been mooted as part of the solution to reducing New Zealand’s methane emissions from ruminant animals. However this is far from proven, they may have adverse effects, and are not part of the holistic approach that is needed.
  • Many GE crops are designed to be used with harmful herbicides which are contributing to environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and herbicide resistance. 
  • Farmers and the New Zealand public need time to assess the risks and benefits of continuing research into GE, who would benefit from it, and how it compares with other strategies to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Tikanga Māori

  • Soil & Health is a Treaty partner with Te Waka Kai Ora,6 the Kaitiaki of the Hua Parakore verification system, the world’s first indigenous verification system for food and primary products.7 
  • Te Waka Kai Ora has expressed complete opposition to the Bill for several reasons. We fully support their submission. 
  • The Crown has not engaged with Māori adequately or sufficiently in the development of the Bill. Māori are rights holders, not stakeholders, and should be treated as such. This is stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples.
  • The Bill gives the Regulator the power to exempt specific gene technologies from regulation, allowing Aotearoa New Zealand to be subject to assessments made by overseas regulators. 
  • This constitutes a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as it grants sovereignty to external entities, rather than to iwi and hapū, who never ceded sovereignty over their lands. Article 2 of Te Tiriti recognises Māori rangatiratanga over their lands and taonga.
  • The Bill has the potential to devastate the Hua Parakore verification system, which is recognised globally for its holistic approach to food and primary products. This system is grounded in Te Ao Māori, derived from the wisdom of Māori tūpuna (ancestors) and supported by both tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti, who are seeking indigenous growing kaupapa led by indigenous knowledge reclamation. Hua Parakore offers pure products based on integrity and whakapapa. However, the introduction of gene technology, particularly in outdoor applications, risks compromising traceability within this verification system.
  • One of the Bill’s stated objectives is “to provide for ways to recognise and give effect to the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi”. There is already one claim before the Waitangi Tribunal that involves genetic engineering, namely Claim WAI262.8 Until this claim is settled to the satisfaction of Māori, no changes to legislation involving GE should proceed. 
  • Furthermore, the Bill provides for the establishment of a Māori Advisory Committee, while ensuring that the power of this Committee remains weak. The Bill states only that the Regulator should “have regard to advice” from the Committee, which will have no decision-making authority, nor the power of veto.
  • The Bill marginalises Māori as it does the public and wider community. It limits the scope of the Māori Advisory Committee to gene technology issues involving indigenous species or “material adverse effects on kaitiaki relationships”. Therefore the Bill does not take into account whakapapa and a range of cultural and ethical considerations, including mana, mauri, whakapapa and wairua, while also recognising that Māori concerns extend beyond indigenous species.

Risk to Ecosystems, in Particular Native Ecosystems

  • Aotearoa New Zealand has a unique environment with 80% of its native species being endemic. 
  • Many native species are already threatened, endangered, or at risk of extinction. Because we don’t know the impacts of GMOs within ecosystems, introducing GE could put native species even more at risk. 
  • GE plants – and the pesticides frequently used with them as part of the package – are a risk to bees and other pollinators. The flow-on multiplier effect within ecosystems is potentially enormous.
  • While GE has been posited as a solution for pest control, there are risks and we may end up creating more problems.
  • Scientists estimate that so far they have only identified a small proportion of the microorganisms in the soil,9 and there are many other species that are yet to be discovered and identified, such as invertebrates and marine organisms. We simply do not know enough about the complex interactions in ecosystems to risk releasing GMOs into the environment. 
  • Once GMOs are released into the environment, there is no turning back. We can’t contain or recall the crops, animals, fish, insects or microorganisms.
  • Examples of unwanted GMO escapes include fluorescent zebrafish (“Glofish”) which are now wild in Brazilian rivers, and reproducing rapidly. Researchers are concerned about adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems and endemic species.10 
  • The approval of GE salmon in North America was challenged in a federal court in California by Earthjustice and other claimants. GE fish could breed with, or outcompete, their wild counterparts.11 
  • Monarch butterfly numbers in the USA have plummeted over the past couple of decades, and GE crops have been cited as part of this decline. GE maize pollen has been found to harm monarch larvae,12 and other researchers have pointed to glyphosate-resistant GE crops as being a major factor in monarch butterfly decline.13

Economic and Financial Impacts, and Opportunity Costs

  • The regulatory impact statement compiled by MBIE focuses strongly on the potential economic benefits of loosening the regulation of GE. However, it includes no assessment of economic losses resulting from this legislation, nor the opportunity costs. 
  • The RIS simply says there would be “Unquantified costs to organic/non-GMO primary producers.”
  • The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has produced a report detailing the economic risks of this legislation, and has estimated that “environmental release of GMOs in New Zealand could reduce exports from the primary sector by up to $10 billion to $20 billion annually”.14 
  • There are cases where countries have rejected crops and products contaminated by GMOs.15 This would be a significant risk for our export sector. Once GMOs are released in our environment, there is no turning back. Contamination will be inevitable. 
  • New Zealand has enjoyed an image of being clean and green, which has attracted tourists and our overseas export markets. This Bill risks damaging this image, our export and tourism sectors, and our economy. 
  • Organic exports would be particularly at risk because organic standards, driven by consumer demand, allow no GE use. According to the Organic Exporters Association of New Zealand, “in 2022–2023, New Zealand’s organic exports were valued at over $560 million, with $164 million exported with official MPI assurance. The remaining value was exported to markets without organic bilateral arrangements.”16 
  • The European Green Deal17 offers an enormous opportunity for New Zealand to build its GE-free and organic export production. Allowing the introduction of GMOs would take that incredible opportunity away from us. 
  • Opportunity costs would include missed opportunities to focus on research and investment into organic and regenerative farming systems that would mitigate climate, enhance soils, waterways, animal and human health, seeking to understand and work with nature, rather than trying to manipulate it. 
  • An example of this non-GE research and development is a lower methane-emitting sheep developed through selective breeding by AgResearch.18 New Zealand is a world leader in plant and animal breeding that doesn’t use GE, and this is what we need to build on. 
  • The benefits to a few corporations that develop and sell GE technologies must not come before people’s health, farmers’ ability to carry on biological, regenerative, GMO-free and organic farming, our unique environment and our chance to genuinely live up to our clean and green reputation in the global market.

Spiritual, Philosophical and Ethical Considerations

  • Many of our members and supporters feel an intuitive discomfort and a deep spiritual dis-ease about genetic engineering. Many people feel we shouldn’t be engaging in the types of technology that seek to ‘play God’ and change the building blocks of life. 
  • Animal welfare is a high priority for our members, who are concerned about the ethics of GE animal experiments. 
  • We oppose the use of animals as “bioreactors” to produce therapeutic substances. GE experimentation on animals here in New Zealand for such purposes has produced no medical benefit and has resulted in much suffering. A report by GE Free NZ, drawing from AgResearch annual reports, catalogues the deaths, deformities, abortions, sterility and numerous other health problems that the GE research animals have been subjected to.19 
  • We are also opposed to the patenting of all life forms. 
  • This bill would allow international corporations and a small number of shareholders to control and own life in New Zealand. This will never benefit New Zealand and New Zealanders in a long-term and meaningful way.

Liability

  • The Resource Management Act provides the ability for territorial authorities to make provision for liability, including the ability to require a bond from users of GE in the event of any adverse effects. We support this as it provides some financial protection for councils and communities.
  • The Gene Technology Bill however contains no provisions for liability of the users of gene technologies should anything go wrong. The users of any gene technologies must be held legally and financially liable for any adverse effects of their processes, activities and products – including any waste products. 
  • If anyone has gone through a strict assessment process to use GE in the outdoor environment, they must be required to have commercial insurance in case of adverse effects. The Bill fails to require this. 
  • Previous outdoor GE trials in New Zealand have breached their conditions – all users of GE must be legally and financially liable for any breaches and escapes. The Bill fails to ensure this.

Local Democracy

  • All councils from Auckland to Northland, and Hastings District Council, currently have precautionary, protective and/or prohibitive policies and plans.
  • This has been at the behest of their communities, who want an extra level of protection from any adverse effects of GE in the outdoor environment, and/or to enable regions to promote their region and their products as GE-free. 
  • Soil & Health has supported councils in the Environment Court, which confirmed this right under the Resource Management Act to choose GE policies at city, district and regional levels. 
  • The Bill however expressly removes the right and ability of territorial authorities to determine their own GE policies and plans, as they currently enjoy. 
  • We oppose the specific removal of this right, because it is undemocratic, and a heavy-handed overreach of central government into the realm of local government decision-making.

GE in Health and Medicine

  • The precautionary principle must apply to all gene technologies including those for medical purposes. 
  • Any uses of any gene technology for human health must be fully transparent and only used with genuine informed consent. Therefore we oppose the emergency authorisation of medical products using gene technology. 
  • Soil & Health opposes the Bill’s proposed mandatory medical approval of human medicines that have been approved by at least two overseas regulators. This could result in the forced use of a product with insufficient oversight, disregarding specific circumstances in Aotearoa New Zealand, including Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori. It fails to ensure informed consent, and could undermine protections outlined in the Bill of Rights. It fails to address the risk of regulatory capture by pro-GE interests in overseas jurisdictions.
  • We oppose the use of animals as “bioreactors” to produce therapeutic substances, given the unnecessary harm, suffering and failures that have resulted from experiments using animals.

In summary

In summary, the Soil & Health Association rejects the Gene Technology Bill, and supports retaining the precautionary and protective GE legislation of the HSNO Act.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit on this critical issue and are available for further discussion or to provide additional information as needed.

References

  1. https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/ and https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renewable-agriculture-and-food-systems/article/organic-agriculture-and-climate-change/74A590FA3F35A79A858336CF341F416C ↩︎
  2. Lazar, NH et al. 2024. High-resolution genome-wide mapping of chromosome-arm-scale truncations induced by CRISPR–Cas9 editing Nature Genetics 56, 1482–1493, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-024-01758-y and brief analysis by Test Biotech here: https://www.testbiotech.org/en/unkategorisiert/crispr-the-unintended-genetic-changes-caused-by-gene-scissors-are-different-to-random-mutations/ ↩︎
  3. Save Our Seeds. 2025. When chatbots breed new plant varieties. http://upd-sos.zs-intern.de/fileadmin/files/SOS/ai/SOS_When_chatbots_breed_new_plant_varieties.pdf ↩︎
  4. For example Western Australian organic canola farmer Steve Marsh lost organic certification and income, and faces over A$800,000 in legal costs. https://www.ecowatch.com/organic-farmer-dealt-final-blow-in-landmark-lawsuit-over-monsantos-gmo-1882173163.html ↩︎
  5. Center for Biological Diversity. 2016. “Commercial Approval of Engineered Bentgrass Given Despite Failed Efforts to Stop Its Spread From Old Experiment Plots” https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2016/bentgrass-12-07-2016.html ↩︎
  6. Te Waka Kai Ora, the National Māori Organics Authority, https://www.tewakakaiora.co.nz/ ↩︎
  7. Hua Parakore verification system, https://www.tewakakaiora.co.nz/whatishuaparakore ↩︎
  8. Wai 262 Taumata Whakapūmau – claimants and their descendents, Waitangi Tribunal claim 262, https://www.wai262.nz/ ↩︎
  9. Fierer, N. 2017. Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 15 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro.2017.87 ↩︎
  10. Canadian Biotechnology Action Network briefing. 2022. 
    https://cban.ca/wp-content/uploads/GM-Contamination-Animals-Feb-2022-Update.pdf ↩︎
  11. Earthjustice media release. 5 November 2020. Federal Court Declares Genetically Engineered Salmon Unlawful. https://earthjustice.org/press/2020/federal-court-declares-genetically-engineered-salmon-unlawful ↩︎
  12. Losey, JE et al. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399
    https://www.nature.com/articles/20338 ↩︎
  13. Pleasants, J. 2017. Milkweed restoration in the Midwest for monarch butterfly recovery. Insect Conservation and Diversity 10(1)
    https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/icad.12198 and Flockhart DTT et al. 2015. Unravelling the annual cycle in a migratory animal: breeding-season habitat loss drives population declines of monarch butterflies. Journal of Animal Ecology 84(1) https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2656.12253 ↩︎
  14. New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. 2024. Potential costs of regulatory changes for gene technology: Economic assessments of an MBIE proposal. https://drive.google.com/file/d/17fC5qTDVscJBfuKGIG1oopjnXI0oib1b/view  ↩︎
  15. EU detects GM rice in Pakistan’s basmati consignment. 7 August 2024. The Hindu. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-business/eu-detects-gm-rice-in-pakistans-basmati-consignment/article68497159.ece ↩︎
  16. Organic Exporters Association of New Zealand, retrieved from their website 16.2.2025 : https://www.organictradenz.com/who-we-are ↩︎
  17. European Commission. Retrieved from their website 16.2.2025 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en  ↩︎
  18. Low methane sheep: Breeding for the future. AgResearch website, retrieved 17.2.2025. https://www.agresearch.co.nz/our-research/low-methane-sheep/ ↩︎
  19. Claire Bleakley. 2015. GE Animals in New Zealand: The First Fifteen Years. GE Free New Zealand (in food and environment) https://www.gefree.org.nz/assets/pdf/GE-Animals-in-New-Zealand.pdf ↩︎
Soil & Health Association of New Zealand round logo

Soil & Health submission on the EPA’s chlorpyrifos reassessment – proposed ban

/in , ,

12 February 2025

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, representing a diverse community of organic producers, consumers, and advocates, submits this response to the proposed reassessment of chlorpyrifos under the current Evironmental Protection Authority review.

Our association is committed to advocating for the production and consumption of organic food under the motto ‘Healthy soil – healthy food – healthy people: Oranga nuku – oranga kai – oranga tāngata.’ It is from this foundation that we express our concerns regarding the continued use of chlorpyrifos in agricultural practices in New Zealand.

Recommendation

Soil & Health fully supports the EPA’s proposal to ban the use of chlorpyrifos by revoking its approvals.

Reasons  

1. Environmental and Health Risks

Chlorpyrifos is widely documented as a persistent environmental pollutant with significant detrimental effects on wildlife and human health. Its persistence in ecosystems and its ability to degrade slowly in environmental conditions pose a long-term risk to ecological health and biodiversity. 

Notably, chlorpyrifos has been linked to developmental delays and other health risks in humans, which is particularly concerning for communities in agricultural areas and for consumers globally. Babies in the womb and young children are at greater risk of neurological damage and developmental disorders, even when exposed to very low levels of chlorpyrifos. 

2. Global Regulatory Actions

We note that several international jurisdictions, including the European Union and Canada, have moved towards severe restrictions or outright bans of chlorpyrifos, reflecting growing scientific consensus and public health policy shifts towards more sustainable and safe agricultural practices. This global trend underscores the need for New Zealand to consider similar actions to align with international health and safety standards.

3. Incompatibility with Organic Standards

Chlorpyrifos use is incompatible with organic farming principles, which focus on maintaining ecological balance and avoiding synthetic toxins in agriculture. Continuing its use undermines the integrity of New Zealand’s organic sector and the trust of domestic and international consumers in New Zealand’s organic produce.

4. Advocacy for an Outright Ban

Given the substantial evidence of chlorpyrifos’ adverse impacts, and in support of a precautionary approach to pesticide regulation, Soil & Health advocates for an outright ban on the use of chlorpyrifos in New Zealand. We recommend that the EPA facilitate a transition to safer, sustainable, and equally effective alternatives that are available and increasingly being adopted worldwide.

5. Support for Affected Farmers

We propose that the EPA and relevant agricultural bodies work together to support farmers who may be affected by such a ban, including providing access to training in alternative pest control methods and financial support and/or peer support network facilitation during the transition period.

In conclusion

Soil & Health wishes to reiterate the importance of a proactive regulatory approach that prioritizes public and environmental health. We believe that banning chlorpyrifos will represent a significant step forward in protecting our environment, health, and the integrity of our agricultural sector.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit on this critical issue and are available for further discussion or to provide additional information as needed.

Warm regards,

Charles Hyland

Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand

References

Re-evaluation Note REV2021-04, Cancellation of remaining chlorpyrifos registrations under paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Pest Control Products Act. Health Canada. (2021). Retrieved from Health Canada website: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/decisions-updates/reevaluation-note/2021/cancellation-remaining-chlorpyrifos-registrations.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2020). Revised human health risk assessment on chlorpyrifos. Retrieved from EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/chlorpyrifos

White, Alison (2024). Neurotoxic Pesticide in our Food. Retrieved from Organic NZ magazine: https://organicnz.org.nz/magazine-articles/neurotoxic-pesticide-in-our-food/

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2019). Statement on the available outcomes of the human health assessment in the context of the pesticides peer review of the active substance chlorpyrifos. Retrieved from EFSA website: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5809

Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. (2022). Children at risk from toxic pesticide: New Zealand should urgently reassess chlorpyrifos. Retrieved from https://panap.net/2022/06/children-at-risk-from-toxic-pesticide-new-zealand-should-urgently-reassess-chlorpyrifos/

Gene Bill would let the genie out of the bottle

/in , , ,

MEDIA RELEASE

17 December 2024

Aotearoa New Zealand –  Genetically engineered organisms of all kinds must be prevented from being let loose in the environment with no controls, monitoring or public knowledge, says the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

The Gene Technology Bill, which is scheduled to have its first reading in Parliament today, would rule a lot of genetic engineering techniques out of scope of regulation. This would mean many GE plants, seeds, microorganisms and animals could be released without any oversight.

“Changing the legal definition of GE doesn’t make these techniques any safer,” said Charles Hyland, chair of the Soil & Health Association. “Gene editing, rather than being precise, has been shown to result in numerous unexpected changes to DNA.”

“Therefore we need a precautionary approach to gene technologies in the outdoor environment, in our food, and for those technologies that involve heritable traits in any species.”

The Bill could mean that GE ryegrass or clover seed, for example, could be sold and sown without the knowledge of farmers, gardeners and their neighbours. It would be almost impossible to prevent the spread of GE plants, which can be spread via wind, insects and other vectors.

“We don’t need GE in food or farming – we already have nature-based solutions to our problems,” said Philippa Jamieson, Organic NZ editor.

“Organic regenerative farming and growing practices result in lower greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner waterways, reduced soil erosion, increased biodiversity and more resilient ecosystems – there’s no need to risk using GE,” she said.

“Our genetic engineering regulations are robust, protective, and must not be loosened.”

ENDS


Contact:

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

UPDATE: The Health Select Committee is receiving submissions on this Bill. They are due by 17 FEBRUARY 2025.

GE free

GE potatoes set to sneak into our food

/in , , , ,

The Soil & Health Association has serious concerns about another GE food line being approved in New Zealand – this time for six food lines derived from potatoes.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), the organisation that controls food approvals for New Zealand and Australia, is calling for submissions on an application to permit GE potatoes for human consumption. The potatoes have been genetically engineered to reduce bruising, to reduce acrylamide formed during cooking, and to protect the potatoes from a type of blight.

Soil & Health is concerned about the growing number of genetically engineered foods approved for sale in New Zealand and the long-term and cumulative health effects of consuming them. While New Zealand does not grow any GE crops or animals, there are many imported GE ingredients in food for sale here.

“Since 2000 FSANZ has approved every single application for GE food lines, and there are now a staggering 71 different GE food lines approved for sale in New Zealand,” says Soil & Health chair Marion Thomson.

“An estimated 70% or more of processed non-organic foods for sale in New Zealand contain genetically engineered ingredients, but consumers have no idea because our labelling laws mean that almost all GE ingredients don’t have to be listed on the packaging.”

“In addition to human food, New Zealand imports large quantities of animal feed that is almost certainly genetically engineered, but again, not labelled as such,” says Marion Thomson.

While a FSANZ safety assessment on the GE potato application has not identified any public health and safety issues, previous FSANZ assessments have been shown to be incomplete, with an absence of biological studies on the impacts of the foods when eaten. Further, assessments have largely been reliant on industry assurances of safety, with no independent science to back up industry assertions.

“One of the main concerns about eating GE foods is that many have been grown with dangerous levels of pesticides,” says Thomson. “Many GE crops are designed to be resistant to pesticides. These crops are designated ‘safe’ for human consumption by FSANZ and the Ministry for Primary Industries, despite not having undergone adequate safety tests independent of the companies developing them.”

The best way to avoid consuming GE foods is to grow, buy and eat certified organic food, says Soil & Health.

The GE potatoes application is open for public submission until 7 July 2017.

Food Sovereignty policy

GE-Free Zones partially protected in RMA amendments

/in ,

5th April 2017

The Soil & Health Association welcomes a change to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill regarding genetic engineering, but says it still does not go far enough.

Yesterday the controversial RLA Bill passed the committee stage, meaning that amendments can no longer be made to the Bill. The Bill is now expected to have its third and final reading on Thursday.

However the controversial section 360D – known as ‘the dictator’ clause – has not been removed from the final version of the RLA Bill. This clause allows the Minister for the Environment to bypass parliament and make fundamental changes to the law if he deems council plans duplicate or deal with the same subject matter as central Government laws. Instead section 360D now contains an exemption that prevents the minister from imposing GM crops on regions that want their territorites to remain GM Free.

“We are pleased that the Maori Party has stood strong on their promises not to support the changes that would have allowed the Minister to strike out GE-free zones. We commend the Maori Party for this,” says Soil & Health chair Marion Thomson.

While section 360D is still in the final version of the Bill, the exemption means that the Minister cannot strike out GE-free zones.

“The word ‘crop’ has a wide definition and we understand that the Maori Party secured the amendment on the basis that the term also covers grasses and forestry, while the term ‘growing’ could also cover field trials and releases,” says Thomson.

Of concern for Soil & Health however is that the exemption does not apply to animals, meaning the Minister could override local authorities on any decisions about GE animals if he chose to.

“We have been kept on the edge of our seats through this long process and have had to keep faith in the Maori Party that they would do the right thing and not support the amendments that would abolish GM-free zones,” says Thomson.

“Ultimately we are happy with this result, while animals are not covered, GM grasses, forestry, field trials and releases are.”

 

Contact:  Karen Summerhays
Spokesperson, Soil & Health Association
021 043 7858

GE Free Field NZ

Maori Party says no way to Nick Smith’s power grab

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association congratulates the Maori Party for standing up for New Zealanders who want to live in a GE-Free community and saying no to Nick Smith’s attempt to ride roughshod over local democracy.
“Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox has told the Environment Minister they will not support his attempts to regulate genetically modified crops nationally through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),” says Soil & Health Association spokesperson Karen Summerhays.
“This spells the end for Nick Smith’s attempts to control what is grown in New Zealander’s neighbourhoods and available at their local markets.
“Local Authorities won the right to regulate the planting of genetically modified crops in their territories after years of legal battles over whether they could introduce GMO-Free zones through district plan rules.
“By standing up to Nick Smith, the Maori Party has protected this hard-fought democratic right. The Government doesn’t have the numbers to make this change without their support.
“The Environment Minister insists that genetic modification should be regulated on a national level by the EPA under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, not under the Resource Management Act. Nick Smith’s view has now been found wrong by both the Environment Court and the High Court.
“Clause 360D of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – also known as the ‘dictator clause’ – would have allowed the Government to step in if it deemed council plans duplicated central Government laws.
“Soil & Health would like a sub clause introduced to the Bill prohibiting this power being used in relation to council plans which contain a GMO-free zone.
“Otherwise local food producers – and economies – face being hit in the pocket when they lose the lucrative advantage of being able to market their products “GE-Free” alongside those from the world’s premier GE-Free territories; Tuscany, Provence and Burgundy.
“It’s time for Nick Smith to concede defeat and acknowledge that communities should continue to decide whether GMO crops are grown in their districts,” Karen Summerhays says.

Contact – Soil & Health spokesperson Karen Summerhays on 021 043 7858
GE Free Field NZ

Court ruling highlights the dangers of RMA reforms

/in , , , ,

A new court ruling highlights how the Government’s RMA reforms will ride roughshod over public participation in resource management and the power of councils to regulate the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within their territories, says Soil & Health Association chair Marion Thomson.
On Friday the High Court rejected Federated Farmers’ bid to oppose court costs for its failed challenge to members of the public and councils that seek to manage the outdoor use of GMOs under RMA plans. Costs have now been awarded against Federated Farmers for a second time.
“Not only has Federated Farmers now been ordered to pay court costs of more than $10,000 to the Whangarei District Council and the Soil & Health Association, but the High Court found it was not acting in the public interest.
“In fact Justice Peters noted Federated Farmers ‘brought these proceedings because it was in its members’ interest to do so’.
“The National-led Government’s Resource Legislation Amendment Bill will jeopardise local authorities’ ability to manage GMO land use by giving the Environment Minister new powers to override council planning rules.
“These reforms threaten the economic sustainability of a wide range of agricultural export activities reliant on GMO-free status, and would override the ability of councils to respond to community concerns about the planting of GMO crops in their area.
“Friday’s ruling further entrenches the legal rights of councils and communities.
“Environment Minister Nick Smith believes genetic modification should be regulated on a national level by the Environmental Protection Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO), not under the Resource Management Act.
“He is no doubt under pressure from Federated Farmers who choose to ignore the fact that while HSNO controls the introduction of new organisms (including GMOs), it is the RMA which oversees the environment new organisms are introduced into.
“Nick Smith is being mischievous in suggesting the management of genetically modified organisms under the RMA will stop access to the development of GMO medicines. He conveniently overlooks the fact that GMO veterinary vaccines are already permitted under the Auckland Unitary Plan.
“The Minister’s claims that GMOs were only ever intended to be regulated under HSNO have now been found to be wrong by both the Environment Court and High Court.
“Nick Smith must protect the ability of councils to act in the best interests of their ratepayers and local producers by amending his Bill to explicitly exclude using these new powers to regulate the release of GMOs.
“There are huge uncertainties around the adverse effects of GMOs on natural resources and ecosystems. The risks are large and consequences irreversible.
“If GMOs were to be released into the environment, they would be very difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. There is also potential for serious economic loss to regions marketing their products and tourism under New Zealand’s ‘clean green’ brand,” Marion Thomson says.

GE Free from the Bombays to Cape Reinga

/in , , , , ,

GE Free Northland and the Soil & Health Association are celebrating the Far North and Whangarei District Councils’ decisions to retain precautionary and prohibitive genetically modified organisms (GMOs) provisions in their new District Plans.  This follows Auckland Council’s recent decision to retain similar precautionary and prohibitive GMO provisions in the new Unitary Plan.  The result of which is a GE Free northern peninsula from the Bombay Hills to Cape Reinga.

Whangarei District councilors voted unanimously last week to protect the community, local economy, and environment from the risks of outdoor uses of GMOs.  Their neighbours in the Far North voted a week earlier to introduce similar rules to their District Plan.

“These decisions, and our recent victory in the High Court, represent a huge win for Northland.  Our elected representatives are to be congratulated for their tenacity and commitment in supporting the aspirations of their constituents and protecting our biosecurity,” said Martin Robinson, spokesperson for GE Free Northland.

In June this year, GE Free Northland together with the Soil & Health Association gathered a panel of expert witnesses, mana whenua, and community representatives, to present evidence to the independent commissioners at the councils’ hearings on GMOs.  Both groups offered strong support for the District councils’ proposed precautionary approach to outdoor GE experiments, strict liability provisions, and outright ban on the release of GMOs.

“This is necessary because of serious deficiencies in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act).  Government agencies have a poor track record in containing outdoor GE experiments, and the law has very limited liability provisions for damage” said Soil & Health Chair Marion Thomson.  “The GMO policies they have now adopted are a sophisticated, collaborative, and fiscally prudent response.”

For more than a decade the Far North District and Whangarei District Councils have worked with the Auckland and Northland Regional Councils to plot a path that works for farmers, the wider community, and the environment.  The councils’ decisions to adopt the independent commissioners’ recommendations help protect the Northland region’s GM Free status, biosecurity, economy, and environment by requiring additional local protections that are not required by the national regulator, the Environmental Protection Authority, under the HSNO Act, with an outright prohibition of release of GMOs.

“Environment Minister Nick Smith has tried to portray local bodies as anti-science and anti-progress.  His claims are untrue, unjustly attempting to denigrate the robust course that our councils have charted,” said GE Free Northland’s Chair Zelka Grammer.

Despite the minister’s statements, the global Non-GMO food market is currently valued at US$250 billion, and trends show this is only going to grow.  It is clear that New Zealand producers benefit from access to this huge non-GMO market.

Soil & Health and GE Free Northland combined represent more than 10,000 members and supporters, including primary producers and consumers, both organic and conventional, who want to avoid genetically modified organisms and products made from them.

CONTACT

Marty Robinson

Spokesperson, GE Free Northland

022 136 9619

Marion Thomson

Chair, Soil & Health Association

027 555 4015

Zelka Linda Grammer

Chair, GE Free Northland

022 309 5039

GMO COURT RULING PROTECTS ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

/in , , ,

New Zealand’s biotech industry is not under threat as a result of a High Court ruling upholding an Environment Court’s decision to give regional councils control over use and release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their district, says the Soil and Health Association.

The High Court ruling on Wednesday was based on an appeal by Federated Farmers, which argued the release of GMOs was already regulated by the Environmental Protection Authority and regional councils were not qualified to make such decisions.

Donald Nordeng of BioGro New Zealand says the ruling protects GMO use in healthcare and in agriculture as a whole.

“This ruling confirms that under the Resource Management Act, regional and territorial local authorities can manage the use of GMOs in the same way as any other land use. This does not impact on GMOs used in medicine or the treatment of people.”

“This will not impact on our health industry. A hospital will not need a local consent to undertake its medical work.

“This landmark ruling is about having clarity about the distinction between GMO areas and non-GMO areas and allowing local communities to have a say in the GMO policies in their areas.

“There is no economic or technical reason why outdoor use of GMOs should not be subject to regional and district plans – like everyone else. GMO use, even when approved by the EPA still is not risk free. For example, management accidents could wipe out a neighbouring organic or non-GMO producer’s livelihood, or lead to the loss of GE free status for wider areas.

“This ruling benefits everyone in New Zealand. The global organic food market is currently valued at US$80 billion, with the global Non-GMO market at US$250 billion, and trends show this is only going to grow. All New Zealand farmers benefit from access to this massive non-GMO market, not just organic farmers. This ruling protects our valuable organic export market (worth approximately NZ$240-250 million in 2015) and provides a safe source of supply to the two-thirds of New Zealanders who choose organic products at least some of the time,” Nordeng said.

For more information: Effie Lochrane 027 433 6373 / Anna Kominik 027 472 4293

High Court ruling on GE a win for democracy

/in , , ,

The High Court has today upheld the ruling that regional councils do have the right to decide on the provisions, policies, and rules regarding the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their region.

 

The Soil & Health Association (Soil & Health) celebrates this landmark decision as a win not only in the fight against genetic engineering (GE) and keeping a clean green Aotearoa, but also for democracy as it allows community values and concerns about GMOs to be taken into account when drafting regional policy instruments.

 

Judge Mary Peters ruled in favour of the Whangarei District Council (WDC), Northland Regional Council (NRC), Soil & Health, GE Free Northland and others, dismissing the appeal on all questions raised by the appellants Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Federated Farmers).

 

“We welcome this landmark ruling,” said Soil & Health chair Marion Thomson. “It confirms the ability of all local councils to determine GE policies in their areas. We support communities around the country who want to keep Aotearoa New Zealand clean, green and GE-free.”

 

The decision comes after Federated Farmers appealed the Environment Court’s ruling in May 2015 that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act (RMA) for local councils to control the use of GMOs via regional policy instruments.

 

Federated Farmers challenged that decision in the High Court in February this year where they argued that local government “has no role” in legislating about GMOs and that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO), not the RMA, is the overarching legislation that governs how GMOs are used in New Zealand.

 

Judge Mary Peters however stated in her decision today that the Environment Court “was conscious of the overlap between the RMA and HSNO but it was not persuaded that overlap required a conclusion that GMOs (and other new organisms) are required to be excluded from consideration in the promulgation of a regional policy statement or plan.”

 

Background:

Much of the New Zealand public today is still under the impression that New Zealand is a GE-free nation. The truth however is more complex.

1.     GE in the environment: The moratorium on GE organisms (such as crops and animals) in the environment was lifted in 2003, but since then no applications have been made for commercial release, although there are and have been GE field trials.

2.     GE in food and animal feed: While we do not grow any GE crops or animals, there are many imported GE ingredients in our food. As of July 2012 Food Standards Australia New Zealand has approved 53 applications of 71 different GE food lines into our country, and an estimated 70% or more of processed non-organic foods for sale in New Zealand contain GE ingredients. In addition to human food, New Zealand imports large quantities of animal feed which is almost certainly genetically engineered.

 

Significant gaps exist in the law around GMOs in New Zealand. There is a lack of strict liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO, and no mandatory requirement for the Environmental Protection Authority to take a precautionary approach to the outdoor use of GMOs. Under the HSNO Act there is no requirement for ‘polluter pays’ to ensure companies causing unintended or unforeseen adverse impacts from GE crops of GE animals are held responsible. Due to these gaps in the law, a number of councils around New Zealand have been moving to protect their primary producers and communities by introducing precautionary or prohibitive policies.

 

The Northland Regional Council is one such council which, after receiving hundreds of submission from Northland ratepayers, district councils, Northland Conservation Board, iwi authorities, hapū and community groups, choose to adopt a precautionary approach around the outdoor release of GMOs in the proposed Northland Regional Policy Statement. The Northland Regional Council also identified GMOs as an issue of significance for Northland tangata whenua and an issue of concern for Northland Communities in their Regional Policy Statement.

 

Federated Farmers of New Zealand lodged an appeal with the Environment Court in 2015 opposing these precautionary GMO provisions in the Northland Regional Policy statement. Principal Environment Court Judge L. Newhook however found that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act for regional councils to make provision for the outdoor use of GMOs through regional policy statements and plans. Since comprehensively losing the appeal (which it initiated) on all points of law, Federated Farmers filed a second appeal against the Environment Court’s decision with the High Court.

 

Soil & Health, GE Free Northland, Taitokerau mana whenua, Far North District Council and several other groups and individuals joined the appeal in the High Court as section 274 (interested) parties pursuant to the RMA, in support of respondents Northland Regional Council and Whangarei District Council. Soil & Health was represented by Dr. Royden Somerville QC and Robert Makgill.

 

Dr Somerville argued that Environment Court Judge L. Newhook was correct in his decision that the RMA and HSNO Act hold complementary and not overlapping roles. The two Acts offer different purposes and functional responses to the regulation of GMOs in New Zealand. Thus, regional planning documents can control the use of GMOs as part of promoting sustainable management under the RMA, taking account of regional needs. This argument has today been confirmed by High Court Judge Mary Peters.

 

Soil & Health and GE Free Northland combined represent more than 10,000 members and supporters, including consumers and producers, both organic and conventional, who want to avoid GE. Soil & Health believes that there is no economic, health or environmental case for GMOs. There are huge uncertainties around the adverse effects of GMOs on natural resources and ecosystems. The risks are large and consequences irreversible. If GMO’s were to be released into the environment, they would be very difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. There is also potential for serious economic loss to regions marketing their products and tourism under New Zealand’s ‘clean green’ brand, if GMO land use were permitted.

 

CONTACT

Marion Thomson
Chair, Soil & Health Association
027 555 4014