To: Primary Production Committee
Submitter: The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
Date: June 2026
Soil & Health wishes to speak to this submission.
1. Summary position
The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand opposes the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill in its current form.
Soil & Health supports efficient, transparent and scientifically robust regulation. However, efficiency must never come at the expense of the core purpose of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996: the protection of human health, ecosystems, soil, water, biodiversity and future generations from the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.
The Bill is presented as a measure to streamline regulatory processes while maintaining protection. However, the supporting policy material shows a strong emphasis on reducing delays, increasing access to products, relying more heavily on overseas regulatory decisions, and supporting productivity and economic growth.
Our concern is not that applications may be processed more quickly. Our concern is that the balance of the legislation is being shifted away from precaution and protection, and toward speed, market access and economic outcomes.
HSNO was created to protect people and the environment from harm. It exists because environmental and public health harms are often delayed, cumulative and difficult to reverse. The lesson from decades of environmental regulation is simple: harm is usually easier to create than it is to repair.
Soil & Health therefore asks the Primary Production Committee to recommend that the Bill does not proceed in its current form.
If the Committee does proceed with the Bill, Soil & Health asks that it be substantially amended so that environmental protection, human health, soil and water health, Te Tiriti obligations, public participation, organic integrity, GE-free production and the precautionary approach remain central to the HSNO Act.
Our key requests are:
- Do not proceed with the Bill in its current form.
- Do not use the HSNO Amendment Bill to prepare the ground for a more permissive gene technology regime while the Gene Technology Bill remains contested and unresolved.
- Remove, or substantially narrow, the proposed temporary hazardous substances approval pathway, particularly for agrichemicals and novel biological, nano-enabled or gene-related technologies.
- Ensure overseas regulator assessments may inform New Zealand decisions, but must not replace independent New Zealand assessment.
- Keep the burden of proving safety on applicants, not on communities, objectors, iwi, organic producers, neighbouring landowners or affected sectors.
- Retain strong public notification, consultation and hearing rights where approvals may affect organic producers, GE-free production, Māori interests, neighbours, waterways, soil health, biodiversity, pollinators, food systems or public health.
- Keep key safeguards in the Act itself, not only in later regulations, notices, guidance or discretionary decision-making.
- Explicitly require precautionary assessment of novel and emerging technologies, including but not limited to genetic engineering (encompasses gene editing), nanotechnology, nanoparticles, RNA-based sprays, gene-silencing products, synthetic biology, microbial products, biological controls and combined chemical-biological technologies.
- Ensure applicants and approval holders, not affected farmers, organic producers, certifiers, councils, tangata whenua or future land users, carry responsibility for contamination, monitoring, containment failure and market loss.
- Require transparent post-approval monitoring, public reporting and reassessment where new evidence emerges.
- Protect the integrity of organic and GE-free production in Aotearoa New Zealand.
2. About Soil & Health
Soil & Health is one of the world’s oldest organic advocacy organisations. Our kaupapa is healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people. We advocate for food and farming systems that protect soil, water, biodiversity, human health and future generations.
Organic production is built on trust. That trust depends on clear standards, strong regulation, careful assessment of risk, and the ability of producers and consumers to rely on products being genuinely organic and GE-free.
For organic producers, environmental release of, or contamination with hazardous substances or new organisms is not an abstract regulatory issue. It can affect certification, market access, export relationships, consumer confidence, neighbouring properties and the long-term integrity of production systems.
Soil & Health approaches this Bill from the perspective of public health, environmental protection, organic integrity, soil health, water quality, biodiversity, precaution and intergenerational responsibility.
3. The purpose of HSNO must remain paramount
The purpose of the HSNO Act is protective. It is to protect the environment, and the health and safety of people and communities, by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.
That protective purpose must remain paramount.
Economic benefits, productivity and access to new products can be legitimate considerations. However, they must remain secondary to the protection of:
- organic and GE-free production
The Bill risks creating a regulatory environment in which commercial opportunity is given increasing weight, while environmental and health uncertainties are expected to be managed after approval rather than resolved before approval.
The central question under HSNO should be:
Can this product, organism or technology be shown to be safe and appropriate for use in New Zealand conditions?
The Bill risks replacing that question with:
Can this product, organism or technology be approved more quickly?
That is a significant change in regulatory philosophy.
Regulatory speed is not, by itself, a measure of good regulation. In environmental regulation, delay is sometimes evidence of necessary diligence. The costs of delayed approval are often visible and immediate. The costs of premature approval are often delayed, diffuse and difficult to attribute. That does not make them less important.
Slow harm is still harm. Diffuse harm is still harm. Harm that is hard to attribute after the fact is precisely the kind of harm that a precautionary statute should prevent.
4. The Bill must be considered alongside gene technology and ACVM reform
The HSNO Amendment Bill is not occurring in isolation. It sits alongside the Gene Technology Bill and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.
Together, these reforms raise significant concerns for organic and GE-free production.
The Gene Technology Bill proposes a major shift in the regulation of genetic technologies. The HSNO Amendment Bill changes how new organisms and hazardous substances are assessed. The ACVM Amendment Bill changes pathways for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines, including products already approved overseas.
Soil & Health is concerned that the combined effect of these bills could create regulatory gaps. Products involving genetic technologies, biological controls, microorganisms, RNA-based tools, nano-delivery systems, agrichemicals, veterinary medicines, novel biological products or chemical-biological combinations may move across regulatory boundaries in ways that are difficult for farmers, consumers, certifiers and the public to understand.
The Committee should not assess the HSNO Amendment Bill as a narrow technical efficiency update. It should ask how the Bill interacts with the wider reform package and whether the overall framework remains protective enough for food, farming, biodiversity, organics and GE-free production.
5. New Zealand assessment must not be outsourced
The Bill places considerable weight on the use of overseas regulatory assessments.
Soil & Health does not oppose the EPA considering high-quality international information. International science can be useful. However, overseas decisions must not substitute for full and independent New Zealand assessment.
New Zealand is not simply a branch office of overseas regulators.
New Zealand has distinct environmental, cultural, agricultural and market conditions, including:
- unique indigenous biodiversity
- distinctive soils and soil biota
- small catchments and sensitive waterways
- high rainfall and runoff risks in some regions
- wind drift and spray-drift conditions
- pastoral, horticultural and mixed farming systems that differ from many overseas jurisdictions
- Māori relationships with whenua, wai, taonga species, whakapapa and mahinga kai
- significant organic, regenerative and GE-free production systems
- premium export markets that depend on trust and integrity
- consumer expectations around natural, organic and GE-free food
An approval granted in North America, Europe, Australia or elsewhere cannot automatically account for New Zealand conditions.
Regulatory decisions should be informed by international science, but never outsourced to overseas regulators.
If overseas assessments are used, the Act should require that they are only one source of evidence. The applicant should still carry the burden of proving safety and suitability in New Zealand conditions. The EPA should be required to publish how it used overseas information, what New Zealand-specific assessment was undertaken, and what uncertainties remain.
The public should not be required to prove, after the fact, that a substance or organism is unsafe for New Zealand conditions.
6. The burden of proof must remain with applicants
The burden of proof should remain firmly on applicants seeking approval to introduce hazardous substances, new organisms or novel technologies into New Zealand’s environment, food systems, waterways and communities.
Soil & Health is concerned that reliance on overseas approvals, narrowed assessment pathways, rapid approvals and temporary approvals may shift the practical burden away from applicants and onto the public, affected neighbours, organic producers, iwi, communities and environmental groups.
That would be wrong.
The applicant seeks the commercial benefit. The applicant should carry the evidential burden and the risk.
The public should not be required to prove that a product is unsafe after approval has already occurred. Organic producers should not be required to prove why their markets and certification need protection after contamination has already happened. Iwi and hapū should not have to prove that whenua, wai, taonga species and mahinga kai matter after exposure has occurred.
If uncertainty remains regarding persistence, chronic toxicity, endocrine disruption, cumulative exposure, food-chain effects, microbiome impacts, non-target species effects, soil effects, water effects or ecosystem consequences, that uncertainty should weigh against approval rather than in favour of speed.
7. “Significant effects” must not be narrowed too far
Soil & Health is concerned about any narrowing of “significant effects” so that an international pathway turns mainly on whether an objector can identify effects that are specifically New Zealand-specific and not already addressed overseas.
Such an approach risks creating a presumption that overseas conclusions are correct unless New Zealand-specific concerns can be demonstrated by the public or affected parties.
The precautionary approach requires the opposite.
Where uncertainty exists, decision-makers should require robust evidence demonstrating safety before approval is granted.
“Significant effects” should be defined broadly enough to include:
- impacts on microbial, fungal and invertebrate communities
- aquatic toxicity and stream health
- pollinators and non-target species
- cumulative and synergistic effects
- chronic low-dose human exposure
- residues in food, compost, manure, silage, soil and water
- contamination risk for organic and GE-free farms
- cultural, ethical, spiritual and whakapapa concerns
- market access and certification consequences
- effects that may not become visible for years
A narrow test may improve administrative speed, but it would not improve environmental protection.
8. Temporary approvals can create permanent harm
Soil & Health is particularly concerned about the proposed temporary hazardous substances approval pathway.
Temporary approval can still create permanent consequences. Even short-term use can result in:
- non-target species impacts
- loss of organic certification
- market impacts for neighbouring producers
- harm to beneficial organisms
- long-term ecological disruption
Once a product has been used in soil, water or open environments, exposure cannot simply be unwound. Once residues move through waterways, drift onto neighbouring land or enter compost, manure, silage or food-chain pathways, subsequent regulatory action may not reverse the damage.
A “temporary” approval may create permanent consequences.
This is especially concerning for agrichemicals, because these products are designed to be released into the environment. It is not enough to say that a full assessment will occur later if exposure has already happened.
If the Committee retains any temporary approval pathway, Soil & Health asks that it include at least the following safeguards:
- temporary approvals must not apply to products involving genetic technologies, RNA-based gene silencing, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, self-replicating organisms, engineered microorganisms or novel microbial products unless full public assessment has first occurred
- the EPA must publicly notify proposed temporary approvals where use may affect soil, water, biodiversity, human health, organic production, GE-free production, neighbours or Māori interests
- the applicant must submit a full application before any temporary approval is granted
- the applicant must fund independent monitoring during and after use
- use near organic or GE-free production, schools, public places, waterways, wetlands, conservation land and sensitive habitats must be subject to strict controls and public notification
- affected neighbours and certifiers must be notified before use
- clear suspension, modification and revocation powers must be retained
- applicants and approval holders must be liable for contamination, certification loss, monitoring costs, clean-up costs and market loss caused by use under the temporary approval
9. Speed is not a substitute for good regulation
The policy material repeatedly identifies delay as a problem requiring correction.
Soil & Health accepts that regulatory delay can create real costs. However, the assumption that faster approval is always better is not sound in the context of hazardous substances and new organisms.
In environmental regulation, the consequences of approving a hazardous substance too quickly are often borne by others:
- ecosystems that have no voice in the approval process
The economic costs of delayed approvals are usually visible and immediate. The environmental costs of premature approvals are often delayed, diffuse and irreversible.
That does not make them less important.
HSNO should not become a system in which uncertainty is increasingly tolerated in the pursuit of economic opportunity.
10. The Bill risks privatising benefits and socialising risks
One of the most troubling features of the proposed reforms is the potential transfer of risk.
The commercial benefits of approval flow primarily to:
When things go wrong, however, the costs are often borne by:
This creates a profound imbalance.
The private sector captures the upside. The public carries the uncertainty.
The HSNO framework should prevent this imbalance, not enable it.
Soil & Health therefore asks that the Bill include a clear polluter-pays principle. Applicants and approval holders should be responsible for monitoring, containment failure, contamination, clean-up, certification loss and market loss caused by products approved under accelerated or temporary pathways.
11. Emerging technologies require greater caution, not less
New and emerging technologies are rapidly changing the landscape of agricultural and environmental interventions.
These include:
- Gene technologies (including gene-editing)
- RNA interference and RNA-like gene-silencing products
- synthetic biology applications
- engineered microbial products
- microbial consortia and biologicals
- nanotechnology and nanoparticles
- lipid nanoparticles and other delivery systems
- products combining chemicals, adjuvants, biologicals and genetic material
Many of these technologies are promoted as precise, targeted, lower residue and environmentally benign.
History teaches caution.
Asbestos, DDT, PCBs, PFAS compounds, neonicotinoids and numerous other technologies were once promoted as useful solutions. Only later were broader environmental and health consequences understood.
Regulators must remain humble in the face of scientific uncertainty.
Products using nanoparticles, lipid nanoparticles, nano-carriers or other nano-enabled delivery systems can behave differently from conventional formulations. They may alter persistence, uptake, transport, toxicity, cell penetration, bioavailability and environmental movement. The same concern applies to RNA-based or gene-silencing products, especially where they are delivered through sprays, microbial systems or nano-carriers.
The Bill should not allow products to receive reduced scrutiny because they are described as “targeted”, “biological”, “low residue”, “innovative” or “approved overseas”. These descriptions are not substitutes for evidence.
12. Example scenario: RootSilence-R
A plausible future example illustrates the risk.
Imagine a product called RootSilence-R. It is a spray containing lipid nanoparticles carrying RNA-based gene-silencing material designed to suppress a fungal pasture pest.
The product receives conditional approval overseas. It is promoted as targeted, innovative and low residue.
Under a more permissive HSNO pathway:
- the applicant points to overseas regulator assessments
- the EPA focuses mainly on New Zealand-specific differences
- a temporary approval allows use before the full assessment is complete
- public notification is limited because the product is framed as targeted and low-risk
- the product is applied before heavy rainfall
- runoff carries residues into drains, soil, streams and neighbouring properties
- soil fungi, mycorrhizal networks, earthworms, aquatic invertebrates, non-target microorganisms and neighbouring organic production systems are exposed
- several years later, evidence emerges of unexpected off-target effects, persistence in certain soil types or ecological interactions not identified during approval
By then, the product has already delivered financial benefits to its developers and users.
The risks have been transferred to everyone else.
The question Parliament must ask is simple:
Who should carry the burden of uncertainty?
The applicant seeking commercial gain?
Or the public, organic producers, tangata whenua and environment that receive no opportunity to consent?
Soil & Health’s answer is clear: the burden must remain with the applicant.
13. Public participation and transparency must be protected
Public participation is not an administrative obstacle. It is a safeguard.
Soil & Health is concerned that too much detail may be moved into regulations, notices, guidance or discretionary processes. That risks reducing Parliamentary scrutiny and public visibility.
Key protective thresholds should remain in the Act. Public notification and hearing rights should be retained where approvals may affect communities, ecosystems, organic producers, iwi, food systems and future generations.
The Act should require public notification where an application may involve:
- new organisms such as genetically engineered organisms (includes gene editing)
- agrichemicals with broad environmental exposure
- RNA-based or gene-silencing technologies
- biologicals or microbial products
- effects on organic or GE-free producers
- potential contamination beyond the applicant’s property
- significant public interest
- Māori cultural, spiritual, whakapapa or taonga species concerns
- uncertain or irreversible effects
The people and ecosystems affected by approval decisions must have a meaningful opportunity to be heard before exposure occurs, not after harm is suspected.
14. Power should not drift away from Parliament
The Bill and related policy material move significant operational detail into regulations, notices, ministerial determinations and administrative processes.
Delegation can improve administrative efficiency. However, environmental protections should not depend primarily on the discretion of whichever Minister, Director-General or agency happens to hold office at a particular time.
Fundamental safeguards belong in legislation debated openly by Parliament.
The greater the environmental risk, the greater the need for democratic accountability.
Soil, water, pollinators, neighbours, organic producers and future generations should not be protected only by later regulations, unpublished modelling assumptions, overseas decisions or administrative discretion.
The protective threshold belongs in the Act itself.
15. Māori interests and Te Tiriti obligations require more than technical consultation
Hazardous substances and new organisms can affect whenua, wai, mahinga kai, taonga species, biodiversity and intergenerational relationships with the natural world.
Soil & Health asks the Committee to ensure that Māori participation is active from the outset and not reduced to a technical consultation step.
Where applications may affect Māori interests, decision-making must provide for meaningful engagement with iwi, hapū and Māori organisations, and must give proper weight to mātauranga Māori, tikanga, whakapapa and kaitiakitanga.
The Bill should not allow accelerated pathways to bypass these obligations.
16. Organic and GE-free production need explicit protection
The use of genetically engineered organisms and their derivatives is prohibited in organic production systems. This includes seeds, animals, propagation material and farm inputs such as fertilisers, soil conditioners, vaccines and crop protection materials.
Organic certification is therefore directly affected by any regulatory change that increases the likelihood of environmental release, contamination, unclear product status, weak labelling, weak traceability or reduced assessment of hazardous substances and novel technologies.
For organic and GE-free producers, contamination can mean:
- loss of export opportunities
- reputational damage through no fault of their own
It is not acceptable for the costs of contamination to fall on the producer who did not use the product.
Soil & Health asks that the Bill include explicit recognition of organic and GE-free production as affected interests in relevant HSNO decisions.
The EPA should be required to consider:
- impacts on organic certification
- market access and export integrity
- buffer zones and notification requirements
- liability and compensation
- traceability and monitoring
- protection for neighbouring producers
Organic and GE-free producers should not be treated as afterthoughts in a system that could directly affect their certification, livelihoods and markets.
17. Compliance, monitoring and reassessment must be strengthened
If the Bill creates faster pathways, it must also strengthen monitoring and accountability.
Approvals should require:
- publicly available approval conditions
- independent environmental monitoring where needed
- residue monitoring in soil, water, compost, manure and food-chain pathways where relevant
- monitoring for non-target effects
- transparent reassessment triggers
- public registers of temporary approvals, conditions, incidents and reassessments
- enforceable duties on approval holders and users
- funding from applicants or approval holders for monitoring and enforcement
Without monitoring, the system may approve products quickly but detect harm too late.
18. Specific amendments sought if the Bill proceeds
Soil & Health’s primary position is that the Bill should not proceed in its current form.
If the Committee proceeds with the Bill, Soil & Health asks that it be amended to achieve the following:
- Retain the precautionary intent of the HSNO Act as the overriding consideration.
- Require full and independent New Zealand assessment of hazardous substances and new organisms regardless of overseas approvals.
- Ensure international regulator assessments may inform, but not replace, EPA assessment.
- Reject pathways that allow environmental release before comprehensive assessment has been completed, particularly for agrichemicals, novel biological products, nanotechnology, RNA-based products and gene technologies.
- Ensure the burden of demonstrating safety remains with applicants.
- Maintain robust opportunities for public participation and scrutiny.
- Retain key environmental and health protections within primary legislation rather than delegated instruments.
- Require explicit consideration of impacts on soil health, soil biology, biodiversity, water quality, pollinators, organic production systems, GE-free production, Māori interests and future generations.
- Ensure new and emerging technologies such as RNA-based products, genetically engineered organisms (includes gene editing), engineered microorganisms, microbial technologies, synthetic biology, biological controls and nano-enabled products are assessed under precautionary principles appropriate to their complexity and uncertainty.
- Require public notification where applications may affect organic or GE-free producers, iwi and hapū, waterways, neighbours, sensitive ecosystems or significant public interests.
- Require applicant-funded independent monitoring for any accelerated or temporary approval pathway.
- Create clear liability for applicants and approval holders where contamination, certification loss, market loss or environmental harm occurs.
- Require public reporting of temporary approvals, conditions, monitoring results, incidents, reassessments, suspensions and revocations.
- Ensure accelerated pathways do not bypass Te Tiriti obligations, mātauranga Māori, tikanga, whakapapa or kaitiakitanga.
- Prevent speed, productivity or commercial opportunity from overriding precaution, human health and environmental protection.
19. Conclusion – Relief Sought
The purpose of HSNO is to protect New Zealanders, our soils, our waterways, our biodiversity, our food systems and future generations from avoidable harm, not to accelerate hazardous substances and new organisms into the market, not to accelerate hazardous substances and new organisms into the market.
Soil & Health asks the Primary Production Committee to recommend that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill does not proceed in its current form.
If the Committee proceeds with the Bill, Soil & Health asks that it be substantially amended as per our submission, to keep the burden of proof on applicants, protect organic and GE-free production, retain meaningful public participation, uphold Te Tiriti obligations, require independent New Zealand assessment, explicitly address new and emerging technologies, and keep precaution, environmental protection and human health at the centre of the HSNO Act.
Documents and sources considered
This draft was prepared with reference to the following materials:
Event grants for Soil & Health members
/in Association Meetings and EventsThe Soil & Health Association will provide a grant of up to $100 for the running of any public event led and organised by an association member.
Grant conditions
Apply now
These grants are available to any Soil & Health member
Please complete the grant application form and email it to manager@organicnz.org.nz
Note: the total amount of grant funding available is limited to a total of $1200 over one financial year, the Association will take this limit into account when considering applications.
Submission on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill
/in SubmissionsTo: Primary Production Committee
Submitter: The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
Date: June 2026
Soil & Health wishes to speak to this submission.
1. Summary position
The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand opposes the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill in its current form.
Soil & Health supports efficient, transparent and scientifically robust regulation. However, efficiency must never come at the expense of the core purpose of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996: the protection of human health, ecosystems, soil, water, biodiversity and future generations from the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.
The Bill is presented as a measure to streamline regulatory processes while maintaining protection. However, the supporting policy material shows a strong emphasis on reducing delays, increasing access to products, relying more heavily on overseas regulatory decisions, and supporting productivity and economic growth.
Our concern is not that applications may be processed more quickly. Our concern is that the balance of the legislation is being shifted away from precaution and protection, and toward speed, market access and economic outcomes.
HSNO was created to protect people and the environment from harm. It exists because environmental and public health harms are often delayed, cumulative and difficult to reverse. The lesson from decades of environmental regulation is simple: harm is usually easier to create than it is to repair.
Soil & Health therefore asks the Primary Production Committee to recommend that the Bill does not proceed in its current form.
If the Committee does proceed with the Bill, Soil & Health asks that it be substantially amended so that environmental protection, human health, soil and water health, Te Tiriti obligations, public participation, organic integrity, GE-free production and the precautionary approach remain central to the HSNO Act.
Our key requests are:
2. About Soil & Health
Soil & Health is one of the world’s oldest organic advocacy organisations. Our kaupapa is healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people. We advocate for food and farming systems that protect soil, water, biodiversity, human health and future generations.
Organic production is built on trust. That trust depends on clear standards, strong regulation, careful assessment of risk, and the ability of producers and consumers to rely on products being genuinely organic and GE-free.
For organic producers, environmental release of, or contamination with hazardous substances or new organisms is not an abstract regulatory issue. It can affect certification, market access, export relationships, consumer confidence, neighbouring properties and the long-term integrity of production systems.
Soil & Health approaches this Bill from the perspective of public health, environmental protection, organic integrity, soil health, water quality, biodiversity, precaution and intergenerational responsibility.
3. The purpose of HSNO must remain paramount
The purpose of the HSNO Act is protective. It is to protect the environment, and the health and safety of people and communities, by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.
That protective purpose must remain paramount.
Economic benefits, productivity and access to new products can be legitimate considerations. However, they must remain secondary to the protection of:
The Bill risks creating a regulatory environment in which commercial opportunity is given increasing weight, while environmental and health uncertainties are expected to be managed after approval rather than resolved before approval.
The central question under HSNO should be:
Can this product, organism or technology be shown to be safe and appropriate for use in New Zealand conditions?
The Bill risks replacing that question with:
Can this product, organism or technology be approved more quickly?
That is a significant change in regulatory philosophy.
Regulatory speed is not, by itself, a measure of good regulation. In environmental regulation, delay is sometimes evidence of necessary diligence. The costs of delayed approval are often visible and immediate. The costs of premature approval are often delayed, diffuse and difficult to attribute. That does not make them less important.
Slow harm is still harm. Diffuse harm is still harm. Harm that is hard to attribute after the fact is precisely the kind of harm that a precautionary statute should prevent.
4. The Bill must be considered alongside gene technology and ACVM reform
The HSNO Amendment Bill is not occurring in isolation. It sits alongside the Gene Technology Bill and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.
Together, these reforms raise significant concerns for organic and GE-free production.
The Gene Technology Bill proposes a major shift in the regulation of genetic technologies. The HSNO Amendment Bill changes how new organisms and hazardous substances are assessed. The ACVM Amendment Bill changes pathways for agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines, including products already approved overseas.
Soil & Health is concerned that the combined effect of these bills could create regulatory gaps. Products involving genetic technologies, biological controls, microorganisms, RNA-based tools, nano-delivery systems, agrichemicals, veterinary medicines, novel biological products or chemical-biological combinations may move across regulatory boundaries in ways that are difficult for farmers, consumers, certifiers and the public to understand.
The Committee should not assess the HSNO Amendment Bill as a narrow technical efficiency update. It should ask how the Bill interacts with the wider reform package and whether the overall framework remains protective enough for food, farming, biodiversity, organics and GE-free production.
5. New Zealand assessment must not be outsourced
The Bill places considerable weight on the use of overseas regulatory assessments.
Soil & Health does not oppose the EPA considering high-quality international information. International science can be useful. However, overseas decisions must not substitute for full and independent New Zealand assessment.
New Zealand is not simply a branch office of overseas regulators.
New Zealand has distinct environmental, cultural, agricultural and market conditions, including:
An approval granted in North America, Europe, Australia or elsewhere cannot automatically account for New Zealand conditions.
Regulatory decisions should be informed by international science, but never outsourced to overseas regulators.
If overseas assessments are used, the Act should require that they are only one source of evidence. The applicant should still carry the burden of proving safety and suitability in New Zealand conditions. The EPA should be required to publish how it used overseas information, what New Zealand-specific assessment was undertaken, and what uncertainties remain.
The public should not be required to prove, after the fact, that a substance or organism is unsafe for New Zealand conditions.
6. The burden of proof must remain with applicants
The burden of proof should remain firmly on applicants seeking approval to introduce hazardous substances, new organisms or novel technologies into New Zealand’s environment, food systems, waterways and communities.
Soil & Health is concerned that reliance on overseas approvals, narrowed assessment pathways, rapid approvals and temporary approvals may shift the practical burden away from applicants and onto the public, affected neighbours, organic producers, iwi, communities and environmental groups.
That would be wrong.
The applicant seeks the commercial benefit. The applicant should carry the evidential burden and the risk.
The public should not be required to prove that a product is unsafe after approval has already occurred. Organic producers should not be required to prove why their markets and certification need protection after contamination has already happened. Iwi and hapū should not have to prove that whenua, wai, taonga species and mahinga kai matter after exposure has occurred.
If uncertainty remains regarding persistence, chronic toxicity, endocrine disruption, cumulative exposure, food-chain effects, microbiome impacts, non-target species effects, soil effects, water effects or ecosystem consequences, that uncertainty should weigh against approval rather than in favour of speed.
7. “Significant effects” must not be narrowed too far
Soil & Health is concerned about any narrowing of “significant effects” so that an international pathway turns mainly on whether an objector can identify effects that are specifically New Zealand-specific and not already addressed overseas.
Such an approach risks creating a presumption that overseas conclusions are correct unless New Zealand-specific concerns can be demonstrated by the public or affected parties.
The precautionary approach requires the opposite.
Where uncertainty exists, decision-makers should require robust evidence demonstrating safety before approval is granted.
“Significant effects” should be defined broadly enough to include:
A narrow test may improve administrative speed, but it would not improve environmental protection.
8. Temporary approvals can create permanent harm
Soil & Health is particularly concerned about the proposed temporary hazardous substances approval pathway.
Temporary approval can still create permanent consequences. Even short-term use can result in:
Once a product has been used in soil, water or open environments, exposure cannot simply be unwound. Once residues move through waterways, drift onto neighbouring land or enter compost, manure, silage or food-chain pathways, subsequent regulatory action may not reverse the damage.
A “temporary” approval may create permanent consequences.
This is especially concerning for agrichemicals, because these products are designed to be released into the environment. It is not enough to say that a full assessment will occur later if exposure has already happened.
If the Committee retains any temporary approval pathway, Soil & Health asks that it include at least the following safeguards:
9. Speed is not a substitute for good regulation
The policy material repeatedly identifies delay as a problem requiring correction.
Soil & Health accepts that regulatory delay can create real costs. However, the assumption that faster approval is always better is not sound in the context of hazardous substances and new organisms.
In environmental regulation, the consequences of approving a hazardous substance too quickly are often borne by others:
The economic costs of delayed approvals are usually visible and immediate. The environmental costs of premature approvals are often delayed, diffuse and irreversible.
That does not make them less important.
HSNO should not become a system in which uncertainty is increasingly tolerated in the pursuit of economic opportunity.
10. The Bill risks privatising benefits and socialising risks
One of the most troubling features of the proposed reforms is the potential transfer of risk.
The commercial benefits of approval flow primarily to:
When things go wrong, however, the costs are often borne by:
This creates a profound imbalance.
The private sector captures the upside. The public carries the uncertainty.
The HSNO framework should prevent this imbalance, not enable it.
Soil & Health therefore asks that the Bill include a clear polluter-pays principle. Applicants and approval holders should be responsible for monitoring, containment failure, contamination, clean-up, certification loss and market loss caused by products approved under accelerated or temporary pathways.
11. Emerging technologies require greater caution, not less
New and emerging technologies are rapidly changing the landscape of agricultural and environmental interventions.
These include:
Many of these technologies are promoted as precise, targeted, lower residue and environmentally benign.
History teaches caution.
Asbestos, DDT, PCBs, PFAS compounds, neonicotinoids and numerous other technologies were once promoted as useful solutions. Only later were broader environmental and health consequences understood.
Regulators must remain humble in the face of scientific uncertainty.
Products using nanoparticles, lipid nanoparticles, nano-carriers or other nano-enabled delivery systems can behave differently from conventional formulations. They may alter persistence, uptake, transport, toxicity, cell penetration, bioavailability and environmental movement. The same concern applies to RNA-based or gene-silencing products, especially where they are delivered through sprays, microbial systems or nano-carriers.
The Bill should not allow products to receive reduced scrutiny because they are described as “targeted”, “biological”, “low residue”, “innovative” or “approved overseas”. These descriptions are not substitutes for evidence.
12. Example scenario: RootSilence-R
A plausible future example illustrates the risk.
Imagine a product called RootSilence-R. It is a spray containing lipid nanoparticles carrying RNA-based gene-silencing material designed to suppress a fungal pasture pest.
The product receives conditional approval overseas. It is promoted as targeted, innovative and low residue.
Under a more permissive HSNO pathway:
By then, the product has already delivered financial benefits to its developers and users.
The risks have been transferred to everyone else.
The question Parliament must ask is simple:
Who should carry the burden of uncertainty?
The applicant seeking commercial gain?
Or the public, organic producers, tangata whenua and environment that receive no opportunity to consent?
Soil & Health’s answer is clear: the burden must remain with the applicant.
13. Public participation and transparency must be protected
Public participation is not an administrative obstacle. It is a safeguard.
Soil & Health is concerned that too much detail may be moved into regulations, notices, guidance or discretionary processes. That risks reducing Parliamentary scrutiny and public visibility.
Key protective thresholds should remain in the Act. Public notification and hearing rights should be retained where approvals may affect communities, ecosystems, organic producers, iwi, food systems and future generations.
The Act should require public notification where an application may involve:
The people and ecosystems affected by approval decisions must have a meaningful opportunity to be heard before exposure occurs, not after harm is suspected.
14. Power should not drift away from Parliament
The Bill and related policy material move significant operational detail into regulations, notices, ministerial determinations and administrative processes.
Delegation can improve administrative efficiency. However, environmental protections should not depend primarily on the discretion of whichever Minister, Director-General or agency happens to hold office at a particular time.
Fundamental safeguards belong in legislation debated openly by Parliament.
The greater the environmental risk, the greater the need for democratic accountability.
Soil, water, pollinators, neighbours, organic producers and future generations should not be protected only by later regulations, unpublished modelling assumptions, overseas decisions or administrative discretion.
The protective threshold belongs in the Act itself.
15. Māori interests and Te Tiriti obligations require more than technical consultation
Hazardous substances and new organisms can affect whenua, wai, mahinga kai, taonga species, biodiversity and intergenerational relationships with the natural world.
Soil & Health asks the Committee to ensure that Māori participation is active from the outset and not reduced to a technical consultation step.
Where applications may affect Māori interests, decision-making must provide for meaningful engagement with iwi, hapū and Māori organisations, and must give proper weight to mātauranga Māori, tikanga, whakapapa and kaitiakitanga.
The Bill should not allow accelerated pathways to bypass these obligations.
16. Organic and GE-free production need explicit protection
The use of genetically engineered organisms and their derivatives is prohibited in organic production systems. This includes seeds, animals, propagation material and farm inputs such as fertilisers, soil conditioners, vaccines and crop protection materials.
Organic certification is therefore directly affected by any regulatory change that increases the likelihood of environmental release, contamination, unclear product status, weak labelling, weak traceability or reduced assessment of hazardous substances and novel technologies.
For organic and GE-free producers, contamination can mean:
It is not acceptable for the costs of contamination to fall on the producer who did not use the product.
Soil & Health asks that the Bill include explicit recognition of organic and GE-free production as affected interests in relevant HSNO decisions.
The EPA should be required to consider:
Organic and GE-free producers should not be treated as afterthoughts in a system that could directly affect their certification, livelihoods and markets.
17. Compliance, monitoring and reassessment must be strengthened
If the Bill creates faster pathways, it must also strengthen monitoring and accountability.
Approvals should require:
Without monitoring, the system may approve products quickly but detect harm too late.
18. Specific amendments sought if the Bill proceeds
Soil & Health’s primary position is that the Bill should not proceed in its current form.
If the Committee proceeds with the Bill, Soil & Health asks that it be amended to achieve the following:
19. Conclusion – Relief Sought
The purpose of HSNO is to protect New Zealanders, our soils, our waterways, our biodiversity, our food systems and future generations from avoidable harm, not to accelerate hazardous substances and new organisms into the market, not to accelerate hazardous substances and new organisms into the market.
Soil & Health asks the Primary Production Committee to recommend that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Bill does not proceed in its current form.
If the Committee proceeds with the Bill, Soil & Health asks that it be substantially amended as per our submission, to keep the burden of proof on applicants, protect organic and GE-free production, retain meaningful public participation, uphold Te Tiriti obligations, require independent New Zealand assessment, explicitly address new and emerging technologies, and keep precaution, environmental protection and human health at the centre of the HSNO Act.
Documents and sources considered
This draft was prepared with reference to the following materials:
Organic Week returns with online events on soil, food and health
/in Farming, Farming and Horticulture, Food, Health, Health and Food, Media Releases, Organic WeekMedia release
29 April 2026. New Zealanders are invited to take part in Organic Week 2026, a nationwide series of online events running from 1 to 10 May, focused on healthy food, healthy soil and healthy people.
Led by the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, this year’s programme brings together farmers, health experts and food advocates for a week of webinars, interviews and community discussion.
The online series is designed to make organic knowledge accessible for everyone, from seasoned organic growers to those just starting to explore organic living.
Soil scientist Charles Hyland, chair of Soil & Health, says a key part of this year’s Organic Week is helping people understand the connection between soil, food and wellbeing.
“Healthy soil supports everything – from the food we eat to the resilience of our environment. Organic Week gives people the chance to hear directly from those working with nature and within our food systems to learn practical ways to apply that knowledge,” he says.
The programme begins with an online Organic Café on Saturday 2 May at 10am, offering an informal space for people to connect, share ideas and hear what is ahead for the week.
A webinar on Monday 4 May at 7pm will focus on dung beetles, with experienced pastoral farmers including Stephen Newman, founder of Kaipara Regenerative Farming Group and Paul Candy from Future Ready Farms sharing how these insects improve soil fertility, manage animal waste and reduce nutrient run-off.
On Wednesday 6 May at 7.30pm, a session titled “What’s behind the label?” will help consumers better understand food labels, ingredients and certification. The speakers are Alison White from the Safe Food Campaign and Sarah Reddington from Low Toxin Rabbit, with facilitation by Organic NZ editor Philippa Jamieson.
Health and wellbeing are also part of the line-up. On Thursday 7 May at 7pm, nutritional therapist Paula Sharp will discuss gut health and how to support the microbiome through food and lifestyle.
The final session on Friday 8 May at 7pm features Hawke’s Bay artist and advocate Kate White, offering a fresh perspective on rooks and their role in farming systems, challenging the view of the birds as pests and exploring their place in a functioning ecosystem.
In addition, others have come on board offering in-person events including workshops and film screenings around the country.
The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, established in 1941, is one of the world’s oldest organic organisations and continues to advocate for systems that support long-term environmental and human health.
“Organic Week is about connection – between people, ideas and the natural systems that sustain us. We welcome anyone who wants to be part of that conversation,” says Philippa Jamieson, editor of Organic NZ.
All interviews will be screened online and later made available via the Soil & Health Association’s YouTube channel, with webinar recordings released in late May.
ENDS
About us
The Soil & Health Association is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand and one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. We are committed to advocating our maxim “Healthy soil – healthy food – healthy people, Oranga nuku – oranga kai – oranga tāngata” and to creating an organic New Zealand.
More information
More information on Organic Week 2026 available here.
Full schedule available here, including links to register for events.
Please reach out for interview opportunities with our spokespersons!
Media contact
Rebecka Keeling
Communications, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
rebeckakeeling@gmail.com
UPDATE: Te Henga Wetland Spraying with Glyphosate
/in Campaigns, GlyphosateThe following is an email sent by our Chairperson, Charles Hyland, to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and also the original attached documents for your perusal:
Kia ora Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment,
I am writing to request your office’s independent scrutiny and guidance on the use of glyphosate and surfactant spraying in sensitive wetlands in a way that, in my technical experience, appears inconsistent with how these products are intended and expected to be used. Te Henga is a timely case study with wider implications for wetland protection and good practice.
Attached are two documents from the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand regarding the resumption of herbicide spraying at Te Henga Wetland, including reports of drone application:
We appreciate your office is not an enforcement agency. Our intent is to support independent scrutiny and, where appropriate, clearer national guidance that lifts practice and reduces the likelihood of repeat harm.
I am available for a call to answer questions or provide any additional context.
Ngā mihi nui,
Charles Hyland
Chair
Soil & Health Submission on the Natural Environment Bill 2025
/in Campaigns, Farming and Horticulture, Freshwater, Submissions, WaterIn March we made a submission on the Natural Environment Bill 2025 and the related Planning Bill 2025, to voice our concerns with aspects of both bills, as we strive to raise important issues in our role as advocate for the protection and regeneration of soil, freshwater, ecosystems, and environmental health, for the benefit of all.
As there were a large number of submissions to be heard we unfortunately didn’t get the opportunity to present our views however the submission document is made available for you to download and/or view below.
We will keep you informed of developments as they come to hand.
Te Henga Wetland
/in Campaigns, Freshwater, Glyphosate, OrganicsTechnical Review of Herbicide Use and Risks
Charles Hyland, Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
26 Sept 2025
Executive summary
Two herbicide products have been reportedly used at Te Henga wetland: Polaris 450 (a 450 g/L glyphosate isopropylamine salt formulation) and Aquakynde (an anionic surfactant adjuvant). (Matuku Link)
[UPDATE March 2026: herbicide spraying again being undertaken – Waatea News]
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) approval for Polaris 450 (HSR000227) classifies the product as harmful if inhaled (H332), causes serious eye irritation (H319), and toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects (H411). The Polaris 450 Safety Data Sheet (SDS) also instructs users not to allow the product to enter waterways.
Aquakynde carries serious eye damage (H318) and aquatic harm (H402/H412) classifications; its active surfactant chemistry (e.g., sodium alkylbenzene sulfonate types) is known to be harmful to aquatic organisms at low mg/L levels.
Under New Zealand’s Hazardous Substances regime, most agrichemicals with aquatic hazards must not be applied into or onto water. For Polaris 450 specifically, the EPA has replaced the usual “no application into or onto water” rule with special “water application” controls: if application into or onto water is contemplated and the water could leave the application site, then the strictest aquatic controls apply (treated “as if” Aquatic Acute Category 1).
The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) E34 Agrichemicals adds local requirements on spray-drift management, setbacks, operator competence, and record keeping, with wetlands clearly treated as sensitive receiving environments.
Wetlands are intrinsically high-exposure settings: spray drift, wash-off, and hydrologic connectivity funnel herbicide–surfactant mixtures into standing water and saturated sediments with long residence times. Glyphosate binds to sediments and is microbially transformed into aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which can persist. A large literature shows that aquatic toxicity of glyphosate-based products is often driven by the surfactant system, not glyphosate alone, with amphibian eggs and larvae particularly sensitive at low mg/L concentrations.
Bottom line: Spraying in, over, or immediately adjacent to standing water in a wetland creates a high-risk exposure pathway that is difficult to keep compliant and is readily avoidable.
A precautionary pause, an independent compliance audit, switching to non-spray or contact-limited methods, and basic monitoring are warranted.
Photo: Te Henga wetland, Auckland Council
Products and hazards
Polaris 450 (glyphosate IPA, 450 g/L). EPA approval HSR000227 classifies Polaris 450 as H332, H319 and H411; its SDS further cautions “Do not allow product to enter waterways.” (Horticentre Group)
Aquakynde (anionic surfactant adjuvant). The attachment provided identifies serious eye damage (H318) and aquatic harm (H402/H412) with an anionic surfactant (e.g., benzenesulfonic acid, C10–13-alkyl derivatives, sodium salts; CAS series including 68515-73-1 / 68411-30-3). Representative SDS documents for these surfactants report fish LC50 ≈ 1.7 mg/L and Daphnia EC50 ≈ 2.9 mg/L, consistent with Aquatic Chronic hazard classifications. (Alconox)
Mixture concern. When glyphosate formulations are tank-mixed with additional surfactant, the overall aquatic hazard typically increases compared with glyphosate alone because surfactants can drive toxicity and membrane permeability in aquatic organisms. (PubMed)
Legal and planning framework (national and regional)
Implication for Te Henga: Even where “water application” may be contemplated under HSR000227, meeting the strict controls and AUP E34 expectations in a complex wetland is demanding, and label instructions (e.g., do not allow to enter waterways) still apply. (Horticentre Group)
Wetland exposure pathways
In Te Henga’s mosaic of pools, drains, and saturated peat, likely exposure routes include:
What good compliance should already cover
Health and ecological science relevant to decisions
Findings specific to Te Henga
ABOVE: Pāteke (brown teal) at Tiritiri Mātangi. In 2015 pāteke were reintroduced to Te Henga wetland. Photo: Sabines Sunbird
Recommendations
Requests to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE)
Notes on the Safety Data Sheets
Scope and limitations
This review integrates product hazard information, New Zealand regulatory requirements, and peer-reviewed evidence on wetland exposure and toxicity, interpreted for Te Henga. It does not reconstruct field practices or verify on-site conditions. For a complete compliance assessment, obtain work plans, spray diaries, weather/wind records, equipment and operator certificates, GPS traces, and pair these with site inspections and basic sampling.
References
a) Alconox SDS (Sodium alkylbenzene sulfonate; fish LC50 1.67 mg/L; Daphnia EC50 2.9 mg/L). https://alconox.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Alconox-SDS-english.pdf
b) Forders SDS (Sodium C10–13 alkylbenzene sulfonate; aquatic toxicity section). https://www.forders.fi/storage/product_files/0/157140-157104_KTTeng.pdf
Soil & Health Submission on the ‘Draft Inputs Notice for Generic Substances’
/in Organics, SubmissionsMPI opened consultation in relation to its intention to develop a system to manage inputs under the Organic Products and Production Act 2023.
The deadline for consultation submissions closed on November 7th and the documents submitted by us are available for you to download or view below:
Draft Inputs Notice for Generic Substances – submission document (PDF)
Draft Inputs Notice Generic Substances – submission spreadsheet (XLXS).xlsx
For more information in relation to this issue visit the MPI website consultation page.
2026 Calendars for sale!
/in Books, Campaigns, Organic CommunityThe Gene Tech Bill Tightrope
/in Farming, Farming and Horticulture, Free Online, GE, GM, Health and Food, NewsWhat 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 Farming, Farming and Horticulture, Free Online, GE, GM, Health and Food, Media Releases, NewsMEDIA 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 Farming, Free Online, GE, GM, Health and Food, Media Releases, NewsMEDIA 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)