��һ�ǿ�����

Labour and the Greens have given lukewarm responses to moves to make New Zealand’s regulatory settings more accommodating of genetic engineering (GE), after three decades of a relatively strict regime, which the Government said effectively banned the use of GE outside of laboratory settings.

The Greens, in particular, are still very cautious, saying they oppose releasing GE crops into the environment, holding to a position the party has held for decades.

Science Minister Judith Collins announced the Government’s new regime on Tuesday, saying the Government would introduce legislation later this year based on an Australian law from 2000.

The Government said it will establish a new regulator to give the sector and the public confidence in the regime. The regulator will use a “hybrid approach”, meaning specific gene technologies can be exempted from regulations.

An activity will be exempted because it either involves minimal risks or it cannot be distinguished from those achievable by conventional breeding techniques.

Collins said the laws would ensure “strong protections for human health and the environment”.

“Restrictive rules and time-consuming processes have made research outside the lab almost impossible, resulting in New Zealand falling behind. These changes will bring New Zealand up to global best practice and ensure we can capitalise on the benefits,” Collins said.

“New Zealand has lagged behind countries, including Australia, England, Canada, and many European nations in allowing the use of this technology for the benefit of their people, and their economies.”

She promised new technologies that would make New Zealand more productive and even help to treat some forms of cancer.

Act’s science, innovation and technology spokeswoman Parmjeet Parmar said the move will mean the “brightest scientific minds will be freer to make advancements that will lift human flourishing, improve environmental outcomes, and create major commercial opportunities”.

Labour’s science spokeswoman Deborah Russell said the change was “new territory” for New Zealand and urged the Government to show “transparency”.

“We’ve already seen National go too far and too fast and make mistakes. Getting this piece of legislation right is critical to New Zealand’s future,” she said.

While National, Labour, and Act have made the issue one for their science spokespeople, the MP leading the charge for the Greens is agriculture and food safety spokesman Steve Abel.

He said the party would continue to “oppose the environmental release of GE crops”.

However, he said the party backed the “ethical use of GE biotechnology in containment, including medical use, and maintains a precautionary and evidenced-based approach to the application of GE”.

“The party’s view is that a wide-ranging and robust public discussion is required about scientific developments in gene-editing and related technology before any changes can be considered to the regulatory framework in the Hazardous Substances and New Organism Act.”

Genetic technology has been a challenging issue for New Zealand’s left-wing parties for decades.

It was one of the defining issues of the 2002 regime and led to a dramatic scrap between Labour and the Greens - the latter party memorably described by then-Prime Minister Helen Clark as “goths and anarcho-feminists”.

Since then, the scientific community has largely moved to back GE, and while Labour and the Greens have tended to hug science quite closely, notably during the pandemic, GE remains a touchy subject for both parties.

While genetically modified (GM) food can currently be sold in New Zealand under existing food safety laws, Collins’ law change will make it easier for some GM crops to be grown here.

Documents released by Collins’ office say that GM crops will “be assessed for risk and if they require a full assessment then there will be a public consultation before the regulator is satisfied the risks can be managed”.

At this point the new regulator would issue a licence for the crops to be released. Those licences could have conditions attached to them, including requiring “a boundary or a particular distance to be applied to the perimeter of the GM crop (similar to conditions currently imposed on use of sprays)”.

Abel told ��һ�ǿ�����talk ZB there were “significant downsides” to GE crops.

“The overwhelming majority of GE crops around the world are proprietary seed or agri-chemical company crops.

“We see in the United States, for example, where Monsanto developed herbicide-resistant crops that led to a big increase in the use of toxic chemicals which was not good for farmers, the environment, or the public - so there are significant downsides GE as well.”

Thomas Coughlan is Deputy Political Editor and covers politics from Parliament. He has worked for the Herald since 2021 and has worked in the press gallery since 2018.