Genetically modified food in Oceania

As of 2024 many issues requiring ongoing review remain in Oceania, in line with European data that showed "questions of consumer confidence and trust" and negative perceptions of genetically modified food as unhealthy and the technology as a process likely to damage the environment.

[2][3] The OTGR is a Commonwealth Government Authority within the Department of Health and Ageing and reports directly to Parliament through a Ministerial Council on Gene Technology and has legislative powers.

The Prime Minister stated in the same press release that there was not unanimous support for the policy from all members of her centre-left Labour Party, including some Māori MPs who "objected to genetic modification for religious and cultural reasons".

[27] Early in 2002, following public consultation, the New Zealand government drafted a series of proposals for legislative changes, notably some to amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms act.

The report concluded that the actions required by the Government were to protect the country's interests, declare New Zealand a GM-free food producer for five years and make appropriate changes to the law for possible releases of GM in the future.

On 1 November 2001 over two hundred people arrived at Parliament in Wellington after travelling from Northland to protest genetically modified tamarillo field trials carried out by HortResearch in Kerikeri.

[44] Another march that began on 22 August 2003 and ended with hundreds of protesters gathering at Parliament on 23 October called for a complete ban on GM in New Zealand and presenting a petition that read:We, the undersigned, request that Parliament ensure that genetic engineering research takes place only in contained laboratories, that genetically modified organisms are not released into the environment or food chain, and that the moratorium continues for at least five more years until 2008[45] The hīkoi became known the 'Seed Carriers', because the participants collected seeds on the march and later presented these to the government "in protest at the harm GM could cause to New Zealand’s seed varieties, including native plants.

[12]: p.5 As part of a nation-wide initiative, an estimated 9000 people marched through the centre of Auckland on 12 October 2003 to protest against the lifting of the moratorium on the commercial release of genetically engineered organisms.

Scion's acting chief executive, Elspeth MacRae, said it was "confident no genetically modified material was moved outside the site during the break in...[and]...there [were] no concerns surrounding contamination".

[54] Held across the country, the marches drew attention to Monsanto selling genetically-engineered seeds which were claimed to "resist insecticides and herbicides, add nutritional benefits or otherwise improve crop yields and increase the global food supply".

Professor and Associate Dean (Research), University of Otago Peter Dearden held "it is time for us to stop believing that all GM is bad and to see that the benefits can far outweigh the risks," and Barry Scott, Professor of Molecular Genetics at Massey University, suggested the report showed how the extreme view of Greenpeace could be challenged by "new technologies associated with gene and genome editing...given changes can now be made to the genome that are similar to those made by non-GM methods such as radiation treatment".

"[60]: p.6 Peter Gluckman, a former science advisor to the New Zealand Government suggested in 2018 that a reconsideration of genetic engineering was "long overdue...[and]...the issue needs re-addressing because there have been significant developments over the last 15 years".

Jon Carapiet, the national spokesman for GE-Free New Zealand, urged caution and suggested that while industries can respond "creatively" to regulation, others are "driven by deliberate ignorance to practical proven alternatives such as climate-smart agri-ecology".

Andrew Allan, professor of plant biology at Auckland University cautioned against a lost opportunity, concluding "without the ability to use gene-editing, New Zealand will be prevented from growing food that is better for the environment and our industries will fall behind our trading partner and competitors".

AgResearch principal plant biotechnology scientist Greg Bryan held that the ryegrass that has been developed "could transform farming by reducing its environmental footprint and improving animal productivity".

The paper cautioned that gene-editing technologies can "prioritize commercial interests over community benefit" resulting in "societal sensitivities about inequities", but concluded that "the participants in this study wanted to engage in a constructive discussion to create a robust regulatory framework that addresses gene editing on a case-by-case basis and utilizes Māori values within the decision-making process".

In 2019 a group of New Zealand scientists called for a full review of the country's laws related to genetically modified organisms claiming there was now "scientific consensus about the safety of GM crops".

The report identified research by AgResearch to develop a genetically modified ryegrass, that "strikes a balance between reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, greater tolerance to drought and farm productivity" and work by the same organisation on white clover using genetic transformation to "increase the levels of condensed tannins (CT) as they are highly desirable in forage as they sequester dietary protein and reduce bloat and methane emissions in ruminants".

[71] An Auckland academic took the position that the possibility of genetic modification helping New Zealand's respond to climate change was a key driver in shifting the debate about the issue.

Specifically, the report noted [that] "timely access to new plant genetic material is critical for New Zealand’s primary sector to retain and build its competitive advantage in international markets".

[73] In his response to the report, Stuart Nash the Economic Development Minister, did not note food directly, but acknowledged the importance of [supporting] "internationally-focussed growth and innovation...[and retaining]...links to global research, science and technology".

[75] Another commentator claimed that despite the Commission's report there was little public interest in changing the regulations although there were still two sides to the argument, from defending the legislation because it controlled the spread of GMOs to how it could be modified to help cut agricultural emissions.

The article also put the position of those who claim that genetic modification would not be effective in lowering emissions, citing Steve Abel from Greenpeace who said: "the time frames that it takes to develop these technologies and test them and prove them are not the timeframes we have.

[81]A spokesperson for one pro-Gm New Zealand organisation BioTechNZ [68], said public attitudes toward GM might have shifted, but GE-Free NZ [82] questioned the motives for a review and feared it could lead to deregulation putting people and nature at risk.

The paper acknowledged that the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser has noted that there is a need for different approaches to a "spectrum of genetic modification technologies", and concluded: "In the view of the Crown Research Institutes, it is time to...consider how New Zealand may appropriately take advantage of new knowledge to advance the wellbeing of the people and the country.

He claimed that there were significant benefits from industries in the country growing genetically modified crops, including more nutritious food with a longer storage life, less waste from fruit and vegetables with "fewer blemishes from pest and disease damage", higher yields for producers and the development of plants that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and be "better adapted to the forthcoming constraints of climate change (e.g. winter chilling for fruit production)".

Speaking on behalf of the Act Party, Parmjeet Parmar claimed 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", while in the same piece Labour's Deborah Russell urged the government to be transparent as the change was "new territory".

Steve Abel put the Green Party's position "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".

[102] Mark Patterson, in his capacity as Minister for Rural Communities, agreed that OANZ should have been engaged with earlier because of the importance of organic farmers and growers in New Zealand's primary sector and Judith Collins explained that legislative changes were consistent with regulations in other countries.

In the same piece, it was noted that the Ministry for Business, Innovations and Employment (MBIE) had provided assurance to the organic sector that there would be full risk assessment and public consultation before licences were confirmed.