When, oh when, are we going to talk about genetic technologies?

Genetic technologies offer promising solutions to New Zealand’s agricultural challenges, but do they align with our national brand? With the Government’s proposal for dedicated legislation on genetic technology looming, what implications does this hold?

Globally, scientists have been calling for society to consider the more widespread use of genetic technologies in agriculture to combat challenges such as climate change. They argue that this approach could play a role in securing better access to nutritious foods without exacerbating environmental damage. These calls are pertinent, considering 130 world leaders recently endorsed the COP28 declaration on sustainable food and agriculture.

But should genetic technologies be part of the solution to develop more sustainable food? Ever since genetic modification and, more recently, gene editing technologies were introduced, they have been the subject of intense debate. With gene editing, DNA can be cut and modified at specific locations much more efficiently than genetic modification. Producing organisms without any foreign DNA is also possible.

Some 30 countries worldwide grow GM crops, but it is also prohibited in dozens of countries, including in New Zealand, and several countries have recently excluded some gene-editing techniques from their GM policies. New Zealand has not yet taken this step, and in 2016, the Government clarified GMO regulations indicating its decision was based on market perceptions considering our status as an exporter of billions of dollars’ worth of food products.

Despite this regulatory stance, research in New Zealand has been happening in this area for decades. AgResearch has several genetically modified or gene-edited grasses under development, including a GM white clover, which early research indicates could reduce methane emissions.

Agriculture, particularly livestock activities, is an emission-heavy business on top of concerns such as overuse and runoff of pesticides and fertilisers. With nearly half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions coming from agriculture, the industry and farmers are under pressure to make changes and have been calling for more tools to help them do so.  

The potential use of genetic technologies in New Zealand’s agriculture has been a political hot potato for 25 years. But the National Party released its ‘Harnessing Biotech Plan’ last year. This proposal indicates the Government would introduce dedicated legislation outlining the use of gene editing and GM, replacing the current Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

But the Government’s plan is just a plan, with no indication of when work might begin. The plan (if approved) would streamline approvals for gene-editing technologies that could reduce on-farm emissions and other applications, and approve trials (or use) of gene-edited products that have already been approved by at least two other OECD countries.

Given past resistance to GM food in New Zealand and sensitivity regarding this subject, some may consider the Government’s new plan a bold move – though others would say it’s long overdue. It is likely to see some backlash from agri-food businesses seeking to protect their branding tactics to sell food products at a premium in overseas markets. To those businesses the positioning of gene-edited foods or non-GMOs to international consumers is a valid concern.

Knowing that the global acceptance of these technologies and products is of significant interest, I conducted a systematic review of socio-cultural factors influencing this. Research has primarily been conducted in North America and Europe, which suggests consumers are slightly more positive toward the idea of gene-edited foods than genetically modified foods. Further, people generally accept applications that result in proposed benefits, such as drought-tolerant crops or foods with improved nutritional value.

In New Zealand, limited research has taken place into public attitudes. Preliminary surveys by Research First show that 30 percent of the New Zealand public supported growing GM crops in New Zealand.

Another 52 percent favoured using gene editing to improve pasture quality on farms. Additionally, 84 percent of New Zealanders felt uninformed about gene-editing technologies, and 43 percent were neutral or didn’t know if these technologies were important for New Zealand’s future.

Clearly New Zealand needs to discuss this matter, as called for by Te Aparangi Royal Society in 2019 and the New Zealand Productivity Commission in 2021. More inclusive and wider public conversations can help us better understand priorities and concerns, and tailor policy and technology development based on this. Taking a one-size-fits-all approach is neither possible nor desirable, considering food underpins local culture and livelihoods.

Though some outrightly oppose deliberately modifying genes, other views vary based on ethical values. These values may be related to perceptions of ‘naturalness’ or animal welfare. Consumers also strongly support the labelling of these foods, empowering their ‘right to choose’. Establishing an easy-to-understand and openly available registry of genetic technology applications could also foster social license and trust in the agri-food industry and enable more informed choices.

New Zealand stands at a crossroads, balancing socio-cultural, economic, and scientific factors in new legislation. The Government must consider all these factors appropriately and the complex systems in which they operate. There will be no simple answers, and we must acknowledge inherent tensions in equitability managing technological risks and benefits and optimising acceptability among different stakeholders.

As a young person passionate about creating a more sustainable agri-food industry, I want to embrace all possibilities in this new future. I hope this future includes exploring how technological innovation can exist alongside alternative and grassroots food movements. Suppose we do one day streamline approvals for gene-editing technologies in agriculture. In that case, we must consider local, regional, and global agri-food challenges, which means the Government must step up and assess food security and develop a national food strategy.

As these technologies continue to proliferate overseas, they are inevitably banging on our door. Whatever the Government does next, it’s time to start having broader and more nuanced public conversations. New Zealand has been mute on this subject for two decades, and skirting this discussion again may lead to further division. Instead, let’s grasp the nettle (genetically modified or otherwise) and explore the responsible use of this technology based on our unique values, concerns, and priorities.