Where's the Public Consultation?
Folks, if we do not act quickly and decisively, the Gene-E genie will be released from its bottle and never to be put back again.
Clean, green, GE-Free New Zealand will no longer exist.
The Gene Technology Bill in New Zealand is moving fast and could change the rules around gene editing. This would allow new technologies to be used in food, medicine, and the environment without proper testing, labels, or safety checks. Many people are worried that this is risky and could harm our health, animals, or nature.
Gene editing is like rewriting the instructions inside plants, animals, or even humans, but it is not perfect. Mistakes can happen, and scientists cannot always predict how these changes will turn out. For example, some experiments could accidentally create dangerous bacteria or viruses that spread uncontrollably. Yet, big biotech companies are often left to monitor themselves, which means they might not always follow strict safety rules.
In 2001, New Zealand decided to be extra careful with genetic technology. They said no new gene editing should happen until it has been proven safe. This new law wants to scrap that rule, letting companies take shortcuts. Critics think this could harm New Zealand's clean, green image and hurt the environment.
We need to think twice before making these changes. Speaking up now can help protect our food, nature, and health for the future.
Biotechnology: The Bigger the Tech, the Bigger the Risk
This interview in the video below, with Professor Jack Heinemann talks about some really important ideas around biotechnology (biotech), risk, and safety. It is a must-watch for anyone interested in science, ethics, or how we manage new technology.
What I interpret Professor Heinemann is saying is this: As biotech gets better and faster, it can produce more things quickly. But with more production comes more risk. So, how do we figure out if something is dangerous? One possible scenario is that a biotech product may initially seem low-risk, but once it is implemented on a large scale, unforeseen issues may arise. These problems may be costly and difficult to control, leading to irreversible consequences in certain circumstances, at least in theory. Are we prepared to risk New Zealand's future health and prosperity by taking such risks — and for what benefit in return?
I have experience with risk assessment from my time as an officer with the ACC, helping to create its safety programmes during its early years.
Key Points:
Hazard vs. Risk: A hazard is something that could cause harm, like a dangerous product. But risk is about how likely it is to cause harm. They are not the same. That is why testing and rules (risk assessment) are so important before widespread use (Did not we learn anything from the COVID vaccine debacle?).
Scaling up: When a technology grows and is used more widely (like in farming or factories), risks can scale up. A small problem in a lab could become a big one in the real world if we do not manage it properly.
Why regulation matters: If we assume a biotech technique is always safe, we might let people use it freely without enough rules. But this could lead to harm because no one is checking how it is being used or the impacts at scale. Regulation is about setting limits and checking for risks before things go wrong.
Professor Heinemann explores how to handle these risks responsibly, not just in biotech but in other technologies too. It is an important discussion because how we manage these tools decides if they bring more benefits or dangers.
So, while a specific biotech may do amazing things, we still need cautiously smart rules to make sure it does not cause harm, if it is ever released, and as it grows in scale.
It makes you question who is behind, and driving these new biotech laws with such haste and enthusiasm, and on the back of the COVID vaccine debacle? I doubt it is by traditional Kiwi farmers.
For those who want to delve deeper
Dr Guy Hathcard has written an excellent article on the proposed legislation:
Bovaer, a drug that is meant to reduce cows farting, is an example of a biotech that we do not need. It has many unquantified risks that get worse as it grows in distribution, as we said earlier in this article. Here is what I wrote about Bovaer:
GE Free Tai Tokerau sent me this information that follows. Read it, along with Dr Hatchard's essay, and judge for yourself if you feel this legislation is in New Zealand's best interests:
Gene Technology bill is out!
Minister Chris Bishop (Speaker of the House) announced this afternoon in parliament, "Next week, the House will consider the third reading of the Fast-track Approvals Bill as well as the first readings of the RMA amendment Bill and the Gene Technology BilL"
see
Our allies in Wellington will be in the gallery for the reading this week in Wellington
Kill the Bill!
15/12/2024 Biggest Losers in Gene Technology Bill: Farmers, Exporters, Consumers, Animals, Nature
https://www.gefree.org.nz/press-releases-2019-2023/15122024-biggest-losers-in-gene-technology-bill-farmers-exporters-consumers-animals-nature/?fbclid=IwY2xjawHMcolleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHa7j8ONtJlilgy7Hspp_kVTqXNvC0m6AvGN8Mai6fCPht7eYagwHFEh9HA_aem_k_B0Apmpk9ZMBxuTASAJuA
and interview with the GE FREE NZ spokesman Jon Carapiet on Reality Check Radio
https://realitycheck.radio/replay/jon-carapiet-spokesman-for-ge-free-gene-technology-bill-why-it-threatens-the-environment-and-their-call-to-action-for-all-new-zealanders/?fbclid=IwY2xjawHMO-1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHY54lbJrFeojsXJdtKJSYGpz2jkCqEZ8cED3LNvqQC4a3ymMbxPE1CPztw_aem_0VUTPsXObneRvOr2woLsbw
Science Media Centre had an embargoed copy of the Gene Technology Bill early on (with comment from various pro GE/GMO scientists including those with a pecuniary interest)
SMC finally dained to add in comment from our most highly qualified independent scientist Professor Jack Heinemann
https://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2024/12/10/gene-technology-bill-introduced-to-parliament-expert-reaction/
Professor Jack Heinemann, Professor of Genetics, University of Canterbury, comments:
“The proposed legislation makes New Zealand an international minority in its combination of deregulated gene technology processes and organisms. The basis for this change is that there is one world view of what outcomes of conventional breeding are identical to those made using gene technology. The world doesn’t have one view on this despite attempts to make it appear otherwise.
“It furthermore asserts that the harms that could arise through gene technology should not be controlled by regulation because they might arise other ways. That is not scientifically justified.
“The legislation risks trade disputes and environmental degradation based on unrealistic expectations that the technology mainly creates what we want it to. That can’t be assumed. It is regulations on gene technology, not gene technology itself, that ensures we know what we made.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Expert witness for councils on GMO provisions and High Court on determination of genome editing as a process that creates GMOs, former member of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Risk Assessment and Risk Management of the Convention on Biological Diversity, author IPCC 6th Report.”
Judith Collins tweeted about it (pathetic) yesterday here<https://x.com/JudithCollinsMP/status/1866292454502330571>, saying"Today, the Gene Technology Bill has been introduced in Parliament. NewZealanders will soon be able to join other citizens of advancedeconomies and access science that improves lives, health, the environment, productivity, and brings us into line with mainstreamthought and practice."
>>> Government briefings and papers>> Document iconRegulation of Gene Technologies – Policy Decisions> [PDF 937KB]> <https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/29938-regulation-of-gene-technologies-policy-decisions-proactiverelease-pdf
>>; Documentent iconRegulation of gene technologies – policy decisions –> Minute of Decision [PDF 335KB]> <https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/29939-regulation-of-gene-technologies-policy-decisions-minute-of-decision-proactiverelease-pdf
>> Document iconRegulation of Gene Technologies – Policy Decisions:> Proactive Release of Advice [PDF 4.7MB]> <https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/29940-regulation-of-gene-technologies-policy-decisions-proactive-release-of-advice-proactiverelease-pdf
>> Document iconRegulatory Impact Statement - Reform of Gene> Technology Regulation [PDF 1.8MB]> <https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/29936-regulatory-impact-statement-reform-of-gene-technology-regulation-pdf
>> * Document iconGene technology media pack [DOCX 362KB]> <https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/28985-gene-technology-media-pack-pdf>
Zespri recently held a meeting where Italian growers of G3: the gold kiwifruit were present; they enthusiastically grow G3 under licence;
all 4 were asked "to what extent is it important to you; that the Zespri kiwifruit that you grow; is GE-free
one grower immediately and passionately started shouting back; VERY, VERY, VERY IMPORTANT ...... " his colleagues all agreed; they were very clear; and very certain;
how should Zespri respond to taht?
at the tyranny of distance; some in NZ seem unaware that Europeans by and large feel very strongly that their food should be pure and healthy;
and those "bull in a china shop" souls keen to pass this terrible Bill; https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2024/0110/latest/whole.html
just do not seem to grasp…
Covid is one result from messing with genes. Western science won’t admit that Covid came from a wuhan lab with poor standards that had been experimenting with viruses. Too much Chinese money funding western science…