The Government has just announced it’s ending what it calls a nearly 30-year ban on gene technology outside the lab. What does that mean? Science reporter Jamie Morton explains.

So firstly, what exactly has the Government just announced?
It’s set to introduce new laws around gene tech to Parliament by the end of the year, along with a new regulator to oversee applications.

The laws would essentially align New Zealand’s stance to genetic modification and gene editing with that of Australia, which has long had its own regulator.

New Zealand’s would be a dedicated business housed within the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and it’d have the authority to exempt certain activities involving gene editing.

“This is a major milestone in modernising gene technology laws to enable us to improve health outcomes, adapt to climate change, deliver massive economic gains and improve the lives of New Zealanders,” Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins said today.

“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.”

Why is this a big deal?

Today’s announcement marks the biggest step in the space in decades by any New Zealand government: past ones have typically shown scant appetite for reform.

Genetic modification has been a vexed subject in New Zealand since the controversy that swirled around the Royal Commission of Inquiry and “Corngate” scandal 20 years ago.

Yet, our peak science body, two chief scientists and the Productivity Commission have all concluded our laws need to catch up with technology.

Over the past two decades, our regulations around GM have generally kept to a “proceed-with-caution” approach set by the Royal Commission.

They’re controlled under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act, which has aged around a time-stamped list of genetic tools, leaving legal and scientific definitions increasingly misaligned.

In the time the HSNO Act has governed GM, we’ve seen the advent of gene editing tools like Crispr Cas-9 – whereby organisms can be tweaked without needing to introduce material from others and often described by scientists as an entirely different tech.

In 2018, the Ministry for the Environment advised our regulations were growing tough to enforce, particularly after a 2014 court decision effectively ensured gene editing stayed just as controlled as earlier techniques.

Concern has been growing that our regulations have been keeping us behind the rest of the world, with former chief scientist Professor Sir Peter Gluckman warning New Zealand risked becoming a “biotech backwater” if it didn’t regularly review new tech.

While the former Labour-led government ordered a review of laws, that only extended as far as regulatory processes governing lab-based work, mainly in the medical space.

Has GM really been banned in New Zealand?

Regulators – and groups that want to retain the status quo – have long argued there’s been no such prohibition here, and the onus has rather been on scientists to meet the criteria of the HSNO Act.

Yet, it’s been more than a decade since our EPA last received an application for GM field tests.

In most cases, research involving gene-editing and GM has been restricted to highly-contained environments like laboratories.

In tightly controlled trials, Plant and Food Research has used genetic tech in crop breeding programmes to pinpoint certain functions but hasn’t developed any GM foods for commercial use.

Both AgResearch and Scion have opted to run outdoor trials overseas, given the regulatory environment here.

So what would the new laws enable?

As with Australia’s, the new laws will take a “hybrid” approach - meaning some specific gene technologies could be exempted from regulations.

That included activity that either involved minimal risks, or couldn’t “be distinguished from those achievable by conventional breeding techniques”, the Government said.

One cited example was next-generation CAR T-cell cancer therapies being developed by Wellington’s Malaghan Institute.

It involved collecting a patient’s immune cells, genetically modifying the cells to recognise and kill their cancer and returning the cells to the patient as treatment.

Current restrictions around research like this have proven challenging for scientists to work with.

Under the proposed new rules, CAR T-cells would still be regulated, but they’d likely go into the non-notifiable category – meaning they could be authorised without requiring an assessment and approval by the regulator.

Malaghan Institute researchers are trying to find a CAR T-cell therapy more effective than current ones – but also safer and affordable – that can be introduced to our healthcare system. Photo / Supplied

In another example, Scion is developing gene-edited sterile Douglas fir trees as a way to help tackle the spread of wilding pines across our landscapes, but is having to conduct field trials in the US.

The laws would mean these could be trialed here instead, with the research considered exempt from regulation.

At AgResearch, scientists have been looking at whether gene editing might unlock a pathway in white clover leading to specific compounds that might also help cut methane and nitrogen pollution.

The new laws would make it easier for the agency to run controlled field trials here in New Zealand, and the work would be assessed under the proposed rules through an “expedited assessment pathway”.

As for whether gene editing might be used to combat the disease killing our kauri trees, that’s not so straightforward.

Nothing like that’s been developed yet, and if it was, a Māori Advisory Committee would be called upon to advise the regulator on what is a taonga species.

Do the new laws mean we will start seeing GM crops sprouting up across New Zealand?

As is already the case, the Government says any application for growing GM crops here would need to be fully assessed for risk under the new rules.

If that required a full assessment, then there’d be public consultation.

If a licence was granted, then the regulator might require a boundary or a particular distance to the perimeter of the crop – similar to conditions currently imposed on use of sprays.

As is often pointed out, our supermarkets are full of imported processed foods that contain GM ingredients and must be labelled accordingly.

While shoppers can now buy Impossible Foods’ plant-based patty (containing a GM soy protein and another ingredient made from GM yeast designed to give it a trick-meat taste) our shelves are virtually bare of actual GM fruit, veggies and meat.

Food safety regulator Food Standards Australia New Zealand is now holding a second round of public consultation on a new definition for GM food.

What about humans and animals?

In controlled studies, gene tech might be used on human cells to treat conditions like sickle cell anaemia or Huntington’s Disease – but none of these genetic changes can be passed on to children.

Implanting genetically-modified sperm, eggs and embryos is currently prohibited by the Human Assisted Reproductive Technologies Act 2004, and the Government says this won’t change.

When it comes to studies involving animals, the National Animal Ethics Committee considers the ethics of genetically modifying animals under the Animal Welfare Act.

While there are some studies under way exploring the concept of gene-editing possums for pest control, that’s not something we can likely expect to see happen anytime soon.

What do we know about the public appetite for reform?

Surveys to date suggest GM is still a divisive issue among Kiwis – even though the science has advanced heavily since the furore of the early 2000s.

About a third of people polled in a 2019 Stuff survey thought GM food shouldn’t be sold here – and a similar proportion of respondents in a Research First survey gave initial support for gene editing in food production.

Nearly half agreed they’d have concerns about buying GM fruit and veggies or even buying products from animals that had eaten gene-edited food.

The Impossible Burger.

When a separate research team investigated specific views toward using gene drives in pest control, they found support among only about 32 per cent of some 8200 respondents, who appeared much more comfortable with pest-specific toxins.

Other researchers who canvassed views among Māori found most supported gene editing’s use against diseases rather than “cosmetic” health applications, or for conservation over agriculture.

What have been the counter-arguments?

Groups opposed to releasing GMOs into our environment maintain this could cause irreversible ecological impacts – and that it could hurt our GM-free trade status.

That latter concern was cited by former environment minister David Parker, who said neither side had convincingly answered whether changing our GM status would hurt exports.

Dairy giant Fonterra is among exporters who’ve touted their non-GMO products.

On the other hand, some commentators, including John Caradus, of AgResearch-owned Grasslanz Technology, have argued to the contrary, pointing to the fact our top trading partner China imported products from nations with looser laws.

While many scientists – including Gluckman and fellow former chief scientist Professor Dame Juliet Gerrard – have called for reform, some, such as the University of Canterbury’s Professor Jack Heinemann, have favoured keeping the status quo approach to gene-editing.

More broadly, science commentators have argued for a more nuanced and evidence-informed discussion around the tech.

Jamie Morton is a specialist in science and environmental reporting. He joined the Herald in 2011 and writes about everything from conservation and climate change to natural hazards and new technology.