Protecting Our Democratic Right to Be GE-Free
GE Free Northland (in food & environment)
12 February 2025 Media release
Whangarei, Far North, Kaipara, and Auckland communities share the concerns of many New Zealanders about the controversial Gene Technology Bill, quietly released just days before Christmas 2024.
The Bill proposes removing all ethical considerations and the Precautionary approach to outdoor GE/ GMO applications and the authors of the Bill have failed to adequately consult with the farming sector. In addition, the Bill proposes stripping local councils of their authority and jurisdiction in regard to outdoor GE experiments, field trials, and releases.
Removal of the authority of these councils would destroy what they have worked hard to achieve – much needed additional protection for the biosecurity of particular regions and the wider environment. These were put in place to address significant risks that would be faced by farmers and other ratepayers.
The Northland and Auckland Region, along with the Hastings District, are established GE Free food producing zones that provide protection from outdoor GE field trials, and releases.
“The Northland /Auckland Councils collaborated in a fiscally responsible manner to meet the needs of farmers and other ratepayers, after robust public consultation over a period of many years. “
“The councils wisely prohibit the release of any Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and make any EPA approved outdoor GE experiments and field trials a Discretionary activity, subject to liability provisions including the posting of bonds,” said GE Free Northland spokesman Martin Robinson.
“We fully support council rules without which GM free primary producers, including conventional, IPM, and organic, would be at risk of serious financial consequences, if not the complete loss, of their valuable enterprises, in the case of GE contamination from EPA approved activities,” said Robinson. “We urge concerned Northlanders and Aucklanders to make a submission opposing the Gene Technology Bill by the deadline of 17 January 2025.”
The proposals in the Coalition government’s plans to remove the rights of councils to prohibit GMO activities are in clauses 248 to 253 of the Bill* (1).
“This is a political fight any government would be foolhardy to pick, given the huge backing from the Northland and Auckland communities, the significant biosecurity risks, the concerns of Kiwi farmers, and the importance of our existing valuable GE free status, says GE Free Northland spokesman Martin Robinson.
Councils’ concerns about GE relate mainly to uncertainties over the economic, environmental, biosecurity, and socio-cultural risks, including risks to farmers and other primary producers.*(2)
Without a strict liability regime, unsuspecting third parties and local authorities are at risk of GE contamination. This would result in them being unable to sell their produce on the export market. The issue of liability for any adverse effects of GMOs grown in the area needs to be resolved before any outdoor experiments are permitted in Auckland/Northland Peninsula.
Instead of there being provisions in this Bill to compensate farmers for GE contamination, the opposite is proposed. Farmers and growers whose crops or stock are adversely affected must pay the clean up costs and suffer the losses of cancelled export orders. This would mean the loss of access to key markets and the current non-GMO market premiums they earn.
There has been no economic cost-benefit analysis carried out in the Bill on the effects of GE contamination on our primary sector exports.
“Farmers cannot afford to experiment with their income and livelihood. There’s no hardcore evidence to suggest anything is practical or feasible with this technology. Co-existence between GE and other crops is impossible without significant contamination threshold levels, as documented in North America and other countries.”
“Agriculture in New Zealand is worth around $56 billion in exports. Why would anyone in their right mind want to gamble all of that on something that might not even work and is highly likely to cause irreversible harm,” said horticulturist Zelka Grammer, GE Free Northland chair.
Analysis of the Bill has been carried out by a team of researchers from the University of Canterbury headed by Professor Jack Heinemann. Their area of expertise includes the biosafety of GMOs and risk assessment protocols. *(3) This analysis indicates that a robust scientific case has not been made for the proposed reforms to gene technology law and that we would be much better off sticking with the current laws under the HSNO Act (1996).
The right of communities to decide was confirmed by a landmark Environment Court decision in 2015. This decision gave councils the power, under the RMA, to control the outdoor use of GMOs in their regions.
The National Party’s previous attempt to take away communities’ ability to ban or control GM releases in their territories was strongly opposed by farmers and all councils from South Auckland to Cape Reinga as well as Hastings District Council and its ratepayers.*(4)
GE Free Northland urges NZ First to no longer support the unscientific, unsafe, and economically risky proposals in this Bill, and to respect the right of councils to choose sustainable integrated planning. *(5)
“NZ’s reputation in the global marketplace must be protected. GE crops have failed to perform overseas, with lower yields, higher herbicide use, and the creation of herbicide resistant invasive “super weeds”.
“This combined with ongoing consumer and market aversion to GE food means that this is not the path NZ should go down. We must continue to protect our valuable “Northland, Naturally brand” and high value agricultural economy against GMO contamination,” said Grammer.
The operative Northland “Regional Policy Statement”, Regional Plan, the Auckland Unitary Plan, and the Whangarei and Far North District Plans all have strong precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules in place in keeping with the wishes of local farmers and other ratepayers. *(6)
Northland Regional Council is holding a workshop today at Whangārei council chambers in response to widespread concerns about the proposed legislative changes. *(7)
ENDS
Contact: Martin Robinson 09 409 8650
Mobile: 027 347 8048
Zelka Linda Grammer
email: linda.grammer@gmail.com
*(1)
The explanatory notes in the Gene Technology Bill state:
“Subpart 9—Amendments to Resource Management Act 1991 Clauses 246 to 254 amend the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). In particular, these clauses— • define genetically modified and Regulator (clause 247): • prohibit a regional council or territorial authority from performing its functions under sections 30 and 31 of the RMA in a manner that treats genetically modified organisms differently from other organisms, including in regional plans, district plans and regional rules (clauses 248 to 253).”
All councils from south Auckland to Cape Reinga in Far North/ Te Tai Tokerau have precautionary and prohibitive GE/GMO provisions, policies, and rules- set up in keeping with the wishes of local farmers and other ratepayers, in order to protect our regions biosecurity, wider environment, economy, and existing GM free farmers/ primary producers, including conventional, IPM, regenerative,and organic.
Hastings District Council has achieved outright prohibition of all outdoor GE/GMO experiments, field trials, and releases for the duration of the District Plan.
*(2)
Whangarei District Council “Genetic Engineering Review” webpage, detailing the good work of the Northland/ Auckland INTER COUNCIL WORKING PARTY ON GMO RISK EVALUATION & MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
https://www.wdc.govt.nz/Council/Council-documents/Reports/Genetic-Engineering-Review
“Three major reports commissioned by the working party have identified a range of risks involved with the trialing and release of GMOs. They also include approaches to managing those risks.
GMO Reports [link to documents]
Environmental risks
- GMOs becoming invasive and affecting other species including native flora and fauna
- the development of herbicide or pesticide resistance creating ‘super-weeds’ or ‘super-pests’
- long term effects on ecosystem functioning.
Socio-cultural risks
- effects on Maori cultural beliefs of whakapapa, mauri, tikanga
- ethical concerns about mixing genes from different species including human genes
- concerns about the long term safety of genetically engineered food.
Economic risks
- loss of income through contamination (or perceived contamination) of non-GMO food products
- negative effects on marketing and branding opportunities such as ‘clean and green’ or ‘naturally Northland’
- costs associated with environmental damage such as clean-up costs for invasive weeds or pests.
Associated with these risks are limited liability provisions under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. “
*(3)
A comprehensive analysis of the Bill by Professor Jack Heinemann, an international expert in the biosafety of organisms created by gene technology, and his colleagues indicates that a robust scientific case has not been made for the proposed “reforms” to gene technology law.
See
Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety submission to the Parliament Health Select Committee on the Gene Technology Bill 2024.
*(4)
Hastings District Council
1 August 2018 Media Release
“Council and Iwi welcome GMO decision”
*(5) NZ First
Despite their reservations about a number of extreme proposals, NZ First supported the first reading of the Bill. Their support of the Bill is at odds with what they signed up to in the Coalition agreement, that is to “Liberalise genetic engineering laws, while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment”.*
“Coalition Agreement between the National Party and the New Zealand First Party”
Primary Sector
• Liberalise genetic engineering laws while ensuring strong protections for human health and the
environment
The Gene Technology Bill in its current form removes strong protections for human health and the environment, as well as undermining our biosecurity and proposing the removal of ethical considerations and the Precautionary approach. NZ First has previously had a strong precautionary GE/GMO policy.
*(6)
- Northland operative Regional Plan and RPS provisions
- 6.1.2 Policy – Precautionary approach -p112
- 2.6 Issues of significance to tangata whenua – natural and physical resources -p26
- Rule C.1.9.1 Genetically modified organisms in the coastal marine area – permitted activities – p 107
- Rule C.1.9.2 Genetically modified organism field trials – discretionary activity– p 107
- Rule C.1.9.3 Viable genetically modified veterinary vaccines – discretionary activity – p 107
- Rule C.1.9.4 Genetically modified organism releases – prohibited activity– p 108
- Policy D.1.1 When an analysis of effects on tāngata whenua and their taonga is required – p 235
- Policy D.5.32 Precautionary approach to assessing and managing genetically modified organisms -p 275
- Policy D.5.33 Adaptive approach to the management of genetically modified organisms -p 275
- Policy D.5.34 Avoiding adverse effects of genetically modified organism field trials -p 275
- Policy D.5.35 Liability for adverse effects from genetically modified organism activities -p 275
- Policy D.5.36 Bonds for genetically modified organism activities -p 276
- Policy D.5.37 Risk management plan for genetically modified organism field trials -p 276
- Objective F.1.15 Use of genetic engineering and the release of genetically modified organisms – p 294
The Northland RPS includes Precautionary policy 6.1.2 and Method 6.1.5, as well as the GE/GMO issue correctly identified as an Issue of Significance to Northland tangata whenua/ issue of concern to Northland communities…and the specific concerns of Maori regarding the risks of outdoor use of GE/GMOs to indigenous biodiversity
(as directed by Judge Newhook on 12 April 2018, the wording of Policy 6.1.2 and Method 6.1.5 has the following wording
“Policy 6.1.2 – Precautionary approach
Adopt a precautionary approach towards the effects of climate change and introducing genetically modified organisms to the environment where they are scientifically uncertain, unknown or little understood, but potentially significantly adverse.
This is confirmed by method 6.1.5 in the Northland RPS which states that:
“6.1.5 Method- Statutory Plans and Strategies
The regional and district councils should apply 6.1.2 when reviewing their plans or considering options for plan changes and assessing resource consent applications.
Explanation:
Method 6.1.5 implements Policy 6.1.2″
(ENDS excerpt from Judge Newhook’s 12 April 2018 decision)
see also
Policy D.1.1 of the Proposed Regional Plan includes a reference to genetic engineering. The policy requires effects on tāngata whenua to be addressed in resource consent applications where specified effects or activities are likely, including release of GMO’s to the environment.
*(7)
Northland Regional Council Workshop Wednesday, 12 February 2025 Council Chambers, Rust Avenue,
“12.45 – 1.45pm 3.0 Recent Central Government Legislative Changes
Reporting Officers: GM Environmental Services, Ruben Wylie, and Policy
and Planning Manager, Tami Woods”
Further information:
According to an independent study by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), New Zealand’s primary sector exports could be reduced by $10 – $20 billion annually, if GMOs were to be released into the environment. The report was commissioned by Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) to evaluate the cost of proposed regulatory changes governing gene technology. OANZ says that the costs, as well as supposed benefits of deregulating gene technology, need to be carefully considered.
The NZIER study authors note that the proposed changes to the regulations as outlined by Wellington bureaucrats at the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE), do not include a Regulatory Impact Statement, economic assessment, cost-benefit analysis or address the practicality of “co-existence” of GE and non GE crops..given the known vectors for GMO contamination (seeds, pollen, vegetative material, soils, waterways, machinery, animals, insects, extreme weather events).
The report was commissioned by Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) to evaluate the cost of proposed regulatory changes governing gene technology. OANZ says that the costs, as well as supposed benefits of deregulating gene technology, need to be carefully considered.
26 November 2024 OANZ media release
Media Statement: “NZ exports risk multi-billion dollar hit if GMO rules deregulated”
“OANZ’s commissioned NZIER Economic Report that clearly highlights the economic risks to the country” (26 November 2024)
https://www.oanz.org/new-blog/NZ%20exports%20risk%20multi-billion%20dollar%20hit%20if%20GMO%20rules%20deregulated?rq=nzier
26 November 2024 NZ Farmers Weekly
“Gene shift could cost exporters billions: report “
“Researchers flag lack of research from MBIE on financial impact of opening doors to gene editing.”
29 August 2024
“Let’s cut the crap on gene technology”
by Professor Jack Heinemann
https://www.concernedfarmersnz.org/news/get-out-there-n9t2h-2c3pz-4tsby-ek7wx-e3res-nnleb
Summary recommendations for the Gene Technology Bill- by Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility (NZ) .
https://psgr.org.nz/component/jdownloads/send/1-root/166-gtbill-3pager
11 Feb 2025 • Ashburton Guardian
Gene tech bill “a slap in the face to farmers, experts”
https://www.guardianonline.co.nz/news/gene-tech-bill-a-slap-in-the-face-to-farmers-experts/
Concerned Farmers NZ
30 January 2025
“The Risks of GMO Deregulation to NZ Farmers”
“There is no ban on gene technology in NZ. This misleading hyperbole is used to obscure a failure to engineer products that will have a market or social value that exceeds the cost of compliance with reasonable regulations.”
– Professor Jack Heinemann, Genetics/ Molecular Biology, Canterbury University, and director- Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety
National Party previous attempts to strip local councils of their authority and jurisdiction, falsely claiming that council plans (Northland, Auckland, Hawke’s Bay, etc) prohibited ethical and humane medical research in the laboratory
Radio NZ 2 September 2016
“Environment Minister accused of GMO beat-up”
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/312414/environment-minister-accused-of-gmo-beat-up
“Minister eyes law change to end councils’ control over GMOs”
Northern Advocate
5 September 2016
In the past three years, it appears at least 100 tonnes of unused 1080 poison baits have been sent to landfills by the Dept of Conservation! (See OIA results below) That amount of 1080 baits contains enough 1080 poison to possibly kill the whole population of New Zealand. 1080 leaching into our groundwater, never mind the expense of trucking unused baits all round the country again. … read on.
You must be logged in to post a comment.