MPs agree the laws on genetic engineering should be relaxed \u2013 but a majority say the current bill goes too far, writes Catherine McGregor in today\u2019s extract from The Bulletin.<\/p>\n
To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday,\u00a0sign up here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Coalition at an impasse over gene tech bill<\/p>\n The government\u2019s long-promised overhaul of New Zealand\u2019s genetic modification laws has hit a major obstacle, with NZ First refusing to support the Gene Technology Bill in its current form. The health select committee released its long-delayed report on Friday, revealing the party had joined Labour, the Greens and Te P\u0101ti M\u0101ori in withholding support for the legislation. National and Act remain in favour, but without NZ First\u2019s votes the bill cannot pass.<\/p>\n The committee backed a series of amendments to improve oversight, including greater transparency and independence for the proposed Gene Technology Regulator, but those changes failed to resolve NZ First\u2019s concerns.\u00a0As Fox Meyer explains in Newsroom<\/a>, \u201cNZ First will be holding the line on preventing the environmental release of genetically modified organisms \u2013 a line it claims was clear in its original coalition agreement with National when it sought to liberalise genetic modification laws.\u201d Science minister Shane Reti insists \u201cconstructive discussions\u201d are continuing and that the government remains committed to passing the bill before next year\u2019s election.<\/p>\n Critics warn of \u2018far too liberal\u2019 approach<\/p>\n NZ First\u2019s objections echo the concerns of many submitters who say the proposed reforms wouldn\u2019t just dismantle the country\u2019s cautious approach to genetic engineering, but reverse it. Opponents told the select committee that the legislation risked,\u00a0in the words of The Post\u2019s Tom Pullar-Strecker<\/a>, \u201cthe pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction, to give New Zealand one of the most liberal regimes in the world\u201d. Labour\u2019s Reuben Davidson warned it could make the country a test bed for trials banned elsewhere, while Fonterra called for tighter controls to prevent genetically modified organisms from contaminating dairy herds. Environmental and organic groups fear the loss of export premiums tied to New Zealand\u2019s clean, green image, and M\u0101ori organisations have objected that the bill fails to uphold te Tiriti or guarantee M\u0101ori decision-making rights.<\/p>\n Supporters say reform is overdue<\/p>\n Supporters of reform, including National, Act, industry bodies and most scientists, argue that New Zealand\u2019s genetic modification rules are outdated, stifling innovation and forcing research overseas. They point out that genetically modified foods are already widely imported and sold in New Zealand supermarkets, subject to rigorous Food Standards Australia New Zealand safety checks. As Shanti Mathias notes in a Spinoff article on the arguments for and against<\/a>, organisations such as AgResearch and the Livestock Improvement Corporation (LIC) say gene technology could cut methane emissions by enabling low-emission pastures and feeds. LIC also argues that cutting-edge CRISPR techniques are highly precise and much lower risk than previous versions of gene editing.<\/p>\n In Farmers\u2019 Weekly<\/a>, Life Sciences Network\u2019s William Rolleston argues the proposed rules are already stricter than those in Australia, despite claims to the contrary, and warns that excessive caution could leave New Zealand \u201ca decade behind\u201d its competitors. National, whose pre-election pledge was to end the \u201ceffective ban\u201d on genetic modification, says the bill balances safety with opportunity, enabling medical breakthroughs like\u00a0CAR T-cell therapies<\/a>\u00a0and new agricultural tools to combat climate change and disease.<\/p>\n Old fears and new frontiers<\/p>\n