Organics industry raises the alarm if NZ’s GE Free status abandoned

Monday, 17 March 2025

It is unlikely New Zealand exporters would ever market their products as ‘GM grass fed’.

The environmental release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could, in a worst-case scenario, reduce primary sector exports by up to $10 billion to $20b annually, a report commissioned by New Zealand’s organics industry has found.

At hearings on Friday and Monday into the Gene Technology bill, which will open the way to scientific research on GMOs, organic dairy companies signalled their grave concern with the bill, arguing it puts the country’s exports at risk.

Organics Aotearoa hired economists from NZIER to write a report on the potential impact of risks.

“The quantitative analysis we have been able to conduct with limited time and resources suggests that environmental release of GMOs in New Zealand could reduce exports from the primary sector by up to $10 billion to $20 billion annually,” NZIER said.

However, it said: “We note that estimated impacts are based on price premiums at the consumer level, and that other research suggests there would be no impact.”

Organics bodies, however, argue that just under half of all agricultural product exports, worth $24.5b annually, went to countries where there are tough import conditions surrounding GM contamination.

Meanwhile, many in the dairy industry support the Gene Technology Bill - they hope gene technology could see improved grass varieties and even less flatulent cows.

But even they want changes to ensure a properly resourced regulator which is empowered to take the risk of damage to export markets into account when giving the go-ahead for research and the use of GMOs, such as modified rye grass.

New Zealand’s GE Free status - which dates back to 2003 - is treasured by many, and the bill attracted 15,000 submissions, including from scientists.

Martin Robinson, a Northland market gardener, asks MPs not to risk New Zealand’s global reputation that comes from its GE-free status.

Submitters also raised concerns about the speed at which the bill was being progressed, with a view to having it in effect by the end of the year and the lack of a thorough economic analysis of its risks and potential rewards.

Many submitters had no issues with the use of genetic modification for human medical treatments, but there was concern over GMOs ending up in the environment.

And though the bill was being promoted as bringing New Zealand into line with other advanced economies, some claimed it put the country on track to becoming one of the most deregulated countries in the world for genetic engineering and GMOs.

The Organics Aotearoa association of organic farmers said gaps in the bill’s proposed regime would pose “significant risks to the co-existence“ of organic producers with GM-producers.

Currently, New Zealand exporters enjoyed “de facto” GE-free status, but if GMOs were released in the country, organic growers would face new costs to prove to export markets they really were GM-free, Organics Aotearoa said.

Amy Hopkinson-Styles pours a tasting at the Organic & Biodynamic Winegrowing Conference earlier this year.

Organic milk commanded a price premium of 27% over conventional milk, organic kiwifruit is sold at a 43% premium, and organic wine attracted a 20% premium, it said.

“I am appalled by the change of direction under this bill,” Northland market gardener Martin Robinson told MPs on Monday. “It’s a complete flip-flop on our previous direction.”

New Zealand should be targeting the niche global market of organic and natural products because New Zealand growers could not compete with low-cost production markets, and massive overseas farming enterprises, he said.

“We have not got a chance in Hades of competing against the large commodity producers,” he said.

“We must retain our niche markets.”

Organics Aotearoa called for a strong civil liability regime so organic growers could sue companies that damage their businesses and requirements for “traceability” for all genetically modified organisms licensed for use.

Robinson said: “If this bill comes to pass, I will no longer have the ability to protect my property… from my neighbour’s actions, if he decided to grow a crop, for instance methane-reducing rye grass.”

Currently, he could take action under laws of tort or trespass, but if the Gene Technology Bill passed, he feared he would lose that.

New Zealand’s all-natural image is one of the reasons out agricultural exports sell for such good prices.

There were also concerns that the bill did not contain some basic protections.

Organics Aotearoa said: “The Bill should require persons using or releasing GMOs and gene technology to have in place procedures for tracing and recalling them and any products made from them.”

“It should also require those persons using or releasing GMOs and gene technology to keep specified records, have in place contingency plans for accidental releases, to make those records and plans available to the regulator upon request and to provide any reasonable assistance requested by the regulator,” it said.

The Dairy Companies Association, whose member companies collectively account for more than 98% of the milk processed in New Zealand, and the Government-owned Crown research agency AgResearch, argued in support of the bill, but wanted to see protections increased.

Organic farmer and grape grower Janette Johns.

AgResearch raised the issue of “cross-industry effects”, but said: “There is nothing to indicate that controls required for all industries to thrive cannot be successfully developed and implemented in New Zealand.”

Organic growers are not convinced.

Organic farmer Janette Johns told MPs on Monday: “This bill stands to risk New Zealand Inc’s clean, green reputation.”

Consumers overseas were very discerning, she said.

“All our markets want to know our story, the sustainability of our land, and what we do,” she said.

She did not believe organics and GMOs could co-exist without cross-contamination because of movement of wind-blown pollen, and movements of bees and other insects.

Bees are no respecter of fences, and fly where they want. (Carlos Osorio/The Canadian Press via AP)

Contamination would be irreversible, she said.

“We have this wonderful competitive advantage,” she said.

The Green Party opposes the Gene Technology Bill. MP Steve Abel thinks the threat to agricultural exports is real.

Beekeeper Jane Lorimer said bees fly up to seven kilometres.

“Bees go where they want,” she said, asking that the bill indemnify bee-keepers against their bees spreading GM pollen.

Green MP Steve Abel, one of the MPs on the Health Committee, said “wildly deregulating” GMOs was being risked based on the hope for “speculative” economic gains.

At a hearing on Friday, he asked the Dairy Companies Association: “Do you envisage a time in the near future where New Zealand dairy products butter, or cheese of infant formula would be marketed as GM grass-fed?”

It could not.

Nearly everyone from the primary production sector had raised red flags about it, Abel said.

University of Canterbury professor of gene ecology Jack Heinemann in his lab.

The bill, including its potential economic effects, is being examined by the health select committee.

Several submitters raised concerns about a paucity of economic analysis of the risks and rewards of the bill.

Sam Weaver, from winemaker Churton, said: “The lack of an economic study is a real problem.“

Many submitters like Weaver had no problem with GM medicinal research and treatments, but opposed its use in agriculture.

He asked MPs not to allow any GMOs into the environment at this stage.

Scientist Jack Heinemann from the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety at the University of Canterbury told MPs that the scientific case had not been made for the proposed reforms to gene technology law.

The bill as drafted would lower the regulatory burden, but substantially increase risks to human health and the environment, he said.

He has argued for genetic modification to take place in New Zealand only in containment facilities.

“Alternative process-based options that streamline compliance for work done in certified containment facilities would be more effective and affordable,” he said.

“Risk can only be effectively mitigated by continuing to require that gene technology be used only in certified containment facilities, and that outcomes are confirmed to meet release criteria,” he submitted.