Fonterra wants stronger protections built into Gene Technology Bill

Friday, 21 March 2025

GM feed for cows isn’t a problem for export markets. “When cows consume GM feed —such as modified forage species—GMO material does not appear in the milk,” Fonterra has told MPs.

Fonterra says changes are needed to the controversial Gene Technology Bill that would end New Zealand’s GM-free status.

After announcing an 8% interim half-year profit rise on Thursday, Fonterra chief executive Miles Hurrell voiced support for the bill, saying gene technology held promise for the agricultural sector.

“We see it as a positive step in-so-far as it means that we in New Zealand can control our own destiny,” he said. Fonterra’s submission to Parliament said opportunities from emerging life science technologies could offer significant benefits for sustainable nutrition, animal welfare, human health, biosecurity and the environment.

However, Fonterra had told MPs that it was essential the country put stronger controls in place than were envisaged in the bill to avoid things like genetically-modified cows to find their way into the national dairy herd undetected.

It also warned that allowing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the country could pose a threat to organic farming and farmers, largely because GM ryegrasses and other material would be hard to contain to specific areas.

The Gene Technology bill would open the way to scientific research on GMOs, but organic dairy companies have signalled their grave concern with the bill, arguing it puts the country’s exports at risk.

Some of the possible applications of gene technology included things like drought-resistant rye grass, and altering microbes in cow guts to reduce methane emissions, but organic farmers worry their crops could be contaminated by GM material.

The bill, which the Government wants to see become law before the end of the year, has been modelled of Australia’s gene technology laws, but there is growing concern that it has been rushed to Parliament, and does not contain enough controls.

As it is currently drafted, New Zealand will effectively allow gene technologies that have been approved by Australian regulators to be introduced to New Zealand without New Zealand regulators approving it.

“This would mean that technologies derived by certain techniques, including SDN-1, would be entirely excluded from regulatory oversight,” Fonterra said.

SDN-1 techniques are where a small change in DNA occurs at a targeted point in the genome, without the introduction of any external DNA. It is also known as Crispr technology.

Fonterra chief executive Miles Hurrell supports the Gene Technology Bill, but wants to see changes made to it.

New Zealand’s top 20 markets currently required permissibility assessments and approval of milk from SDN-1 cows, Fonterra said.

Fonterra joined others in calling for strong traceability requirements for GM organisms allowed in New Zealand.

“To ensure market access, regulated traceability requirements through the Bill are, therefore, important to enable verification that our milk is not sourced from SDN-1 cows,” Fonterra said.

Fonterra also told MPs that as it was currently drafted, the Gene Technology bill would directly impose onto New Zealand an overseas jurisdiction’s classification system, created for that specific jurisdiction under their own democratic process.

“The Bill currently creates an automatic exemption for these externally determined gene technologies, without any provision for a New Zealand regulator to review or for the New Zealand public to participate in the development of those provisions,” it said.

“It is critical that these international influences do not shoehorn or inappropriately limit New Zealand into a particular approach to gene technology regulation, especially without due consideration to how international determinations may or may not apply to New Zealand’s unique environmental biodiversity, its social and cultural fabric (including Te Ao Māori), and economic context (e.g. its particularly high dependency on the agricultural sector),” Fonterra said.

Labour’s Deborah Russell has concerns that the Government is rushing through the end of New Zealand’s GM ban without taking New Zealanders with it.

It also joined others in calling for regulators considering approving GMOs for New Zealand to have to also consider the potential impact on trade and market access.

Labour’s Deborah Russell said the bill had been rushed without enough consultation, including with Māori.

“I’m concerned. This seems to have gotten well ahead of public opinion,” Russell said.

She said there had been no effort to educate the public on what was really complex science, or to seek consensus from the wider community on ending the country’s GM ban.

The bill had its first reading in Parliament on December 17 when many New Zealanders’ were turning their minds to the Christmas holidays.

In her speech that day Russell said published research showed most New Zealanders felt the need for much more information about genetic technologies.

One study showed that when it comes to gene editing and genetic modification, 11% of Māori and 12% of non-Māori were strongly supportive, and 33% of Māori and 23% of non-Māori “leaned supportive”.

“I am not convinced that New Zealanders support the widespread use of GMOs and gene technologies. Of course they support medical applications, but as for wider uses, it's an open question and one that the minister has not grappled with,” she said.

She also decried the lack of any economic analysis, “beyond some hand-waving about possible benefits”.

Labour voted against the bill proceeding to the select committee stage, while acknowledging they saw “absolute benefits as far as medical research”.

The Green Party and Te Pāti Māori also voted against the bill, but votes from National, ACT and New Zealand First MPs carried the vote.

Select committee hearings into the bill continue.