A country divided on the wisdom of genetic engineering

Saturday, 29 March 2025

About a third of people are opposed to the meddling of scientists in the building blocks of life. About a third are supportive, and the rest are neutral.

ANALYSIS: Just over a third (35%) of people surveyed by researcher Liz Morley thought genetically modified crops were already being grown in New Zealand. More than a quarter (27%) thought gene-editing of livestock was taking place in New Zealand.

Neither belief is correct.

It is against this backdrop of patchy understanding that the Government is intending to pass its Gene Technology Bill that would end this country’s GM-free status.

Several years ago Morley, from private market research company Truwind, decided to find out what people knew and thought about genetic technologies.

Though no commercial interests paid for the research, Truwind does have paying clients in the agriculture sector, where economic futures could be changed by gene technology advances, and stuff-ups.

Scion scientist Alec Foster explains gene editing and why New Zealanders should not fear it.

It added to a growing body of research trying to work out how the public know about gene technology, which scientists and agriculturalists want to exploit to do things like improve crop yields, reduce livestock methane emissions or improve human health.

Trying to get a handle on the risks and potential rewards of genetic modification and gene-editing has been hard for the lay person, especially as reported views are polarised.

As New Zealand researchers wrote in a 2022 paper: “Typically, those who have faith in such new technologies ramp up their benefits, and those who are critical of these technologies emphasize the risks they pose.”

A nation divided on gene technology

Morley found initial attitudes to gene editing showed 32% of people generally in favour of it, 21% of people against, and 47% neutral.

But things are far from that simple, as ignorance of gene technology is deep among the general public, and support is higher for uses perceived as being most beneficial.

A 2021 report for Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (Fsanz) based on focus groups held in the two countries indicated only 27% of the New Zealand participants felt they knew enough about gene technologies to explain the concept to a friend.

Truwind found many people were unable to recognise largely correct definitions of gene editing (a term mostly used for making changes to DNA without adding new genetic material from another species) or genetic modification (a term often used to indicate genetic material from another species is added to a different species’ DNA).

Another piece of research found people had commonly formed their views on gene technology between four and nine years before they were surveyed.

Gender gene divide

Primary Purpose, another market research company with many rural clients also did unpaid work surveying public opinion. It turned up a gender gene divide.

Women appear to be more cautious about gene technology use for food production than men.

Researcher Scott Champion said it found women were more likely than men to be concerned about the potential risks of gene technologies.

More women than men were in the roughly 30% who were concerned about things like food safety, and the long-term impacts of gene technologies on nature.

Men were also more likely to prefer “easing” regulation, or “encouraging further exploration” than women; 68% and 51% supporting those ideas.

The research did not seek to find out why that was, Champion said.

However, the result mirrored research done overseas. Ideas suggested to explain this include women’s average lower tolerance for risk, being more loss-averse, and having preference for “natural” food.

No monolithic Māori view

One of the MPs on the select committee involved in the Gene Technology Bill hearings is Labour’s Deborah Russell. She has raised questions about whether the Government is going too fast with the bill, and should go more slowly to bring the public along with it.

In a speech on the Gene Technology Bill in December Labour’s Deborah Russell quoted a report from 2022 based on a 2019 survey which found 11% of Māori and 12% of non-Māori were strongly supportive, and 33% of Māori and 23% of non-Māori “leaned supportive”.

“The survey found that Māori are no more of one mind about genetic technologies than are non-Māori,” researchers Lyn Kathlene, Debashish Munshi, Priya Kurian, and Sandy Morrison said in their paper.

But while there were similar levels of support for gene technology between Māori and non-Māori, more Māori opponents to gene technology said they were “strongly” opposed than did non-Māori opposers.

That even went for using gene-editing to increase the resilience of “taonga” species like Kauri trees which are beset with the Kauri Dieback disease.

That was a question where cultural assumptions and claims were at work.

“Two to three times as many Māori than non-Māori see the genetic material of Indigenous species as belonging to Māori. However, most Māori (ranging between 63% and 71% among the Māori clusters) did not agree that Māori should hold the rights to such material, though this is a lower percent than non-Māori where nearly all disagree that Māori should have the rights,” the researchers said.

The Primary Purpose 2024 research found Māori who favoured “easing” regulation, or “encouraging further exploration” was 44%, compared to an average of 59% among the entire general public.

The importance of use cases

The idea of ‘restoring’ extinct species (or at least a simulcrum of those species) wiped out in both pre-colonial times like moa and Haast’s eagle, or in post-colonial New Zealand like huia and piopio is an attractive use of gene technology to many people.

Kathlene, Munshi, Kurian, and Morrison found levels of support for the use of gene technologies varied dependent on what they were being used for.

They found vanity uses of gene technology, such as “human cosmetic enhancement”, received the least support.

There was, by contrast, much higher levels of support for “restoring extinct species”, or improving human health, or extending lifespans.

Truwind and Fsanz reported similar findings.

Morley said when Truwind asked people if they supported growing gene-edited crops in New Zealand, 36% opposed it, and 30% supported it, with the rest being “neutral”.

However, support rose among the general public to 55% when the case was made for using it to “protect taonga species”, and 60% for improving pasture quality for farmers.

Urban/rural gene technology divide

Morley says tracking online discussions of gene technology following the Government’s announcement that it would end New Zealand’s GM-free status showed two groups of people were more interested: rural folk, and South Islanders.

It also showed they were more knowledgeable.

Just 4% of farmers had not heard of genetic modification, and just 16% had not heard of gene editing, compared with 16% and 52% of non-farmers.

They were also less worried about the end of New Zealand’s GM-free status hurting the country’s supposed “clean, green” image.

Scientist Revel Drummond calls for New Zealand to embrace gene science to improve lives and the environment.

“Fifty-two per cent of farmers and growers believed that there would either be no impact or a positive impact on New Zealand's image with a legislation change,” Morley said.

That compared with 39% of the general public.

Some scientists have argued it could improve our image.

Scientist Revel Drummond told MPs that in Australia, GM cotton allowed growers to use 99% less pesticide.

Gene editing is a term mostly used for making changes to DNA without adding new genetic material from another species. Genetic modification is a term often used to indicate genetic material from another species is added to a different species’ DNA.

“We have to be better at growing food, we have to do it more environmentally friendly, and more productively,” he said.

Why opposers oppose

Truwind asked opposers why they opposed gene editing for cattle.

At the top of the list was a “lack of information on the long term effects” (63%).

That was followed by: “It’s not natural” (57%), “It’s not necessary” (46%), fears of effects of human consumption of milk and meat from GE cows/cattle (37%), “Negative impact on country’s image” (24%), “Potential impact on trade” 22%, and “Potential economic impact (15%).

Even organic food buyer aren’t all opposed to gene tech

How you ask questions matters. Morley said one person who had conducted a survey phoned her up to tell her her findings were wrong. He had done his own survey, and told her that figures showed 80% of people were against GM.

It turned out he was an organic food producer who had surveyed his client base, people routinely buying organic food.

And even in that group there was no monolithic opposition.

“What's fascinating is that 80% of that market are against GM, which means there's 20% of a market that's predominantly organic stores and farmers' markets that are willing to think about it,” Morley said.

Would consumers buy the stuff?

Many people told Truwind they would or “probably” would buy GM or GE food, but the answers indicated more people were OK with genetically engineered plants than animals.

While 46% of people said they would, or probably would buy genetically altered fruit, that fell to 29% for fish.

And if there were two products for the same price, one of which was genetically engineered, 56% of people would prefer the natural one.