Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith was seeking changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act to ensure long-standing chemical and radiation mutagenesis treatments did not require Hazardous Substances and New Organisms approval as GMOs.
The technology had been used for more than 50 years to identify replicable and inheritable genetic variations that might be useful in developing crop improvements.
They had been used on a wide variety of crops including tomatoes, legumes and grains.
The changes were prompted by a High Court decision in May 2014 that ruled against the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which was seeking to have two new GMO breeding techniques exempted from the definition of genetic modification.
However, the court ruled only Parliament could make that decision and recommended greater clarity on GMO definitions.
The proposals would effectively draw a line around the older chemical and radioactive treatments, separating them from the HSNO rules as not requiring HSNO Act approval and capturing all other GMO treatments.
The changes would bring NZ more into line with its major trading partners.
But Professor Jack Heinemann, a University of Canterbury lecturer in genetics, said simply removing the technology from the act’s definitions of GMO did not necessarily deem all the outcomes of that technology safe.
“There is a history of safe use for this technology. However, it does not mean that every product that comes from it will be safe.”
He acknowledged some proponents of GM had called for broader allowance of GMO techniques within the act.
His concern was that safety issues might still exist despite the technology’s long history.
He pointed to last year’s problems with herbicide-tolerant (HT) swedes in Southland that were linked to the deaths of 400 cows and sheep over winter.
Tests found the swedes had up to 16 times more glucosiolate than unmodified plants.
The HT resistance behind the plants was developed through the established chemical-radiation mutagenesis process.
“There is no guarantee there will be a positive outcome. It is just that HSNO is not the act to cover it.”
Heinemann did not believe it was time to broaden the interpretation of what GMO technology could be included in the act, with some significant advances in the technology since the act was drafted in 1998.
He cautioned the technology now available for GMO could be bought over the internet as “bio-hacking” kits, compared to the significant investment in gamma ray equipment the older radioactive genetic mutagenesis technique required.
“And through HSNO you can regulate the chemical mutagens you use in the chemical mutagenesis processes.”
Federated Farmers president Dr William Rolleston said the legislative changes would tidy up an ambiguity in the law on techniques used over many years for breeding.
He expected there might now be a discussion on the relative risks of new GMO techniques that created a pinpoint change in DNA code.
Such gene editing could mutate one single letter in the DNA, in a precise place.
“There is a battle going on amongst organisations that are against this modern technique to make it all anti-GMO. But the issue is where does this sit on the risk spectrum, changing only one letter on the DNA code?
“The tidying up needs to happen but it does open up a conversation on GMO.”
Rolleston said legislation on GMO would also be challenged by the nature of the latest technology which did not leave a tell-tale viral sequence marker that would indicate a GMO organism.
“You will not be able to know, so it will make a nonsense of the whole law.”
“There is a battle going on amongst organisations that are against this modern technique, to make it all anti-GMO. But the issue is where does this sit on the risk spectrum.”
Dr William Rolleston
Federated Farmers
He expected such an issue would arise between the United States and Europe over trade in such modified food products.
A good example of the genetic editing technology was poll cattle.
“I know of two organisations who have it available to use in Europe and the United States.”
Massey University professor of molecular genetics Barry Scott said a more general overhaul of the GMO legislation was urgently needed if NZ was to take advantage of significant advances made.
The environment was “highly risk-averse” in NZ and out of step with knowledge and regulations in most other countries, he said.
“This disjoint has led to a compliance regime that is excessive to what is needed to manage the low-risk nature of most of the current GM techniques and technologies.”
