# Submission to New Zealand Parliament on the Gene Technology Bill 2024: Clean and Green or Cheaper and Worse for NZ?

John Paull

► To cite this version:

John Paull. Submission to New Zealand Parliament on the Gene Technology Bill 2024: Clean and Green or Cheaper and Worse for NZ?. New Zealand Parliament. 2025, pp.8. hal-04974086

HAL Id: hal-04974086

https://hal.science/hal-04974086v1

Submitted on 3 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Submission to:
Health Committee, New Zealand Parliament
on the
Gene Technology Bill 2024

# Clean and Green or Cheaper and Worse for NZ?

Dr John Paull

(j.paull@utas.edu.au)

> "No matter what you do in life, there is always someone who can do it cheaper and worse"

## Abstract:

The Gene Technology Act 2024 is a Bill before the New Zealand Parliament that fails to clearly define what it purports to regulate, i.e. Gene Technology. The present submission and recommendations pertain to agriculture and food (the food chain), which would be directly impacted by this Bill. The submission maintains that the application of the Bill should properly be restricted to medical and other 'narrow' and targeted applications, and that the provisions should not apply to food and agriculture, which are broad and un-targeted uses affecting all-of-country and all-of-population. The Bill vests too much power in a to-be-appointed individual, the "Gene Technology Regulator" who is to be "the independent decision maker" (p.2) and tasked to balance the risks to NZ versus the profits of GMO multinationals. Ideally GMOs are to be excluded from the NZ food chain, and the Faustian trade-off of risk versus profit becomes moot. In the event that GMOs enter the NZ food chain, they should be clearly labelled throughout the chain of custody and at the point of sale. In this way consumers can exercise their agency in choosing to consume GMOs. or not, according to their own risk-profile. Five recommendations are presented.

## 1. New Zealand

New Zealand (NZ) is a small country in the Pacific Ocean and mostly harmless. The population is small, the economy is small to insignificant, and the standard of living is 12th in the world and falling (Numbeo, 2025).
## 2. Clean and Green

New Zealand markets itself as ‘clean and green’. The country has ‘bragging rights’ based on NZ being far from the world’s leading polluters, viz Northern Hemisphere countries. ‘Clean and green’ is a marketing proposition. It can be used to leverage a premium price for NZ produce. Achieving a premium price relies on the credibility of the claim in the ‘eye of the beholder’. GMOs are not any part of a ‘clean and green’ profile (GfK, 2017).

New Zealand is already an international laggard when it comes to ‘clean and green’ performance. NZ has 79,347 hectares of certified organic land, accounting for 0.8% of NZ agricultural land which puts it 86th in the world by percentage area (Willer, Trávníček, & Schlatter, 2025). In a decade, this has shrunk from 106,753 ha, accounting for 0.9% of NZ agricultural land which was then 66th in the world by percentage area (Willer & Lernoud, 2015). NZ’s nearest neighbour, Australia, has 52.2 million hectares of certified organic land, accounting for 14.6% of Australian agricultural land (Willer et al., 2025).

So, on the one measurable parameter of ‘clean and green’, (and moving beyond the marketing hype and puffery), NZ is already going backwards in the ‘clean and green’ stakes. Taking a ‘relaxed’ view of GMOs (as proposed in the Bill), will further erode the NZ claim to ‘clean and green’, will erode the marketing advantage, and will erode the claim to NZ’s concern for the health and wellbeing of its people and environment.

## 3. NZ food labelling

NZ food labelling already leaves a great deal to be desired. For example consider a packet of ‘Organic Quick Cooking Rolled Oats’, purchased in NZ, labelled ‘Made in New Zealand’, bearing the logo of Organic Agriculture New Zealand. (OANZ), packaged in NZ manufacturer livery, and bearing NZ contact details. The consumer, whether domestic or overseas, may reasonably conclude that these are New Zealand grown oats. In that they would be mistaken.

The product lacks any country of origin labelling (COOL) (despite declaring ‘Made in New Zealand’). The oats are imported from Australia, Canada, China, or possibly elsewhere. These oats are merely masquerading as a New Zealand product, and the real provenance of the item is cloaked by NZ livery.

One might conclude that this misdirection and lack of transparency is designed to mislead and deceive. This is but one example of the (rather sorry) state of food labelling in NZ. This opaqueness erodes confidence in the NZ food chain.
A proposal to exclude some or all GMOs from being clearly identified at the point of sale will further undermine confidence in NZ's already lax food labelling practices.

**4. Purpose of the Gene Technology Bill 2024**

The Bill states that:

"The purpose of this Act is to enable the safe use of gene technologies and regulated organisms by managing their risks to—

(a) the health and safety of people; and

(b) the environment" (Part 1 cl.3).

It recommended by the present submission to exclude agriculture and food from the scope of the Bill. That 'will manage the risks' to people and the environment by eliminating the risks. That is the only strategy that will eliminate the risks.

**5. Definition**

It is NOT appropriate that the Regulator can both define and regulate GMOs, and further to have the capacity to carve-out some GMOs from consideration and regulation entirely, as the Bill proposes.

The present submission proposes that 'GMOs' include the output of ANY gene editing procedure. One test is that if an organism is patented (anywhere) then it is thereby a GMO. To achieve the patent, the patent holder has argued successfully to a Patent Office that their organism is 'novel' and a 'new invention' and has thereby obtained the patent. The so-called 'Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence' of GMOs and non-GMOs is a GMO industry promoted sham (Paull, 2008).

**6. Labelling**

In the event that GMOs are allowed in NZ they ought to be clearly labelled from paddock-to-plate and very clearly labelled at the point of sale.

In this way:

* transparency is conserved.

* the reputation of NZ food and agriculture products is conserved.

* consumers can exercise agency in consuming the product, or not, based on their personal risk profile and their personal assessment of risk.

**7. Risks are unknown**

The proposed Gene Technology Regulator is tasked as follows:
"(a) identifies any relevant risks of the activity; and

(b) assesses the likelihood of harm occurring as a result of the risks; and

(c) assesses the likely degree of harm occurring as a result of the risks" (Part 1 cl 11).

It is declared that: "the Bill is to manage any risks gene technologies pose to human health and safety and the environment" (Explanatory note p.3).

However, the risks of GMOs to consumers and the environment are unknown. If they are unknown how are they to be "managed"? The risks may perhaps be known sometime in the future, perhaps in decades, perhaps longer.

Consider, the two examples of cigarettes and asbestos where decades or centuries elapsed before the risks were identified and the harms were determined. In the meantime, the products were marketed as safe.

The patents on GMOs are ONLY achieved via the proven assertion that they have been 'invented' and are 'novel'. This ought to automatically put them under scrutiny for unintended health and environmental harms and ensure that their identity as patented, and hence 'invented' organisms, is maintained throughout the chain of custody.

## 8. A Regulator with too much power

The Bill declares that:

"Regulator may determine what constitutes regulated organism or gene technology

(1) The Regulator may ... determine whether or not—

(a) any organism is a regulated organism; or

(b) any technique is a gene technology; or

(c) any organism or technique falls within an exemption" (Part 2 cl 12).

These powers to define the field may possibly be fine for a medical activity but they are too broad for agriculture and food.

## 9. Unknown unknowns

The Bill proposes that the Regulator assesses 'risk'. But the risk to a country, a population, an individual, an ecology, an ecosystem, an environment, a species, a micro-organism, will all take decades of research.
The assessment of risk of patented organisms cannot be assessed in advance and in the absence of the data. The risk can only be assessed in retrospect (after the event) and not in prospect (which would be guesswork).

The research that identifies the risks and harms to the health and wellbeing of individuals, of
subgroups, of populations, of gut flora, of soil micro-organisms is the work of decades.

Using NZ and New Zealanders as the ‘natural experiment’ to see if the Regulator guessed right (in guessing where risks may lie, and guessing where the harms may fall) is reckless. Especially so, since it is entirely unnecessary to intentionally introduce GMOs into the NZ food chain.

10. GMOs are invasive organisms

GMOs are invasive organisms (Paull, 2018). At the point of introduction there may be, probably
will be, good intentions, plausible rhetoric, and discounting of risks. Only the passage of time
reveals the real risks and identifies the harms. At that point, the harms may be irreversible.
Examples of invasive species gone awry are possums in NZ and cane toads in Australia.

11. Precautionary Principle

The Precautionary Principle ought to be written into the Bill.

One expression of the Precautionary Principle states:

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof" (SEHN, 1998).

It is preferable to apply the Precautionary Principle and err on the side of safety. The alternative is to apply the Post-cautionary Principle and do the clean up after the event, after the risks materialise, and after the harms manifest (Paull, 2007).

The Gene Technology Act 2024 as proposed implicitly endorses the Post-cautionary Principle. That is not in the best interests of NZ or New Zealanders.

12. No consumer demand

There is NO consumer demand for GMO food. Consumers the world over say ‘no thanks’ to GMO food (GfK, 2017). There are no mothers clamouring for GMO milk to feed their infants. There are no hospital patients clamouring for GMO muesli for their breakfast. Consumers worldwide eschew GMOs. (GfK, 2017).
Approvals of GMOs for agriculture and food profit a handful of multinational chemical companies (BASF, Bayer, DuPont, and Syngenta). These are mega multinational chemical companies. They are not health and well being companies.

## 13. USA as a canary

I have heard the narrative that much of the food consumed in the US is GMOs, that there is no GMO labelling in the US, and that it has been thus for decades, all with no ill effects. But the US population has health (and health costs) much worse that NZ, with much higher rates of obesity, diabetes, autism, ADHD, colon cancer, heart disease, eating and nutrition disorders, and a multitude of other ailments. USA has been a 'natural experiment', a 'case study', of unregulated GMOs in the diet. Whatever the links, if any, between GMOs, the US diet and lifestyle, and the multiplicity of illnesses, the US is NOT a GMO 'success story' and is not a case study worthy of emulation or celebration. USA may be rather the 'canary in the coal-mine' and the exemplar of what not to do.

## 14. Agency of Consumers

Consumers are entitled to make their own assessment of risk. They can ONLY exercise this agency IF GMOs are clearly labelled at the point of sale. Consumers are the experts on their own risk-profile, and the guardians of the health of their family and themselves. They deserve to not have GMOs foisted on them at all (since they would be bearing risks and the multinational chemical companies reaping the profit), and certainly not have them foisted on them without clear labelling.

## 15. Impossible tasks

In the Bill, the proposed Regulator is tasked with three impossible tasks:

i) to 'identify risks' (in advance of the event and with no proposed methodology):

ii) 'to assess the likelihood of harm' (in advance of the event and with no proposed methodology);

iii) 'to 'assess the likely degree of harm' (in advance of the event and with no proposed methodology) (Part 1 cl 11).

The scope of risks is gargantuan. What are the immediate risks, the short term risks, the long term risks, the risks to the people, and to the biota? The Regulator appears to be unaccountable when matters will go awry, when risks were not identified, and when harms were underestimated. Just how is the Regulator to find a reliable Ouija board that can predict the future?
## 16. Paddy, an Irishman

It is said that when a tourist in Dublin asked Paddy how to get to XYZ, he replied "Well, if I were going to XYZ, I wouldn't be starting from here".

I am with Paddy on this one. For the trifecta of gene technologies, risk, and health and safety, the Gene Technology Act 2024 leaves much to be desired.

The Gene Technology Act 2024 is NOT the best starting point for dealing with gene technologies, risk, and health and safety, as they pertain to food and agriculture.

## Recommendations:

1. Food and agriculture to be excluded from the scope of the Gene Technology Bill.

2. The definition of GMOs to be broad (not narrow) and to include (a) the outcome of any gene editing procedure and (b) ANY patented organism.

3. There are to be NO carve outs, NO discretion for the Regulator to exclude some GMOs from consideration, regulation and oversight.

4. The Precautionary Principle to be written into the Bill.

5. All GMOs to be clearly labelled at each point in the chain of custody and at the point of sale.

## References

GfK. (2017). Decision Factors on What to Eat or Drink: Global GfK Survey (October 2017). London: GfK (Growth from Knowledge).

Numbeo. (2025). Quality of Life Index by Country 2025: Numbeo <numbeo.com>.

Paull, J. (2007). Certified organic forests & timber: the Hippocratic opportunity. Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics (ANZSEE) Conference, Noosa Heads, QLD.

Paull, J. (2008). Beyond equal: from same but different to the doctrine of substantial equivalence. M/C Journal of Media and Culture, 11(26).

Paull, J. (2018). Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as Invasive Species. Journal of Environment Protection and Sustainable Development, 4(3), 31-37.

SEHN. (1998). The Wingspread Conference on the Precautionary Principle. Wingspread: The Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN).

Willer, H., & Lernoud, J. (Eds.). (2015). The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends 2015. Frick: Switzerland: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) & Bonn: IFOAM-Organics International.
Willer, H., Trávníček, J., & Schlatter, B. (Eds.). (2025). The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics & Emerging Trends 2025. Frick: Switzerland: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) & Bonn, Germany: IFOAM-Organics International.