Should we not just split the bill on gene tech?

Whether you’re a farmer excited about what GMOs might be able to do for your farm or whether you think GMOs will hurt your farm profitability and the New Zealand brand, the news that Parliament is taking more time to finalise its review of the Gene Technology Bill is somewhat encouraging for all farmers.

That’s because our farms will be at the front line of decisions about GMOs in the field.  The call for extra time shows Parliament sees that there’s a lot to still get right, but it would be wrong to assume that farming will get what it needs from another three weeks in Wellington.

From the get go, it has been clear that Government was only listening to scientists, those with commercial interests in GM and to Wellington bureaucrats who clearly know little, if anything, about farming. Farmers have barely had a look in and the industry bodies that should represent our interests have dropped the ball or circled the wagons around their corporate offices.   

 The Bill before Parliament is a radical change from the current, market-oriented approach that won’t so much align us with Australian farmers, as put us out in front with US commodity farmers who can only sell their GM crops for biofuels, animal feed or unlabelled food products.

No economic analysis has been done to understand how these significant changes might affect farmers, food companies and Brand NZ, even though we’ve been told the purpose of the Bill is to unlock economic potential.

 And the Bill would make farmers spectators to decisions that will impact us well into the future.

So wherever you stand, it’s in all farmers interests that good decisions are made around GMOs in farming. We need a decision-making framework that works for all of us, whether we’re using GMOs or supplying non-GM markets. That means:

·       Farmers, growers and food companies are involved in all decisions about field uses of agricultural GMOs: no decisions about our farm businesses without us.

·       All GMOs - including gene edited ones – are regulated, at a minimum so they can be identified to allow for segregation and traceability on farm and in the supply chain

·       Any decisions around GMOs in the field include assessment of the economic risks and benefits of agricultural GMOs and if a GMO doesn’t deliver a net economic benefit, it should not get the go ahead.

·       We as a country and a sector get to make decisions about GMO use based on our unique conditions – Wellington should not be able to clear GMOs without us just because it’s been approved in the Iowa corn belt or the Canadian canola fields.

·       Any costs of GMO use are fairly shouldered - developers and GMO users should not pass on the costs of segregation or contaminating non-GM production.

Against this checklist, the original bill scores a zero and farmers are still in the dark about how much, if at all, Select Committee has listened to us. 

And from here, the process only gets worse as far as farmer input goes.  The Second Reading of the Bill – where changes can be made –  is more like Wall Street trading floor: it’s familiar turf for lobbyists and lawyers with the right speed dials - and enormously challenging for farmers. And we expect that once the Select Committee reports back to Parliament on August 22, Government will push it through under urgency. That’s a recipe for patch jobs and last-minute compromises that will be a cash cow for lawyers, not farmers.

Fast forward from there to the regulations that will sit under the Act that will deal with the all-important issues like contamination and which Govermment has said it will push regulation through quickly. These require even less consultation.  From there, skip to decisions about GMOs, where Government is proposing to cut us out and instead listen to what Ottawa, Washington or Bejiing’s views on GM crops and animals if it choses.

That’s why we do not have confidence that the process from here is on track to fix a bill that is so heavily weighted to the interests of GMO developers and so disinterested in the people and businesses that will have to make it work.

We believe that the best course is to “split the bill”: that is, to go ahead with changes to reduce unnecessary rules around GM medicines and activities with GMOs in containment but not proceed with regulatory changes to use of GMOs outdoors at this time.  This is not to kick a review of the rules concerning agricutlural use of GMOs into the long grass but to make sure that farmers sit around the drafting table and there is time to get it right.

The reality is that there is no ag GMO that is ready at the gate for commercialisation and that we know will deliver New Zealand farmers a net benefit in the current market environment, where consumers generally reject GMOs.

With the added pressure the new tariffs Trump has slapped on our products, we simply cannot afford to put a foot wrong with our customers and consumers.

In its first run at this, Government miscalculated how much farming is interested in this Bill. It should not make the same mistake twice.

Ruth and Mike Williams

Nick Collins

Sheep and Beef farmers on behalf of Concerned Farmers NZ