Latest news with #GeneTechnologyBill
Scoop
4 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
Organic Sector Tops $1.18 Billion – Growth Slowed By Policy Gaps Despite Strong Global Demand
WELLINGTON, NZ – New data released today in the 2025 Organic Market Report shows New Zealand's organic sector has reached a record NZ$1.18 billion in value. This includes for the first time organic sales in the foodservice sector and reflects a 37% increase since 2020 (excluding foodservice), marking strong and sustained growth. Given the evidence of strong growth in global demand and the premium commanded by organic products, organics is New Zealand's highest-value and lowest-impact of primary production, delivering premium exports, healthier food, and stronger environmental outcomes. But the report also delivers a stark warning. New Zealand's organic sector lags behind the rest of the world due to outdated policies and lack of investment. The looming threat to the country's GE-free status also puts this success at risk. Key growth highlights include: The sector has grown from NZ$723 million in 2020 to NZ$1.18 billion in 2024 Exports totalled NZ$606.7 million, growing at nearly twice the rate of total primary sector exports. Domestic consumption reached NZ$572 million, including NZ$190 million from the foodservice sector, now measured for the first time. Certified organic land grew 4.3%, reaching 89,544 hectares Leading export categories include fruit and vegetables (40.3%), dairy (35.3%), and wine (12.2%). New Zealand's largest producers, including Fonterra and Zespri, are leading the way with premium organic milk and high-value organic kiwifruit, capitalising on consistent global demand for trusted, certified products. 'Organics is delivering strong returns and long-term market relevance,' said OANZ Chief Executive Tiffany Tompkins. 'But the sector is still working with one hand tied behind its back.' Far from being niche, organic production is now embedded in the strategies of some of our most successful agricultural exporters, with growing potential across other sectors including wine, meat and wool. Despite strong performances, the report highlights critical structural barriers that continue to constrain the sector's full potential: Only 0.6% of New Zealand farmland is certified organic, well behind global benchmarks, limiting the sector's ability to scale. The National Organic Standard remains unfinished, more than two years after legislation was passed and despite over a decade of sector advocacy. Without it, producers face uncertainty and inconsistent recognition in international markets. Organic equivalency agreements with key trading partners remain undone, delaying access to lucrative premium markets and adding compliance costs for exporters. Certification and regulatory costs are rising, particularly impacting small and medium-sized producers and discouraging new entrants. The Government's proposed Gene Technology Bill would allow the outdoor release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), posing an existential threat to organic producers, jeopardising New Zealand's GE-free brand and risking the loss of access to premium organic export markets that prohibit GE contamination. 'This is a sector that's doing what government strategies call for - lifting export value, protecting the environment, and boosting regional economies,' said Rob Simcic, Chair of OANZ. 'But we can't lead the world with a regulatory system stuck in the past. If we get this right, organics can become a core pillar of New Zealand's future'
Scoop
6 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
Press Release – Lisa Er Despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media, says Lisa Er. As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: – Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. – Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. – Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.
Scoop
6 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
Press Release – Lisa Er Despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media, says Lisa Er. As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: – Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. – Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. – Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.
Scoop
6 days ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: - Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. - Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. - Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.
Newsroom
22-05-2025
- Business
- Newsroom
Gene tech the winner in new science budget
Half of the savings found by cancelling research funds and institutes will be spent setting up an office to attract foreign science and an office to oversee a deregulated gene tech space. In total, $212 million was cut from the science sector in Budget 2025, of which $107m was spent setting up the office of the Gene Technology Regulator and Invest New Zealand. With the Gene Technology Bill before select committee, there has been criticism about its ability to open up New Zealand as a proving ground for foreign gene-tech companies to test their products. The total budget line for business, science and innovation was $813m. But nearly three quarters of this, $576m, was a rebate for international moviemakers. This left $236 million for science and innovation. Some $212m of that was funded by cannibalising other areas of the science sector. The two main spends funded by cuts to research and innovation were the combination of an international investment agency alongside a gene technology regulator tasked with obeying 'general policy directions' of a given government. These were Invest New Zealand and the Gene Technology Regulator. Invest New Zealand had 84.6m earmarked over four years. The new agency was tasked with attracting foreign capital to New Zealand, with an emphasis on scientific ventures. Meanwhile, $22.8m was dedicated over the same four years to the Gene Technology Regulator. The regulator was tasked with overseeing the country's new GMO regime, defined by the Gene Technology Bill, which is due to pass into law by the end of the year. This funding also supported compliance and monitoring of the new regime. The gene tech bill will deregulate many gene technologies, opening the door for innovation. Support has come largely from the agriculture sector. Scion's Alec Foster told Newsroom last week that research into conifers alone could unlock billions in the New Zealand economy, and he believed the industry was capable and best-suited to regulate the technology's use. Select committee hearings are underway for the bill, but criticisms of the new regime have focused on the degree of deregulation proposed and the relative lack of independence wielded by the new regulator. As Newsroom has previously reported, Fonterra warned in its submission that pitfalls could 'cede control' to foreign nations via legislative design. The regulator is tied to the directives of the government of the day, unlike Australia's regime on which the bill was based. Other specifics in the bill directly cite Australian legislation, which raised the concern of officials in their regulatory impact statement. Others have warned about foreign gene-tech companies coming to New Zealand, attracted by lax restrictions, to set up testing facilities for experimental crops. If those crops were to fall within certain thresholds, they may escape a degree of the regulator's scrutiny, which will already be bound to the 'growth-first' directive of the coalition Government. This regulator will sit within the Environmental Protection Authority, which has also been tasked with managing fast-track applications. In his announcement, Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology Shane Reti said: 'We must have an eye on emerging opportunities to make sure we keep growing the role of science and innovation – we must always be asking, what's next?' The answer wasn't research funding. The majority of new science spends – outside of the film rebate – were funded by the cancellation of funds, grants and centres, but no new ones were created. The sector as a whole saw very little new funding, which contradicted advice given by Sir Peter Gluckman in the Science System Advisory Group report published in 2024. Gluckman wrote: 'We have an underfunded system by any international comparison.' This made for competitive inter-agency relationships, which was 'known to inhibit the most intellectually innovative ideas coming forward, and of course it is these that can drive a productive innovation economy'. Despite new dedicated funds, elsewhere in the Budget a $398m spend on tertiary education boosts looked to emphasise Stem courses. Some $213m of that fund – from the tertiary education budget line, not science and innovation – would go to 'many' subject areas across the tertiary sector, for a 3 percent increase across whatever that range may be. Stem subjects in particular were earmarked for a further 1.7 percent increase of $64m. But this was the only extra money given to early-career researchers. $35.5 million from other funds for this type of work – the Marsden, Health Research, Partnered Research, and Strategic Science Investment funds – was reprioritised. The Innovation Trailblazer and the New to R&D grants were axed, as well as Callaghan Innovation. The disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation itself was set to cost $38m over four years. An earlier version of this story said the Marsden Fund and others had been disestablished. The story has been updated to clarify the funds had been partially reprioritised.
