Photo: 123RF
A leading scientist is welcoming the end to a gene technology ban, saying New Zealand has missed opportunities because of outdated rules.
The government believes lifting the nearly 30-year moratorium on gene technology outside of the lab will bring productivity and climate gains for New Zealand and also health advances, such as gene therapies for cancer.
Last year, Christopher Luxon said New Zealand's laws had been in a "time warp" from 1996 to 2003.
The current legislation - last amended 20 years ago - permitted genetic research in laboratories, but field trials outside the lab need approval.
The government plans to introduce a dedicated regulator to oversee applications to use gene tech by the end of the year.
NZ has outdated rules on gene technology - scientist
Controversy erupted about so-called genetic engineering two decades ago, with opponents concerned it would have negative and irreversible consequences, if genetically modified organisms were allowed into the environment.
And New Zealand has maintained tight regulations, but critics have said they were out of step with international counterparts like Australia.
Read more:
Professor Mike Bunce is a geneticist at Curtin University in Western Australia, was formerly chief science adviser for the Department of Conservation, and a member of the government's gene technology steering committee.
He told Checkpoint New Zealand had had a "precautionary" approach to gene technology for 28 years, but that science had moved on and the government was changing its approach.
"We're stepping up our game a little bit in terms of how we provide a more permissive environment for low-risk applications in the gene technology area."
In New Zealand, there had been very few examples of fields trials of genetically modified plants or animals being released, which was quite different to advances overseas.
He said the plan was to move "low-risk" applications, such as making insulin and T-cell therapies for cancer treatment, into the lab, but at the more "higher-risk end of spectrum" there may be "very little change".
New Zealand had missed out on advances in precision gene editing such as CRISPR. Making a single gene edit took a long time using conventional breeding approaches, which could now be sped up.
This had applications for the horticulture sector, such as breeding fruit trees that flowered at a certain time, or producing fruit with a longer shelf life, he said.
Another practical application was developing sterile pine trees, which were causing "a huge amount of environmental damage", he said. "A GM pine tree would enable us to tackle some of those issues."
Such genetic changes had already been done through conventional breeding for "thousands of years", he said.
"It's not as if we're going to make edits that stop anything from going rotten, but increasing the shelf life or flavour of apples may have some really good commercial benefits for New Zealand."
There were health and environmental benefits, too, he said. "A slightly more permissive environment is probably overdue and it brings us in line with what's been going on overseas."
Australia, for example, had recently authorised the use of a genetically modified banana that is resistant to a fungal pathogen causing issues with its exports.
Checkpoint host Lisa Owen questioned him on whether our current GM-free status was a selling point for New Zealand's exports.
"Some people would argue that and I guess it will depend on that risk framework.
"We use genetic tools all the time in New Zealand at the moment - [like] those examples around vaccines and cancer therapies.
"It is a bigger discussion that New Zealand has to have around food, and I would encourage New Zealand just to lift its DNA game a bit and have discussions around each application, not about the technology, whether it's good or bad.
"It's kind of akin to arguing whether the internet is good or bad... We need to talk abut various applications within the internet .. not blanket statements."