Is food in NZ set to become cheaper and better – or just less regulated?

With looser rules proposed regarding both food labelling and genetic engineering, the government says it’s backing farmers. So why are some farmers dead set against the changes? Cushla Norman reports

“Lots of farmers don’t want this.” Watch this story on TVNZ+.

Some gene-edited food could end up on supermarket shelves without labelling, as the definition of what constitutes a genetically modified food is set to change.

It has prompted criticism from GE Free advocates who say it takes away consumer choice, and the organics sector which says it puts them in an unfair position.

The new definition is proposed by the Food Standards Authority for Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ). It hinges on whether there is any foreign DNA in a final product. So, if a food has been gene-edited, but doesn’t contain DNA from an unrelated species, then it’s not genetically modified and won’t have to be labelled as such.

Food that contains foreign DNA must still be labelled as ‘genetically modified’ for example the Impossible Burger, which contains genetically engineered yeast.

FSANZ argues gene-editing presents a low risk, as the foods derived from it are equivalent to those that could be created through natural mutations or conventional breeding.

But a spokesperson from GE-Free NZ Jon Carapiet disagrees. “It’s really wrong. The whole deal with GMO food is you may like it, you may not like it, but it’s supposed to be labelled, and it’s supposed to be the right to choose and they’re about to take that right away.”

Members of the organics sector fear the regulation change will place the onus on them to label their goods as being GE-free, thereby stinging them with that additional cost.

“And that’s not fair,” said Organics Aotearoa New Zealand spokesperson Brendan Hoare. “That’s the sort of frustration we feel… If we want to prove that [our products are not genetically edited] we’re going to have to pay.”

He worries that, without labelling, new products will come onto the market and there will be no way of tracing what’s in them.

“We are going to experience a full wave of products coming into this country, or should the Gene Tech Bill follow through, be created and developed here, which the public and people in business will not know [the origins] of.”

Hoggard to decide on labelling this week

The updated labelling rules come as the government lifts decades long restrictions on genetic engineering.

FSANZ has spent five years working on its proposed changes, which will apply to both countries.

New Zealand’s Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard is due to make a final decision on it this week.

He said if consumers want labelling, they can put the pressure on. “Market signals work… If you’re demanding something, the farmer, the grower, the producer will respond.”

Jon Carapiet is calling on supermarkets to act. “They’ve got to label it, they’ve got to allow people a choice.”

Hoggard said there is nothing to stop producers adding their own labelling, but it will push up the cost of food, while both the new technology and freer labelling legislation would see prices fall.

“There’s the ability to produce more food more quickly thus more cheaply and so bringing the cost of food down.”

But Brendan Hoare said that’s the wrong attitude.

“The idea of driving food prices down, so it’s all about cheap food, is worrying, particularly when the country is really espousing, you know, a ‘clean green, buy New Zealand grass-fed, we’re the best’…

“And a lot of these new breeding techniques, even though they’re within the same species, have still not been proven to be safe.”

But Hoggard says any new food coming in will still have go through a safety process.

“We’ll still be guaranteeing that things are safe. You know the whole thing is about, is it safe? Not the process and that’s the key thing.”

Gene modification vs editing: what’s the difference?

Professor Andrew Allan, a principal scientist at Plant & Food Research explains the difference between genetic modification and editing

“A GMO has extra DNA. A gene-edited plant or animal has a little change that could have happened naturally.”

Gene-editing can be done using tools such as CRISPR, which lets scientists precisely edit existing DNA without necessarily inserting new DNA.

Professor Allan said surveys show the public appears to be less concerned about genetically engineered food when there isn’t any DNA added.

“So if the plant has a small edit that allows it to produce more vitamins, more health compounds, more colour, then that will be novel. And we want people to give it a go.”

The cautionary tale of the hornless cattle

Asked if genetically edited foods were safe to eat, Professor Allan said: “A scientist can never say 100% safe. This is not what we do. But we can say that all the compounds that we’ve measured in those fruit are equivalent to what happens in a normal fruit, just at a different level.”

Professor Jack Heinemann from Canterbury University said gene editing tools are efficient, but that doesn’t mean they’re safe.

For example, while those tools have a high degree of success at making desired changes, they can also change foods in ways that weren’t intended.

“If you use a machine gun, you’re really highly guaranteed of success, particularly if you use it in a small room, right? That doesn’t make it safe, because you don’t control where you don’t want it to act.”

He points to one case in the US, where a gene-editing tool, was used to create hornless cattle, but the animals ended up with an unwelcome gene for antibiotic resistance.

That case involved the unintended addition of DNA to the from a different species, something that isn’t supposed to occur with gene editing and which went unnoticed by Recombinetics, the Minnesota startup company creating the hornless cattle. (They used a system called TALENs, rather than CRISPR)

“They had genes from other species in them, even though there was no intention to put them in there,” says Heinemann. And they said they did everything to confirm that they weren’t in there.”

Farmers: ‘We’re not informed’

Meanwhile, the government’s Gene Technology Bill, currently in its second reading by a select committee, proposes excluding from regulation some gene editing techniques and products that have been deemed low risk. That includes some types of CRISPR.

Ruth and Mike Williams, who farm sheep and beef at Banks Peninsula and represent a group of 170 farmers, are worried about the bill.

“We’re not informed, there hasn’t been a strong robust debate and an education programme, it’s been so rushed,” said Ruth Williams.

Mike Williams is particularly worried about technologies and products not being regulated and therefore being untraceable.

“If it’s exempt, then it won’t be characterised, and so we won’t be able to identify it.”

Kiwi business opportunities gained or blown?

Ruth Williams said being GE-free is a business advantage and lets New Zealand into premium markets.

“It’s part of the whole package of New Zealand Inc. We’re a safe food-producing country that’s producing quality food, sustainably and naturally. That’s an invaluable position to be in, and it’s a position we shouldn’t give away lightly.”

But for food innovators, there’s more enthusiasm for the relaxed rules.

“I hope that the new bill gives us, but also the New Zealand food industry, more opportunity to actually produce the products in New Zealand,” said Daisy Lab CEO Irina Miller.

The Auckland company uses gene editing to make dairy identical proteins, and hopes to sell its license to food producers.

She said that, under the current genetic engineering laws, New Zealand companies would struggle to produce their ingredients on the kind of large scale necessary for business, because the law requires all production to be contained within a building.

What will freer genetic engineering laws mean for our food’s future?

Professor Heinemann says the most likely outcome is products that intensify the use of agrochemicals.

He said it’s unlikely to deliver “big market blockbusters.”

“Red apples are not going to save New Zealand’s economics. So it’s going to produce probably novelty items in our food, rather than food that we really need.”

But Professor Allan sees GE helping to foster a stronger, bigger horticulture sector, that, compared to agriculture, fixes more carbon.

 ”Then that would be good for our climate emissions.”

“The Canterbury plains used to be planted in crops, right. And now it’s covered in dairy. Now I want crops back again. Let’s make crops big again.”

The Health Select Committee is due to report back on July 31, before the Gene Technology Bill goes to its second reading.

“Lots of farmers don’t want this.” Watch this story on TVNZ+.