A Bill Few Want, But Still Moving Forward
The Health Select Committee has released its long-awaited report on the Gene Technology Bill. After months of hearings and nearly 15,000 public submissions — 97% opposed to the Bill — the Committee has recommended that it be passed, with only minor amendments.
To critics, this feels like déjà vu. Once again, overwhelming public concern has been brushed aside in favour of a policy track that benefits chemical agriculture, undermines local control, and risks New Zealand’s clean and green reputation.
The connection is hard to miss: raising glyphosate limits goes hand-in-hand with weakening GE regulation, while MPI is simultaneously pushing to raise allowable glyphosate residues in food by up to 9,900%, Parliament is loosening the rules on genetically engineered organisms. Put together, it paints a picture of a country opening the door to glyphosate-tolerant crops — regardless of what the public says.
Public Consultation: 97% Ignored
Nearly 15,000 New Zealanders, farmers, exporters, scientists, Māori groups, and community organisations had their say. And the verdict? An almost universal “No”.
- Organic NZ summed up the frustration bluntly: “There seems to be only minor amendments to the original draft bill, even though we hear around 97% of submissions opposed it.”
- GE Free NZ called it one of the weakest regulatory regimes in the world, warning that untested, unlabelled GE organisms could be released into the environment and food supply.
- Export groups voiced alarm about market access — especially to Europe, where GMO restrictions remain tight and consumer demand for non-GMO food is strong.
So why bother with public submissions if the outcome was predetermined? It raises the same democratic deficit questions we’ve seen with MPI’s glyphosate residue consultation: when the vast majority oppose, but the policy still advances, is consultation really consultation — or just a box-ticking exercise?
Gene Technology and Glyphosate: Two Sides of the Same Coin
Supporters of the Bill like to frame it as “modernisation” — a risk-proportionate update to outdated laws. But history tells a different story.
Globally, the main driver of genetic engineering in agriculture has not been feeding the world, fighting climate change, or improving nutrition. It’s been herbicide tolerance — crops designed to survive being sprayed with chemicals like glyphosate.
- Roundup-Ready soy, corn, and canola dominate the GMO landscape in the US, Brazil, Argentina, and beyond.
- These crops lock farmers into a cycle: buy the GE seed, spray with glyphosate, and repeat.
- As resistance builds, more spraying follows — fuelling chemical dependency instead of reducing it.
By weakening GMO oversight while raising glyphosate limits, New Zealand risks walking straight into the same trap. The Bill may not mention glyphosate by name, but its shadow looms large.
What the Amendments Actually Do
The Select Committee claims to have made “unanimous amendments” — but closer reading shows these are largely technical tweaks.
The heart of the Bill remains intact:
- GE organisms can be released into the environment.
- Local councils lose the power to restrict GE in their areas.
- The regulator (EPA or a new authority) holds sweeping discretion to approve releases.
- Liability for contamination remains unclear.
Yes, there are some clarifications and refinements: definitions have been tightened, some processes streamlined, and Māori input acknowledged. But the core framework — a permissive, centralised regime — hasn’t changed.
For opponents, it’s lipstick on a bulldog.
Risks to Farming, Exports, and Ecosystems
If this Bill becomes law, the implications ripple far beyond gene technology.
Export Market Risks
- NZ farmers could find themselves shut out of premium markets that demand non-GMO status.
- Europe’s zero-tolerance stance for unapproved GMOs remains firm. Even a single trace of contamination can mean shipment rejections.
Threats to Organic & Conventional Farming
- Cross-pollination between GE and non-GE crops is inevitable once organisms are released.
- Organic farmers could lose certification through no fault of their own.
Home Gardeners & Seed Savers
- Community seed networks, backyard growers, and traditional seed-saving practices face contamination risks that are almost impossible to contain.
Ecosystem Uncertainty
- GE organisms in the wild are irreversible. Once released, there’s no pulling them back.
- New Zealand’s conservation estate and unique biodiversity could be exposed to unpredictable risks.
And crucially: Chemical Agriculture Entrenchment
- Herbicide-tolerant GE crops would likely expand glyphosate use, just as they have overseas.
- This undermines MPI’s line that glyphosate residues are “safe” — especially when the science increasingly shows endocrine disruption, mitochondrial harm, and even multigenerational effects at low doses.
A Pattern of Deregulation
Seen in isolation, the Gene Technology Bill might look like a technical update. But in context, it’s part of a broader pattern:
- MPI’s glyphosate MRL proposal — raising limits by almost 10,000%.
- Health and Safety law gaps — weak protections for contractors and councils using glyphosate sprays.
- Export-driven exemptions — rules bent to meet trade convenience rather than health protection.
Put together, it’s a roadmap toward deregulation that benefits chemical and biotech corporations — while sidelining public health, local democracy, and ecological resilience.
Where This Leaves Us
The Gene Technology Bill now heads back to Parliament for its second reading. From there it goes through the Committee of the Whole House and a final third reading before it can become law.
This means there’s still time to speak out. Pressure on MPs matters more than ever — because if this passes unchallenged, the door to GE + glyphosate agriculture will be wide open.
Click here to contact Members of Parliament
The question is simple: Do we want to repeat the mistakes of countries already struggling with superweeds, chemical dependency, and contaminated food systems — or do we want to take a different path?
Resources & References
When regulators dismiss public concern, it becomes even more important to dig into the fine print ourselves. The resources below offer official documents, critical perspectives, and context for how the Gene Technology Bill intersects with glyphosate, food safety, and New Zealand’s reputation. They’re worth reading — and worth questioning.
Select Committee Report – Gene Technology Bill (Parliament NZ) – Official Health Committee report recommending passage with minor amendments.
GE Free NZ Press Release – GE Free NZ outlines concerns and notes overwhelming public opposition.
RNZ: Gene Technology Bill Delayed Again – Background on repeated delays and complexity claims from government.
Newsroom: Food safety handles thousands of objections as glyphosate review drags on — coverage of the public objections process and delays in the glyphosate MRL review.
NoMoreGlyphosate.nz: Gene Technology & Glyphosate Connection – Our earlier analysis of how GE deregulation ties directly to glyphosate use.
NoMoreGlyphosate.nz: Raising MRLs Threatens Public Health – MPI’s plan to lift allowable glyphosate residues on food crops.
Taken together, these resources show that the Bill is more than a technical update — it’s a shift in how New Zealand handles risk, democracy, and food integrity. If 97% opposition can be brushed aside, what does that say about whose voices count? The real question isn’t just what’s in the Bill — it’s whether we’re prepared to accept the consequences of letting it pass.
Image Source & Attribution
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by uroszunic.
