We now have details of a new Bill which introduces long-awaited reforms to genetic modification rules, reducing restrictions for scientists to work with the technology.
The applications for genetic modification tech include medicine, food, pest control, agriculture, and climate change.
Currently, gene technology is still regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 – despite the science progressing significantly over the past three decades.
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment.
Dr Andrew Allan, Principal Scientist at Plant & Food Research; and Professor in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Auckland, comments:
“The announcement of this Bill is an important development for NZ science and technology. The Bill’s key intention is to be enabling for low risk activities involving DNA alterations.
“If passed, new rules and regulations for gene technologies will be a vast improvement on the previous law. This is because the suggested settings are more modern, and will regulate DNA-techniques based on real, measurable risks.
“Previously low or no-risk activities were very restricted, and had to be treated like they were all very risky.
“Now we may be able to see more of the benefits of these efforts in medicine, agriculture and conservation.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I am a scientist working for both a university and crown research institute. I was part of the Technical Advisory Group, for MBIE, which is an advisory role and does not affect my ability to comment as an independent scientist.”
Professor Kjesten Wiig, Deputy Director, Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, comments:
“The Malaghan Institute welcomes the changes to New Zealand’s biotech regulations, which have the potential to deliver significant benefits for human health through innovative therapies.
“The changes will speed up and simplify the process of bringing life-saving therapies like CAR T-cell therapy to New Zealand and facilitate research into RNA therapies, with potential improvements in the efficacy and safety of vaccines and other treatments.
“Streamlined regulatory processes will save time and money and could make the difference between a clinical trial opening in New Zealand or not. The changes will also bring us in line with other jurisdictions and current scientific practice.
“Importantly, robust regulations remain in place for both clinical trials and new medicines. Simplifying regulations for clinical gene therapies to focus on the risks and benefits of the treatments, and what they mean for the patient, is a positive step.”
Conflicts of interest statement: “Co-director of the national RNA development platform.”
Associate Professor Josephine Johnston, Bioethics Centre, University of Otago, comments:
“It is notable how many different areas of activity the bill covers, from medical uses of genetics, to laboratory science with nonhuman animals and plants, to genetic modification of native species and the environment.
“The existing legislation, which this bill seeks to replace, was similarly ambitious in the breadth of its coverage, but that law mostly prevents activity—this bill seeks to allow genetic modification, possibly in all types of organism from microbes to plants to human beings—and that means the new law needs to be very flexible and robust.
“Much will rest on the Gene Technology Regulator, which in the bill is described as a person appointed by the Minister—and the office that person establishes, which will need to be sufficiently resourced to cover this huge range of activity.
“I also note that the bill will enable NZ to rely on assessments made by overseas regulators, which seems to me to be an efficient approach but one that will need to be titrated to ensure NZ’s specific interests and values are accounted for, from Te Tiriti commitments to universal healthcare.”
Conflict of interest statement: “In addition to my employment, I am co-chair of the Health Research Council of New Zealand’s Ethics Committee and a member of the HRC’s Gene Technology Advisory Committee. I have been funded by HRC and National Institutes of Health in the US to research issues in ethics and genetics, but I have not been funded by industry.”
Dr Sylvia Nissen, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Policy, Lincoln University, comments:
“One of the major changes this Bill proposes is a single Regulator to oversee the approvals of genetic technologies. This is loosely modelled on the Australian approach that has been in place for 20 years.
“Having decisions sit with a single person is risky. If we are to follow that model, ensuring the safe and ethical use of genetic modification requires that the Regulator has independence and resourcing.
“I am concerned about the independence of the Regulator in the proposed New Zealand Gene Technology Bill. While the Bill says the Regulator “must act independently of the EPA and the Minister”, they are also “subject to general policy directions given by the Minister”. This is not true independence. It is a long way from the Australian legislation, where the Regulator “is not subject to direction from anyone” in relation to decisions about GMOs.
“Another concern is whether the Regulator will be adequately resourced. It is not a one-person task to independently and effectively scrutinise complex applications for genetic modification. In Australia, there is an Office of the Gene Technology Regulator providing that support. By contrast, the Bill gives little clarity about what resourcing or support will be given to the Regulator, other than some scope to delegate tasks.
“A single regulator also does not reflect the Treaty principles outlined at the outset of the Bill. An advisory committee, or having “regard to advice” in some matters, is not partnership.
“Finally, there is no mention of a precautionary approach in this Bill. This has been a longstanding pillar in international policy on genetic modification, as well as in NZ regulation. Given that genetic modification involves editing life and brings with it implications that are often uncertain and even unknowable, it is important that our regulation ensures that we err on the side of caution.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I am a researcher on the MBIE Endeavour funded project ‘Whatu raranga o ngā koiora – weaving cultural authority into gene-drives targeting wasps’.”
Dr Richard Scott, Science team leader – Climate change and forage innovations, AgResearch, comments:
“The introduction of the Gene Technology Bill to Parliament is a significant milestone for New Zealand as it seeks to catch up with other nations on research and use of technologies such as genetic modification and gene editing. It paves the way for potentially enormous opportunities to enhance sectors such as our primary industries.
“Much of the rest of the world has already made changes, or is in the process of making changes, to accommodate these gene technologies that are now more precise and safer than they have ever been. In some cases, these technologies have been safely used overseas for decades now.
“The Bill will need to go through a process that will include examination by a select committee and the opportunity for people to have their say. Issues such as impacts on New Zealand’s exports markets, and views through a Te ao Māori perspective will likely need to be considered.
“While this bill provides a critical legal framework, as scientists we expect we will gain a greater understanding of what research activities will be permitted, or will need to be considered by the new gene regulator, as the supporting regulations are developed.
“The approach proposed for New Zealand, which excludes “low-risk and well-understood gene technologies” from regulation, seems sensible. We know that certain changes made by gene editing, for example, are indistinguishable from changes that can occur naturally or through conventional breeding of organisms.
“The health of people and the environment should, of course, remain central to any new legislation that is passed.
“We’re looking forward to greater opportunity to trial technologies we are developing, such as modified pasture plants, in real-world conditions rather than in glasshouses or overseas. These solutions are aimed at increasing farm productivity, improving livestock health and reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture such as greenhouse gas emissions.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I work on research in New Zealand that uses genetic technologies; I am also part of a Technical Advisory Group that has provided advice to the government in the formation of the Gene Technology Bill and associated policy work.”
Dr Hilary Sheppard, Senior Lecturer, School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, comments:
“I think that this proposed legislation is well overdue. We have been working under outdated laws (the HSNO Act 1996) that have not kept up with scientific advances. The current law does not manage risks to the environment or health appropriately. The new bill will help us to work more efficiently with less unnecessary red tape applied to research that poses zero risk to the environment.
“For example, my team is conducting lab-based research towards a treatment for people with an extreme fragile skin condition. As part of this work we are using gene editing technology to repair a broken gene in skin cells derived from people with this devastating disorder. We are making tiny changes to the DNA which convert the unhealthy cells into a normal, healthy cells. Under the current law the now ‘healthy cells’ are considered to be ‘genetically modified organisms’. This leads to an administrative burden completely out of proportion to the risk a healthy human skin cell poses to human health or to the environment. So, I think that allowing very low risk and well understood technologies to be exempt from regulation makes a lot of sense. The new legislation also allows for higher risk applications to be carefully regulated to ensure that human health and the environment are protected.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I was part of the Technical Advisory Group, which provides an advisory role to MBIE and does not affect my ability to comment as an independent scientist.”
Dr Kimberley Snowden, Principal Scientist, Team Leader for Plant Development, Plant & Food Research, comments:
“I think that our current legislation (the HSNO Act) is out of date and doesn’t adequately cover new advances in science around genetic modification and gene editing. Our current compliance regime focusses on restricting novel technologies rather than considering the risk, if any, of the outcomes of such technology. This approach has led to a complex and expensive regulatory regime.
“Overall, we have a need to update our laws to be more responsive to advances in science and technology, and that appropriately considers the risk(s) of any modifications made. We have an opportunity to be more in line with other countries with our legislation, with the new Bill being based on similar legislation in Australia, but also taking into account some of our unique circumstances in New Zealand.
“Getting this right will give science and agrifood industries the option of adding genetic technologies to the toolbox in helping address challenges such as climate change.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I work as a research scientist at a Crown Research Institute (funded by my institute), and my group makes GMOs for research purposes (bacteria, yeast and plants).”
Dr Alec Foster, Portfolio Leader – Bioproducts and Packaging, Scion, comments:
“The release of the Government’s proposed gene technologies legislation marks an important milestone for New Zealand. Other countries are already adopting gene technologies as a crucial component of their bioeconomy transition, leveraging biotechnology to generate economic benefits, protecting human and environmental health while simultaneously developing cleaner and more sustainable processes.
“By aligning with international standards and developments, New Zealand can unlock transformative opportunities, including breakthrough medical therapies, more productive and resilient crop varieties, reduced dependency on pesticides and herbicides, and innovative methods to convert waste streams and greenhouse gases into valuable products. The proposed legislation provides a pathway for economic prosperity, social advancement, and environmental innovation.
“By harmonising New Zealand’s approach with Australia’s gene technology framework, the new Bill incorporates a more proportionate risk management strategy. The risk-tiered approach enables critical applications in healthcare, plant and animal gene editing, and advanced fermentation processes. Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, projects substantial benefits from gene technologies for Australia, including a $30 billion economic impact and 50,000 new jobs by 2040, with significant advantages for primary industries. New Zealand can anticipate similar transformative outcomes.
“Scion is actively engaged in multiple innovative projects within the gene technologies domain, demonstrating the broad potential of these emerging technologies across forestry and industrial sectors. These initiatives showcase the direct benefits of gene technologies in addressing complex environmental and economic challenges. For instance, Scion is developing sterile trees that don’t produce seeds, helping address the long-standing environmental challenge from the spread of wilding conifers. In another project, Scion is exploring methods to convert greenhouse gas emissions into valuable biofuels and bioplastics through advanced fermentation processes that rely on modified bacteria, transforming environmental challenges into economic opportunities. Such technologies are already being utilised internationally. New Zealand can leverage them too.
“While the proposed changes take New Zealand in a new direction, I am confident most Kiwis will realise that this is an opportunity. This legislation represents an overwhelmingly positive advancement for New Zealand, and will allow us to transform the country for the better.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I am part of the MBIE Technical advisory group for Gene Technologies, executive member of BiotechNZ and also oversee several projects at Scion which leverage gene technologies.”
Dr Revel Drummond, Senior scientist, Plant & Food Research Ltd, comments:
“The team at MBIE is to be commended on completing this draft of the new Gene Technology Bill within the very tight timeframe set down by Minister Collins.
“The work that this represents is significant and complex. The pragmatic approach of working from the Australian system and adapting it for New Zealand has sped up the development without sacrificing quality such that this draft is an excellent starting point for the consultation that will occur during the select committee process.
“Furthermore the quick publication of the bill allows the New Zealand public and sector stakeholders time to read the bill and digest the proposed new regulatory regime well ahead of the select committee process. This will further improve the bill by allowing incorporation of deeper insight from those that submit to the committee.
“Due to the scale of the bill and the supporting documents it will take some time to read through these, but I encourage anyone and everyone to engage with this process as such changes to regulatory systems are rare and require input from all sectors of society.”
Conflict of interest statement: Dr Revel Drummond is employed by Plant and Food Research, which has a research investment portfolio that includes both genetic modification and gene editing. He is investigating the potential of gene technologies to improve production and consumer traits in plants in a New Zealand context.