Reforming Genetic Engineering Technology in New Zealand Entails Both Advantages and Potential Hazards
In the realm of gene technology, two countries, Australia and New Zealand, have distinct regulatory frameworks. The Conversation recently published an article by Sylvia Nissen, a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Policy at Lincoln University, discussing these differences and their potential implications.
The article, published in February 2025, comes at a crucial time, as public submissions on New Zealand's Gene Technology Bill are about to close. The bill aims to reform genetic modification laws, providing more enabling and modern regulation.
In Australia, gene technology is regulated by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), operating under the *Gene Technology Act 2000*. This framework encompasses regulations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including exemptions, notifiable low-risk dealings, and licensable dealings involving intentional release or dealings not involving intentional release.
Conversely, New Zealand's gene technology regulations are managed through the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under the *Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996*. This framework primarily focuses on the assessment and management of risks associated with GMOs and other genetically modified organisms.
One significant difference between the two models lies in the regulatory authority. Australia has a dedicated gene technology regulator, while New Zealand incorporates gene technology into broader environmental regulations. Australia is also updating its definitions for genetically modified foods, focusing on novel DNA introduction, which may differ from New Zealand's approach.
These differences could have implications on independence and accountability. A dedicated gene technology regulator might be seen as more independent due to its focused mandate. However, New Zealand's EPA might face broader competing priorities. The Australian model allows for specific oversight and regulation of GMOs, which could enhance accountability. Integrating gene technology into environmental regulations in New Zealand might lead to a more holistic approach to environmental impact but could also spread accountability across multiple areas.
The independence and accountability of a regulator can significantly impact public trust. A clear, focused regulatory framework might enhance transparency and trust, while a broader framework might face challenges in conveying its decisions and actions.
It is worth noting that the proposed New Zealand model suggests the regulator for genetic modification decisions is "subject to general policy directions given by the minister," raising concerns about the regulator's true independence and potential for decisions to be influenced by the government of the day.
This discussion is not limited to regulatory frameworks. The acceptance and use of genetic modification technologies are influenced and regulated by social constructs, including legislation. For instance, the Gene Technology Bill and the article "CRISPR: Science can't solve it" demonstrate the scientific knowledge and capability to use genetic modification technologies, but the acceptance and use of these technologies are influenced by societal values and ethical considerations.
Furthermore, the article "Empowering Indigenous Knowledge in Deliberations on Gene Editing in the Wild" suggests ways to address power imbalances around decisions about genetically engineered organisms being released into the wild. This is particularly relevant in the context of te ao Māori considerations of novel pest control tools like RNAi.
In conclusion, while the proposed New Zealand gene technology regulator model is yet to be fully revealed, understanding the differences and implications between the Australian and New Zealand regulatory frameworks provides valuable insights for shaping future discussions on gene technology regulation.
In the realm of health-and-wellness, the acceptance and use of gene technology for medical-conditions are influenced by both scientific knowledge and societal values, as demonstrated by the article "CRISPR: Science can't solve it."
With the increasing focus on gene technology in environmental-science, particularly in the discussion about genetically modified organisms and their impact on the environment, the regulatory framework could play a significant role in ensuring public trust and accountability.
