Embracing Technology to Reduce the Farming Footprint: Is New Zealand’s regulation lagging behind the biotech revolution? By Ella Jensen PHPE 589 Research Paper Master of Philosophy, Political Science and Economics February 2020 Victoria University of Wellington Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 Embracing Technology to Reduce the Farming Footprint At the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill in November 2019, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern stated the bill is New Zealand’s second Nuclear Free moment. By this statement, Ardern is making the comparison that New Zealand becoming carbon neutral as a means of combating climate change, is both as critical and as monumental as when the country became nuclear free in 1987. During the reading Ardern stressed with urgency to the House of Representatives that New Zealand will not be a follower on the issue of climate change, but instead a leader, Because quite frankly we cannot afford to be, not for the environment and nor for our food producers, they trade on our brand and our name, they trade on New Zealand being environmentally responsible, we have the potential here to lead the way and to instil a higher value to our products in doing so... We have the ability to be the world’s most sustainable food producers and have the ability to sell the technology and innovation that comes with developing that much needed research, development and technology…we will not allow this country to be a fast follower because we damage our country, our environment and our exporters if we allow that to happen. 1 In the past few years there has been a growing global concern about the state of our planet from the effects of climate change. In response, we have seen climate action, environmental change and adaption in an attempt to mitigate these effects. We have also seen the development of sustainable innovations and solutions both in New Zealand and abroad. The mission of this research paper, therefore, is to present the argument that as an environmentally focused country faced with the reality of climate change, the New Zealand government should update its policies on the restriction of genetic technologies. With nearly half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions coming from agriculture, this sector will be the key focus. 2 This paper will draw particular attention to the application of new gene editing and genetic modification techniques, designed to help the agricultural sector meaningfully reduce its carbon emissions. As a 1 Ardern, “Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill - Third 2 New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, “Agricultural Reading”. greenhouse gases & the New Zealand dairy sector”. 1 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 sector that underpins New Zealand’s economy, it is essential that New Zealand works towards adapting sustainable solutions to reducing the farming footprint whilst still supporting the industry.3 If this moment is as critical as Ardern exclaims - another “nuclear moment” for New Zealand - then it is simultaneously the moment that conversations surrounding the use and development of innovative technologies need to be had. Since the early days of the development of genetic technologies, there have been major advancements. However, these technologies today are restricted to laboratory trials due to New Zealand’s legislation not keeping up with the technological developments and improvements. If New Zealand wants to be a climate change leader and also keep up with the rest of the world in innovation, then reassessing the 24-year-old legislation surrounding the use of genetic technologies needs to happen, in order to take into account new developments which can act as environmental solutions. Abstract New developments in genetic technology, such as gene editing, can help reduce the environmental farming footprint in the agricultural industry. This research paper will argue that these new developments, along with the growing urgency to act on climate change, means that it is time for New Zealand to update its regulations of the use of genetic technologies to encourage discussion about the benefits they can have for the future. The paper will begin by providing readers with a broad understanding of genetic modification and gene editing technologies, along with a brief history of New Zealand’s legislation and regulation of their use. Following this, it will highlight the applications of three different genetic techniques that could be used on New Zealand farms to improve production efficiency while reducing environmental harm. The second section of this paper will address popular arguments often made in opposition to the deregulation of genetic modification, concerns particularly held by New Zealanders in the past. This section will include an analysis of the ethical concerns of ‘altering nature’ and ‘playing god’ and a discussion of key economic arguments made in defence of protecting New Zealand’s trade and its brand. Finally, it will make recommendations on 3 New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, “Agricultural greenhouse gases & the New Zealand dairy sector”. 2 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 the path forward for New Zealand, calling for the opening up of public debate, improving communication between society and scientists and an overhaul of the current legislation to properly account for new developments in technology and integrating the challenge of mitigating climate change. A Guide to Genetic Modification and Gene Editing Genetic modification (GM) is the biotechnology method of altering the genetic material of an organism, (DNA and RNA), with the purpose of altering one or more hereditary characteristics., It is a process which has been used for thousands of years through controlled or selective breeding of both plants, animals and microbes. 4 These techniques were developed in the 1970s and enabled scientists to use more targeted systems of altering genes or enhance or disrupted an existing gene. A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism (plant, animal or insect), whose genetic makeup has been changed, either by adding new genes, found in other organisms or synthetic genes, or by changing the structure of the organism’s own genes. 5 In the past decade scientists have developed new gene editing techniques, which allows the ‘manipulation of specific genes within a genome with greater precision in the modification process, and fewer unintended changes elsewhere in the genome’. 6 Developments have enabled more specific targeting to make the desired changes but with a lower chance of unwanted externalities. Furthermore, the resulted offspring’s genetic changes are undetectable, compared to a conventional breeding programme.7 New gene editing technology has made it possible to alter a gene without introducing any exotic DNA sequences (this being one of the common concerns held by detractors). Gene editing can be used to turn a gene off (gene silencing) and back on, for example switching off a gene which causes diseases or to identify their function. 8 Furthermore, DNA templates can be created for a new gene, based on a gene found within that same species or other species. This can be used to provide a new set of characteristics, which can enable disease resistance in animals, for example. 9 These gene editing technologies 4 Ross, “What is Genetic Modification?” 5 Ibid. 6 Royal Society Te Apārangi, “History of 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Royal Society Te Apārangi, “History of Genetic Engineering”. Genetic Engineering”. 3 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 now have the potential to offer new treatments for genetic diseases. They can act a solutions and tools in agriculture and horticulture and are being commercialised in other countries.10 Developments in the last decade have also resulted in more effective and specific edits to genes, and ‘advances in very rapid genome sequencing now mean that genome DNA sequence information for any species can be quickly assembled, opening up the way for widespread use of gene editing approaches’.11 However, with these developments comes the increasing challenge for New Zealand’s current legislation and regulatory frameworks ability to ably distinguish between gene edited and GMO products, with conventionally produced ones. Currently, the three new gene editing techniques which are being developed and which use ‘bacterial proteins to find, cut, edit, add or replace genes’ are called Zinc-finger nucleases, TALEN (Transcription Activator-like Effector Nucleases) and CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats). 12 New gene editing tools are being used and developed in different areas of science and research. In medicine, they are being applied to understand how variations of genes are linked to diseases in cells and whole animal models, with the potential to help humans better understand and treat disease.13 Examples include: the ability to remove allergens from certain foods. Trials using CRISPR have also resulted in the ability to correct mutations in the genes responsible for medical conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Hepatitis B.14 Moreover, in the United States (US) trials are undergoing to alter genes of immune system cells in order to prevent HIV. 15 Alternatively, in agriculture, according to Royal Society Te Apārangi; ‘the new gene-editing technologies make it possible to modify a range of agriculturally-important organisms easily, cheaply, and if desired, without introducing foreign DNA sequences’.16 New gene editing techniques have been developed in this sector which have had positive outcomes, examples include; improving food production efficiency and sustainability, solutions for pest control, improved conservation through gene drives and the reduction of risks to animal welfare through techniques such as breeding hornless cattle.17 10 Ibid. 11 Royal Society Te Apārangi. “New Gene Editing Technologies”. 12Royal Society Te Apārangi, “History of Genetic Engineering”. 13 Royal Society Te Apārangi, “Current Gene Editing Uses”. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Royal Society Te Apārangi, “Current Gene Editing Uses”. 4 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 David Hughes, the Chief Executive Officer of Plant and Food Research, is urging for the opening up of public conversation surrounding gene editing, how it works and what it could offer. He believes developments in recent years could bring us much closer to achieving our traditional breeding goals around both sustainability and nutrition, and at a faster rate.18 This means that, “consumers get more healthy whole foods sooner. Growers gain greater ability to fight pests, cut chemicals and delight the global market with innovative new products. Communities get options to keep their horticulture sector thriving in the face of climate change and pressure on the environment”.19 Both David Hughes and Dr. Julie Everett-Hincks, Science Manager at head of the Otago Regional Councils science team, believe it is time to re-open conversations again about genetic technologies. Furthermore, they believe New Zealand should reassess its legislation as it was created over 20 years ago in the 1990s and did not contemplate the new gene editing technologies and what they can offer. 20 Dr Everett, along with many researchers and scientists, is putting pressure on the government to review its legislation and is working to change the conversation, as she believes technology has significantly evolved since the 1990s. According to Dr Everett, there are significant differences between "random, multiple and unspecific genetic changes" and "targeting a single gene and mutating that",21 which is gene editing today, a significant advancement since legislation was written for GMOs. It is essential to understand that gene editing is considered GM under current legislation and regulation in New Zealand, and that this legislation has not been updated in response to the development of gene editing techniques and improved GM methods. According to Royal Society Te Apārangi, both New Zealand and other countries are grappling with the challenge of how to define and regulate the gene editing of animals and plants; ‘given that many gene-edited organisms will be indistinguishable from those generated by traditional plant and animal breeding processes’.22 Within the discussion of gene editing technologies, it is essential to acknowledge the potential risks that contribute to public concerns, which will be discussed in more depth in the ethics section of this research paper. With all scientific technologies it is Hughes, “Time for a grown-up conversation about gene editing”. Ibid. Dreaver, “Has the time come for genetic modification?” Harvie, “Allow gene editing, urges top plant biologist as she retires”. Royal Society Te Apārangi, “Gene editing in the primary industries: Technical Paper”. 5. 18 19 20 21 22 5 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 important to weigh up the risks against the benefits. Word Count: 10568 One of the larger concerns surrounding gene editing techniques like CRISPR, is the risk that a DNA manipulation is passed onto other organisms or the next generation, as cited in Stanford Medicine: Take gene-drive systems, in which scientists deploy CRISPR gene editing to spread a DNA modification swiftly through an entire population. Some publichealth officials hope that the technique might allow for the complete eradication of disease-carrying mosquitoes or ticks, for example. But concerns over unforeseen ecological impacts abound. Many public officials and researchers also worry about gene drives being weaponized to wipe out agricultural systems or to spread a deadly disease.23 This fear is a matter of both biosecurity and human ethics. It is the concern that if humans manipulate genetic codes, whether it be of humans, plants or animals, these manipulations could be passed on from generation to generation. This concern raises the bigger ethical question over whether humans have the right to meddle with nature and essentially “play god”. This question will be analysed in the ethical section of this research. With a lack of public information in the late 1990s and early 2000s, New Zealanders held widespread concerns over GMO products. These included worries over food safety, product labelling, health risks, animal welfare issues and the concern that if something were to go wrong New Zealand’s “clean and green” image could come under threat.24 Scientific discoveries and developments are always changing, and quite rapidly, as we have seen with the developments in genetic technologies with the likes of gene editing. All science comes with some risk but there has been a significant improvement in the precision and efficiency of genetic technologies and the benefits they can offer to the environment and in the agricultural sector. These benefits certainly need to be weighed up against the possible concerns. Finally, there is also the risk of economic exploitation, the abuse of these technologies by nefarious organisations with the sole goal of profit and little consideration for the potential risks if the technology is Shwartz, “Target, delete, repair CRISPR is a revolutionary gene-editing tool, but it’s not without risk”. 21. 24 Tucker, “Collective action framing genetic engineering resistance in New Zealand”. 28. 23 6 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 not sufficiently managed and controlled. A recent example being scientists in China breading pig-monkey hybrids with the intention to form human organs in animals to then be used for transplantations.25 Experiments such as these have resulted in the overshadowing of similar techniques which in turn could offer solutions, to environmental challenges such as climate change. A Brief History New Zealand is unique in the sense that it maintains one of the most rigorous approach regimes for GMOs in the world, according to the US Department of Agriculture. 26 In 1996, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act) and subsequent regulatory framework, was created to monitor the “importation, development testing, and release of genetically modified organisms” in New Zealand.27 This act also regulates any research involving GMOs and can apply to anything that can possibly grow, reproduce and be reproduced.28 In order for any new organism, including those that are genetically modified, to be brought into the country, developed, trialled or released into the environment, it must first go through Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is a jurisdiction set up to consider each case and to analyse the potential risks or benefits, regulating any new organisms or hazardous substances. 29 Underlying the HSNO Act is the assumption that GMOs differ to unmodified organisms and that the differences can be distinguished. Food products in particular, that have been developed from a modified organism, must meet the regulations of the Australia New Zealand Foods Standard Codes.30 While GM activity is technically permitted in New Zealand, its application must but approved under the HSNO Act and all other requirements subject to the EPA. This is not a straightforward process and has acted as a stringent barrier to the implementation of any GM or editing technologies beyond New Zealand research centres and 25 Page, “Exclusive: Two pigs engineered to have monkey cells born in China”. 26 Buchanan, “Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: New Zealand”. 27 Ibid. 28Ministry for the Environment, “Genetic modification – The New Zealand Approach”. 29 New Zealand Government, “Environmental Protection Authority”. 30 Ministry for the Environment, “Genetic modification – The New Zealand Approach”. 7 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 laboratories.31 In fact, since the act was created, more than 20 years ago, only three cases have been approved for release, and all in the medical field.32 At the time the legislation was enacted, in conjunction with the development of these technologies, came a particular perception of what they could do, and various ethical and value-based questions were raised by society. The HSNO Act was adopted as a regulatory framework to manage these concerns and the adverse effects that GMOs could have on the environment, health and safety, these being the key issues people associated with the technology.33 Around the same time as the creation of the HSNO Act in the late 1990s, there was growing public conversation around the place for GMOs in New Zealand. This coincided with a growing ethical concern about the risks associated with the technology. Concerns raised by the public included; potential harm to the environment, health risks, as well as cultural, social and food safety concerns. 34 Furthermore, there were also concerns about the legislation’s ability to adapt to the evolving technology constantly being developed by research institutes including Federated Farmers, New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, AgResearch and Crop and Food Research.35 According to a report at the time by Sustainable Future, at the time, “the public reaction was fuelled by ethical concerns and health risks from inserting human genes into cattle, international concerns about the health effects of GM foods, and the potential environmental impacts of GM crops and other field uses (e.g. weedy pine trees)”.36 Moreover, many felt that New Zealand’s “clean and green” brand could come under threat with the use of these technologies, with a lot of pushback coming from organic producers who felt the GMO status could harm the brand name they trade on. 37 During the late 1990s genetic engineering-free zones were promoted and some even established, such as in the Hawke’s Bay region. Public demonstrations against GMOs were also held in Auckland and Wellington, and debate spread throughout New Zealand 31Ministry for the Environment, “About genetic modification in New Zealand”. 32 Dreaver, “Has the time come for genetic modification?” 33 Ministry for the Environment, “Genetic modification – The New Zealand Approach 34 McGuinness, White and Versteeg, “The History of Genetic Modification in New Zealand”. 3. 35 Ibid. 3. 36 Ibid. 4. 37 Knight, “New Zealand’s ‘Clean Green’ Image: Will GM Plants Damage it” 22. 8 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 communities.38 In response to progressively lively debate and the growth of networks responding to the perceived dangers of GM, the government set up the Independent Biotechnology Advisory Committee in 1999 to provide independent expertise and direction on the use of the technology. Furthermore, in the same year, wider public concern led to a petition being signed by 92,000 New Zealanders and was presented in parliament by the Green Party. The petition requested the establishment of a Royal Commission with the purpose of investigating the future path for GM use and research in New Zealand and what its place would be.39 In 2000, the Labour-led Government established Te Apārangi, the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Its purpose was, and still is today, to examine the different issues surrounding genetic technologies, listen to public opinions and to give advice on the path forward.40 In 2001, the commission made the suggestion that New Zealand ought to proceed with caution with GM but at the same time stated it would not be wise to completely turn a blind eye to the potential advantages they can offer, several of which will be discussed in this paper. 41 The main recommendation, which still remains the basis of the HSNO Act, stated that “New Zealand should preserve its opportunities by allowing the development of genetic modification whilst minimising and managing the risks involved”.42 Public and advisory organisations called for a precautionary approach, arguing that it is unrealistic to view any technology as completely risk free. The precautionary approach today is still upheld and according to Sir Peter Gluckman, the inaugural Chief Science Advisor to the New Zealand Prime Minister from 2009 to 2018, “simply put, the precautionary principle was never intended to say you can’t do something unless it’s absolutely proven to be safe. The nature of the scientific method means that one can never absolutely prove anything to be completely safe”. 43 While this principle was a recommendation, in over two decades there have been no official changes made to regulation and policy by the government in relation to the products, advantages or and solutions that have been derived in the development of biotechnologies. In particular, new gene editing advancements, both off-shore and McGuinness, White and Versteeg. 9. Ibid. Ibid. 10. Buchanan, “Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: New Zealand”. Ministry for the Environment, “Genetic modification – The New Zealand Approach”. 43Gluckman, “New Technologies and Social Consensus”. 4. 38 39 40 41 42 9 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 within the lab trials in New Zealand.44 Currently there are no GM products produced on New Zealand shores and sold commercially within New Zealand and all trials are contained.45 Furthermore, no update has been made to the legislation in light of advances in new techniques such as gene editing, ‘according to New Zealand law, gene editing is not deemed distinct, rather it is seen as one of many processes, tools, methods, or products of GM and as such is subject to the same regulations as any other GMO’.46 The debate about New Zealand’s stance on GMOs has evolved since the early 2000s where fears were largely over New Zealand’s “clean and green” image being tainted from the sale and production of GMOs, along with food safety concerns. Today, climate change is regarded as one of the most pressing issues facing our world and threatening our environment in which we live. It has been over two decades since the precautionary approach was adopted to guide legislation. However, the challenges that we face today are bigger than concerns previously associated with GM food. We cannot approach climate change ‘cautiously’, as the consequences are both visible and increasing, with sea levels rising, extreme weather patterns causing droughts, flooding and soaring temperatures. Currently the world is watching the devastating ongoing Australian bushfires, which is just one example of several, resulting in many species of flora and fauna becoming endangered and threatening people’s lives and homes. If New Zealand is committed to becoming carbon neutral and becoming global leaders in mitigating emissions, the notion of a ‘precautionary approach’ to the use of genetic technologies needs be re-evaluated. Conversations need to be had to help foster a new understanding of what genetic technologies can offer to this country, in particular to New Zealand’s agricultural sector, in the light of rising climate change challenges. They also need to be had in order to provide possible solutions to protecting New Zealand’s natural environment, rather than being seen as a technology which threatens the “clean and green” image of it. Reducing the Farming Footprint: Three Examples Buchanan. “Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: New Zealand”. Ministry for the Environment. “Genetic modification – The New Zealand Approach”. 46 Hudson et al., “Indigenous Perspectives and Gene Editing in Aotearoa New Zealand”. 2. 44 45 10 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 In New Zealand, 49 percent of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions comes from agriculture47. Dairy cows contain a microbial population in their stomachs which ferment indigestible food. One of the by-products of this digestive process is methane which is released into the atmosphere.48 This contributes to the earth's warming as the rising release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere causes the earth to trap more heat. Mark Aspin, Manager at Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium, remarked that “we can’t escape it; methane emissions are a natural consequence of our ruminants’ diet.”49 While it is natural for cows and other livestock to produce methane gas, the agricultural sector is one of the largest contributors to the New Zealand’s economy and supports the livelihood for many New Zealand communities and families. Because of this, organisations within the sector have been working towards developing methods to help reduce the environmental farming footprint, whilst maintaining the support for and continuation of the sector. In the face of this challenge, New Zealand is presented with the opportunity to be innovators and embrace the scientific developments which have the potential to reduce emissions in agriculture; through GM, selection or editing. Furthermore, this is important to aid the reduction of New Zealand’s emissions overall, a promise delivered in the form of the Zero Carbon Bill, and to contribute to the global effort to combat climate change by reducing the human contribution. There are a variety of different applications of gene editing and GM technologies being trialled, developed, and used in dairy farming to reduce methane emissions from cows. These include using the technology to improve production efficiency and carbon efficiency through improved selective breeding methods through genetic selection, altering the gut bacteria in cows, and editing cows feed. A. Selective Breeding As the human population continues to grow so does the demand for food, and with this comes the increasing negative impact the farming footprint has on the environment. Selective breeding and new genome editing technologies offer the opportunity to breed healthier and more productive livestock, which in turn leads to better carbon efficiency New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre, “Agricultural greenhouse gases & the New Zealand dairy sector”. 48 Satterfield, “3.5 altering dairy feed to reduce methane production”. 96. 49 Aspin, “How to reduce Methane Emissions”. In, Dairy NZ Farmers Forum, “Future perspectives – local and global impact”. 19-20. 47 11 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 on farms. A Genome Biology Journal article in 2018 discussed how selective breeding can act as a solution to population growth, support third world countries which rely on the agricultural sector and improve disease resistance in livestock, while at the same time slow down emissions.50 The article argues that one of the major challenges for our species is increasing food production while using fewer resources and being more sustainable, and the selection of dairy animals for efficient feed-use could bring about higher production and a medium/long-term approach to reducing GHG emissions on farms.51 Selective breeding is not new. The domestication of farm animals and the management of selective breeding has been occurring for millennia, with traditional breeding goals aiming to improve beneficial traits of an animal or plant, create disease and weather resistance, increase yields or improve the quality or taste of the end product.52 Recently selective breeding techniques have been found to improve carbon efficiency. For example, the continued improvement of genetic merit of animals since 1990 has resulted in the average emissions per kilogram of milk solids produced in New Zealand dropping by 19 percent. 53 Australian and New Zealand breeding programmes have found that the selective breeding of sheep could result in producing less methane per unit of feed intake and concurrently result in higher feed conversion efficiency (eating less to produce the same weight gain), causing improved production efficiency while addressing an environmental challenge.54 An AgResearch research programme has shown that, ‘using sheep bred for high and low methane over two generations that the amount of methane a sheep produces during digestion is partly controlled by genetics. We have demonstrated a 10 per cent difference in methane produced between the average sheep in both the high and low methane breeding lines’.55 Similar research projects are being undertaken for the selective breeding of dairy cows by Dairy NZ in New Zealand.56 While selective breeding is not the direct altering of the genetic makeup of an organism, it is the specific selection of a particular organism’s trait in which we wish to improve, then controlling the breeding process by doing so, which Tait-Burkard et al., “Livestock 2.0 – genome editing for fitter, healthier, and more productive farmed animals”. 1. 51 Ibid. 52 Hill, “Selective Breeding”. 1796. 53 New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium, “Reducing New Zealand Greenhouse Gasses: What we are doing”. 2. 54 AgResearch, “Breeding Sheep for Lower Emissions”. 8. 55 Ibid. 56 Dairy NZ, “Research and Development”. 50 12 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 ultimately leads to the modification of the species. Selective breeding techniques today are important to highlight because if farmers are allowed to control species in this way, then why is gene editing or GM considered to be so different and highly regulated? B. Altering Cows Rumen Another method of mitigating GHG emissions on dairy farms is through methane inhibitors and vaccines. AgResearch is researching and developing, in partnership with a Swiss based company, chemical methane inhibitors to supress the methane production in the cow’s rumen, the largest part of their multi-sectioned stomach which is responsible for the fermentation process.57 Work by AgResearch’s Dr Ron Ronimus is seeking to find “new types of inhibitors of methane production that slow down or kill the methanogens, the microbes that generate methane”.58 So far trials have shown that it is possible to rear lambs completely free of methanogens. Furthermore the “long-term inhibition of methane production by 30 to 50 percent allows the rumen to continue functioning”, as this methane suppression results in extra energy for the animal which could be of advantage.59 It has been found that, globally, there is not much diversity between different animal’s methanogens including; giraffes, buffaloes and bison. This suggests; “it could be possible to mitigate methane emissions by developing strategies that target the few dominant methanogens and that any inhibitor technology developed in one country should be applicable across the globe”. 60 Along with this, a vaccine is also being developed to reduce the methane formation of methanogens in the cow’s rumen in a similar method to the inhibitors; “Given by injection, the vaccine is designed to stimulate the animals’ output of anti-archaea antibodies in their saliva, which is then carried into the rumen as the animals swallow”.61 C. Altering Feeds – HME Ryegrass 57New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium, “Reducing New Zealand Greenhouse Gasses: What we are doing”. 2. 58 AgResearch, “Shortlist of five holds key to reduced methane emissions from livestock”. 59 New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium, “Reducing New Zealand’s Agricultural Greenhouse Gasses: Methane Inhibitors”. 3. 60 Ibid. 4. 61 Watts, “The cows that could help fight climate change”. 13 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 Another prominent application of GM technology in sheep and dairy farming being developed is the GM of livestock’s feed which contributes to their methane production. Currently a team of AgResearch scientists are leading work on High Metabolisable Energy (HME) ryegrass with enhanced photosynthesis, and carrying out field trials in the US, where this is legally possible, and receiving funding from the New Zealand government and Dairy NZ. Within AgResearch laboratories it has been shown that this modified ryegrass can grow at a 50 percent faster rate than conventional ryegrass. It also contains more energy for improved animal health and growth and is more resistant to drought and reduces methane emissions from livestock. 62 AgResearch Principal Scientist Greg Bryan presented a paper at the 2019 Dairy NZ Farmers Forum on the recent developments of this HME ryegrass, which sees an increased level of fat in the green tissue of the plant (from 3.5 percent to 7 percent) and increased photosynthesis. Bryan explains that the GM process works by the insertion of a high fat gene into the grass to increase the energy. 63 Additional fat is stored in artificial micro-organelles in the leaves and are partially protected from bio hydrogenation during vitro rumen assays. The trials in the US have shown that the additional fat is also protected during the ensiling process which means that HME silage or hay would have superior energy than regular silage or hay.64 Furthermore, the positive externality for the environment is that the vitro rumen assays revealed a 10 to 23 percent decrease in methane emissions for both fresh and ensiled feed, as well as reducing water usage and nitrate emissions. Growth rates of the plant itself also increased with the enhanced photosynthesis process. 65 This environmentally focused trial ends in 2021 with the aim of determining the extent to which methane emissions and nitrogen excretion by grazing ruminants is reduced.66 Dr Bryan remarks that; “the ultimate goal of the United States phase of the research is to conduct realistic rather than simulated animal nutrition studies so we can evaluate whether the grass might have the potential environmental benefits such as reduced methane emissions and reduced nitrogen excretion that our modelling suggests it will”. 67 62 AgResearch, “Key step forward for game-changing grass”. 63 Bryan, “HME ryegrass –progress towards proof of concept”. In, Dairy NZ Farmers Forum, “Future perspectives – local and global impact”.10-11. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Bryan, “HME ryegrass –progress towards proof of concept”. 10-11. 14 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 If research trials continue positively, AgResearch will eventually seek approval for HME ryegrass to be grown in New Zealand conditions using New Zealand cattle. “We need to test in New Zealand conditions using New Zealand animals to ultimately confirm or refute the potential environmental and productivity benefits of HME ryegrass,” says Dr Bryan.68 While they have a long way to go, results are encouraging and show that New Zealand Dairy farmers are actively looking for methods to reduce their farming footprint. “This research could be transformational in future and so it is important we explore all promising avenues which could help dairy farmers respond to the challenges we face”, remarks Dairy NZ’s Dr Bruce Thorrold about the research’s progress. 69 While making progress, however, research such as this is complex and long term, and working with genetics is challenging, and so Dr Bryan advises that caution is therefore essential, and performance must be tested every step of the way, so that both the benefits and risks are well understood.70 The following section of this paper seeks to analyse popular arguments surrounding GM, and biotechnologies more broadly, with a focus on different ethical and economic concerns. These concerns have tended to drive public and academic debate both locally and globally, particularly in New Zealand in the late 1990s, ultimately leading to the creation of the current HSNO Act. Altering Nature and Playing God? The first focus will be on the philosophical and theological debate over the notion of ‘controlling nature’, analysing arguments about whether modifying natural organisms is morally permissible. This ethical concern is relevant to the growing conversations over the regulations of gene editing in New Zealand, particularly as Māori people have values over the natural environment which are intertwined with contemporary philosophy notions over controlling nature. The rising impacts of climate change and the growing urgency to act, challenges us to consider the use of gene editing technologies as solutions. This, combined with new flourishing technological developments, on the rise requires an examination of some of the older rhetoric surrounding GMOs and genetic engineering. In Te Apārangi’s recommendations it 68 Ibid. 69 AgResearch, 70 Ibid. “Key step forward for game-changing grass”. 15 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 highlights some of the societal concerns surrounding ethics and explains that, “concerns about genetic modification may be rooted in concerns about the purity, or freedom, of wilderness, and a belief that wild nature needs to be free of human influence”. 71 Moreover, New Zealand is unique in the sense it must consider Māori values of kaitiakitanga or guardianship over the land, and protection of the natural environment.72 One of the most prominent ethical concerns discussed in contemporary philosophy surrounding biotechnology is whether humans have the right to alter nature and essentially ‘play god’. Whether it be the tinkering of genes, GM, or editing or designing new forms of life from scratch. Put simply, the idea that is being argued is whether biotechnology and synthetic science has given humans some control over nature and can be compared to the power of creation we assert to God. It is a phrase often used by opponents and scaremongering media, to varieties of biotechnology. Professor of Philosophy at Toronto University , Paul Thompson, argues that this concept is shorthand for human overreaching and hubris, rather than invoking some deeper theological meaning.73 Whereas, Philosopher Henk van den Belt explores this concept in his research and remarks that the ability to alter natural organisms raises large ethical queries, “rather than evolving naturally, living beings become the product of deliberate design. Many are worried that life will lose its special meaning when such reductionist views prevail”. 74 However, in contrast to this Professor of Theology at Berkeley, Ted Peters, argues that this concept of ‘playing God’ is not a theological term or religious vision. Rather, he believes it highlights a secular perspective, “we are going to be changing the face of the planet no matter what” he argues,75 claiming that there is no principled religious objection to the creation of new life forms with biotechnology.76 This would mean that a principled objection over the altering of a single gene within an organism through Royal Society Te Apārangi, “Gene editing in the primary industries Technical Paper”. 5. 72 Royal Society Te Apārangi, “Gene editing in the primary industries Technical Paper”. 5. 73 Thompson, “Dangerously Playing God?” 74 Belt, “Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the Meaning of Life”. 258. 75 Peters, Playing God? Genetic determinism and human freedom, in Lustig, “Are enhancement technologies "unnatural"? Musings on recent Christian conversations. American journal of medical genetics”. 84. 76 Ibid. 71 16 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 gene editing processes such as CRISPR would be even less likely. The more significant question is whether we use this technology responsibly or not, hence the need for regulation but also the need for informed discussion. Notably, Henk van den Belts’ research discusses a panel of bioethicists and theologians who rejected the quasireligious objections to human interference with nature, stating “too often the concern about “playing God” has become a way of forestalling rather than fostering discussion about morally responsible manipulation of life”.77 Moreover, alongside this notion of ‘playing God’ comes another reference, Frankenstein, which according to Belt is tainted as the ‘F-word’ by many scientists. 78 Mary Shelly’s famous 1831 thriller novel is about a scientist Victor Frankenstein who brings about disaster by aspiring to be greater than nature and indulging in the ‘unhallowed arts’ by creating a ‘monster’ in his laboratory.79 In her introduction Mary Shelley writes, “Frightful must it be; for supremely frightful would be the effect of any human endeavour to mock the stupendous mechanism of the creator of the world”. 80 Over time the retelling of this story has reduced the main message down to one moral lesson, which has been applied to biotechnologies by opponents arguing that we do not have a right to play god and we must be aware of the dangers of technology – which Victor Frankenstein did not consider. This character reference has played a large part in the anti-GMO rhetoric globally and also scaremongering has been used to foster polarisation of the debate. In 1998 fuel was added to the fire when the Prince of Wales coined the term Franken-foods during the time of British food safety fears surrounding GMO food products.81 While often ignoring the other moral messages of responsibility and protecting what you create, and Victor’s underlying desire to cure human disease, Frankenstein has become a recurrent reference point in anti-GM rhetoric. In a similar vein but grounded in deeper historical and cultural roots, comes the perspective of GM and gene editing of indigenous groups. Indigenous Māori views on the subject are important to take into account when assessing how New Zealand should approach the regulation and application of biotechnologies. In the early 2000s, the issues raised by Māori people in New Zealand in response to GM were deeply rooted in 77 78 79 80 81 Belt, 258. Ibid. Shelly, Frankenstein. 9. Ibid. Belt, 261. 17 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 connection to Te Ao Mārama, or the natural world. Ray Prebble’s book ‘Designer Genes’, which is about the New Zealand experience with genetic engineering, published in 2000, highlights a range of different perspectives at this time. His research stresses the importance of including indigenous values and perspectives and that these are an indication of how complex the GM debate was and how growing conversation about it today still is. Literature at the time suggests that Māori in the early 2000s were largely on the anti-GM side of the debate.82 In ‘Designer Genes’ it is argued that what is needed is more time for Māori and others to discuss the wider issues of the GM debate, which Prebble believes weren’t properly understood.83 Māori people hold both a spiritual and cultural view of the relationship centred in whakapapa, between the natural and human world, where all things are interconnected by genealogy. They hold the spiritual belief that natural wonders like lakes, rivers and mountains descend from the gods and goddesses and possess their own whakapapa and mauri (life force). 84 Māori cultural values of whakapapa (genealogy), mana (power/authority) and kaitiakitanga (guardianship) and tapu (sacred) resources are all relevant to the discussion of genetic research. This is because as objections towards biotechnology were rooted in the interference or damage it could have on these relationships and values.85 Cultural beliefs hold that nature is sacred and ought to be protected and preserved and treated with the same respect granted to people themselves. This concern is better understood in the words of Cheryl Smith of Ngāti Kahungunu who stated in 1997, For us, all life is sacred and consequently whakapapa is sacred… One of the loudest arguments against genetic and biotechnology is coming from our own Kaumātua, who are saying very clearly that no one should corrupt or interfere with whakapapa. The sanctity and respect for whakapapa is to be maintained. Both mauri (life principles) and wairua (spirit) of living things are sacred. The responsibility falls on us to protect the legacy of our future generations and this includes guardianship of whakapapa. 86 Hudson et al., “Indigenous Perspectives and Gene Editing in Aotearoa New Zealand”. 2. 83 Prebble, “Designer Genes”. 100. 84 Ibid. 85 Hudson et al., 6. 86 Prebble, 100. 82 18 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 Literature about Māori perspectives in the 1990s to early 2000s tends to be quite narrow and lumps the perspective of Māori people under one cultural umbrella. Certainly, Māori cultural beliefs and values need to be incorporated into decision-making processes surrounding legislation, particularly as these values “could provide a balancing factor to ensure broader community interests remain a key consideration in the future use of gene editing technologies”. 87 It is naïve of us to argue that indigenous peoples as a whole are anti science which involves the modification of natural organisms. With developments in gene editing in New Zealand, along with new research of public attitudes towards it, it has become apparent that a range of different Māori views exist, and they differ among Iwis and regions. A recent 2019 paper indigenous perspectives on gene editing specifically found that participants from the Māori community were prepared to consider the application and opportunity of gene editing technologies on a case-by-case basis, especially if it aligns with Māori worldviews.88 Gene editing in the face of climate change could act as a tool for mitigation and protecting Te Ao Marama through the application of gene edited ryegrass or rumen inhibitors on dairy farms, for example. Cheryl Smith emphasised the cultural importance of protecting the natural environment for future generations, and the use of gene editing technologies has the potential to help do this. Moreover, there has been a rise in Māori interest in the protection of Taonga species such as Manuka and Pohutuokawa through disease and pest control using gene editing techniques. 89 Further research is required to properly characterise the strength of new Māori positions on the subject but indigenous cultural beliefs are intertwined with the notions of controlling nature (“playing god”) and protecting the environment. However, with gene editing it is possible to do the former to ensure the latter. Environmental law Author Dr Christina Voigt, an expert in international environmental law, has written about the ethical implications of genetic engineering in New Zealand. In particular. She argues that there are two key conflicting notions underpinning ethical issues of biotechnology - the first being environmental ethics. She defines this as the extension of, The ethics of care and responsibility from people (bioethics) to animals, plants, the natural environment and its ecology through various means: animal rights, 87 88 89 Hudson et al., 6. Ibid. Dreaver, “Has the Time Come for Genetic Modification?” 19 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 intrinsic value of ecosystem (ecocentrism), increasing awareness of the fragility of the earth’s ecosystems, questioning the choices that humans make and the possible or likely consequences of those choices.90 Voigt stressed the need for this type of environmentally focused ethics in order to sufficiently analyse any risks and benefits associated with scientific methods such as gene editing. In contrast to the environmental ethical view where ecology is central, is the reductionist worldview where anthropology is central, according to Voigt. This breaks down natural systems into small segments in order to study and advance science and knowledge, with nature in this case being viewed as a “raw material for humans to exploit and redesign as use for their benefit”. 91 This view separates humans from nature and places the control of it in their hands which could be referred to as ‘playing God’ , taking things apart to analyse without seeing a bigger picture, Voight argues, making reference to Fox who states that “science without ethics is blind”.92 This view is not uncommon, often opponents of new genetic technologies state that scientists have little concern for the broader picture or ramifications and view their discoveries with tunnelled vision. Voigt’s paper was written in 2002 and analysed the different aspects of the on-going debate at the time over GMO food regulation in New Zealand. Twenty years on and the ethical underpinnings are not as black and white. New Zealand, along with the rest of the world, is facing climate urgency. An issue, according to Jacinda Ardern, that is as crucial to act on as the fight against nuclear weapons in the 1980s. 93 Climate change, and the foreseeable impacts of it that we face in the near future, challenges Voigt’s separate notions of eco-centrist and anthro-centric ethics. As with the developments in gene editing techniques in agriculture, as previously discussed, we have seen that there is ongoing scientific research and development being undertaken with the aim of reducing the agricultural contributions to climate change with a future focused mind-set. This is the application of specific gene editing techniques, which indeed is a process of humans altering nature, but with the goal of preserving nature and improving production efficiency. This, in the 90 Voigt. The Precautionary Principle and Genetic Engineering in New Zealand: Legal and Ethical Implications. 53. 91 Ibid. 92 Ibid. 93 Ardern, “Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill - Third Reading”. 20 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 long-term, addresses the negative challenges of climate change including food shortages and adaptation to changing weather patterns. In future conversation about the use and regulation of gene editing techniques in agriculture in New Zealand, these ethical arguments and cultural perspectives need to be discussed and reassessed against the constantly improving technology, and also the rising challenges of climate change. Concerns that people hold including that humans should not be meddling with nature, are certainly valid concerns and as discussed, can stem from deeper cultural values. Moreover, while gene editing techniques may not introduce foreign material and only make small targeted changes to an organism, there will always be people or groups of people that are opposed to the idea that we can control and create nature. However, it should be highlighted that humans have used traditional breeding techniques, such as selective breeding, for hundreds of years to contribute to producing the ideal yield, crop or animal trait that they desire. The idea of meddling with nature is a relevant concern and often forms the backbone of debates against biotechnology. However, if New Zealand is aiming to become carbon neutral by 2050 and be a leader in climate change, opening up the conversation surrounding gene editing and how it can be used to mitigate the agricultural contribution to global warming, needs to start happening to help achieve this goal. Furthermore, it is essential for scientists and researchers to consider the wider concerns held by different groups in the community in order for their findings and arguments to be effectively communicated, and to potentially to encourage engagement. A Threat to New Zealand’s Clean and Green Brand? According to the Nuffield Council of Bioethics, opinions on gene-technology, particularly regarding food production, are often dependent on an individual’s view of the world, and often can stem from deeper cultural, ethnic or religious beliefs or values of fairness, freedom, sanctity or harm/benefit, as discussed in the above section. 94 These values also play a role in influencing how New Zealand brands itself to the rest of the world, as successful branding depends on consumer beliefs. This means that different worldviews contributing to different opinions over gene technologies can have a Royal Society Te Apārangi, “Gene editing in the primary industries Technical Paper”. 10. 94 21 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 significant impact on the name New Zealand trades on. Ray Prebble’s book ‘Designer Genes’, which analysed the facts and issues about genetic engineering at the time, argues that one of the most significant concerns was the worry that emerging GM crops would damage New Zealand’s ‘clean green’ market image. 95 At the time of the GM debates in the 1990s, it was often raised in the New Zealand media, with little evidence, that the “release of GMOs into the environment would do irreparable damage to New Zealand’s country image in foreign markets, and would harm New Zealand’s image as a tourist destination”.96 This was both a significant point of debate 20 years ago in New Zealand when GMOs were a contentious issue, and is resurfacing again today with the rise of discussion surrounding gene editing and the potential update of old regulations. New Zealand’s brand in both trade and tourism is often associated with the attributes of “clean and green” and “pure” and this next section will address the concerns raised that gene editing technologies could pose a threat to the name New Zealand trades on, which is important to its global competitiveness and reputation. So why is a country’s image so important? Otago University Emeritus Professor in Marketing John G Knight, defines a country’s image as “the total of all descriptive, inferential and informational beliefs one has about a particular country” and explains that "images that consumers have of particular countries have been widely regarded as having a major impact on consumer evaluations of products sourced from those countries and, by implication, on propensity to purchase products originating from those countries”.97 Moreover, in the New Zealand case it is not just about the exporting of products but also the entry of tourists who spend their money on the hospitality and services industry. Images people perceive of a country, can highly influence their subsequent attitudes towards it. In regard to trade and global reputation, this is important for any exporter to keep in mind.98 Knight’s work discusses how theories of cognitive psychological and heuristics can explain decision making of consumers. He argues that while economists often argue that consumers are rational and try to maximise their utility and that “analysis of risks and benefits is important in decision making under conditions of uncertainty, reliance on affect and emotion is a quicker, Prebble, 77. Knight, “Potential damage of GM crops to the country image of the producing country”. 151. 97 Knight, “New Zealand’s ‘Clean Green’ Image: Will GM Plants Damage it?” 9. 98 Ibid. 11. 95 96 22 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 easier, and more efficient way to navigate in a complex, uncertain, and sometimes dangerous world”.99 Regarding tourism, it seems slightly strange to consider that a stance a country takes on food production could impact the tourist industry. However, as it is one of our largest exporting industries, producing a total tourism expenditure of just over 40 billion NZD as of last year, it is certainly worth analysing the impact that changing the GM legislation could potentially have.100 According to Knight, it should seem obvious that the image of a country will play a significant role in determining the appeal of visiting a destination to tourists. “Clean and green” is often regarded as New Zealand’s brand slogan, New Zealand is a land little affected by industrial pollution, over-population, traffic congestion, noise, urban decay. It is a country associated with national parks, scenic beauty, wilderness areas, beautiful deserted beaches, green pastures and a friendly population – an image which is carefully cultivated in tourism brochures and in our trade promotions.101 However, it has often be argued by many New Zealanders that “clean and green” is a much over-inflated description of the country, which evolved out of the 1980s, at a time where New Zealand became a nuclear free zone. 102 Along with this is the branding position of the “100% Pure New Zealand Campaign”, a campaign which many New Zealanders attach the stance of being ‘GE-Free’. 103 Tourism New Zealand explains that “New Zealand is one of the most respected and desirable countries in the world and the Pure NZ brand successfully represents many of the positive images, assumptions and expectations people have of the country. The tourism campaign around the Pure NZ brand has undoubtedly been a success and has helped to make New Zealand one of the most highly sought-after tourist destinations and one that is high on people’s ‘must-visit’ lists”.104 99 Ibid. 100Ministry of business Innovation and Employment, “Tourism and the Economy”. 101 Knight, “New Zealand’s ‘Clean Green’ Image: Will GM Plants Damage it?” 32. 102 Ibid 32. 103 Knight, “New Zealand’s ‘Clean Green’ Image: Will GM Plants Damage it?” 32. 104 Tourism New Zealand, “Pure As, Celebrating 10 years as 100% pure New Zealand”. 3. 23 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 Concerns over damage to this image associated with New Zealand have been raised in the past with the GM debate, as highlighted in ‘Designer Genes’. However, more recent studies conducted by Knight found that the effect would be minimal to the tourism industry or overseas markets. 105 His research focus was whether the introduction of GM drought-resistant forage for feeding livestock would harm the ‘clean’, ‘green’ and ‘pure’ image for tourists and off-shore markets hold of this country.106 A survey asked the question to incoming visitors at Auckland International Airport of whether “New Zealand was one of two or three countries to use a strain of rye grass modified by genetic technology. The gene of the grass would be changed to increase its food value. Farmers would plant fields of the modified rye grass to feed their livestock. Would your image of that country’s environment get better, stay the same, or get worse?” Results from this research of overseas visitors provided ambiguous evidence that technologies (nuclear, GM, gene-editing etc.) barely have an effect on the choice of destination by tourists, despite personal views held about the technology in question. Knight argues this should be “intuitively obvious” as often tourists home countries use GM technologies, so it is unlikely to differ when looking at the application of new geneediting methods.107 Survey data indicated any negative impact to the perception of New Zealand’s image would be tiny. Moreover, that the application of GM or gene editing to pasture, such as HME ryegrass, would be highly unlikely to harm New Zealand’s image for tourism. Knight concludes that “many factors should be considered when deciding whether or not to approve GM plants – supposed harm to ‘clean green’ image in international markets is not among them”.108 This paper is not proposing that New Zealand deregulates all genetic technologies or enables the legal use of GMOs or gene editing organisms in any sector. Rather, it proposes that the HSNO Act consider new genetic applications in the agricultural sector in order to help reduce its farming footprint, at a time when New Zealand’s social push for climate action is growing. The argument is not for the wholesale use of GMO products, but rather for proper consideration to be given for the use of certain genetic techniques to be used within agriculture to boost production 105 106 107 108 Knight, “New Zealand’s ‘Clean Green’ Image: Will GM Plants Damage it?”. 48. Ibid. 49. Ibid. 51. Knight, “New Zealand’s ‘Clean Green’ Image: Will GM Plants Damage it?” 51. 24 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 efficiency whilst reducing environmental harm. Moreover, there would still be safety and precautionary mechanisms in place to prevent the chance of something going wrong, which risks harming New Zealand’s ‘pure’ environment, including the approval of the Environmental Protection Agency. Additionally, only enabling the use of specific gene editing techniques within one sector, such as in farming, limits the impact this could possibly have on the reputation of other sectors such as horticulture, where many products such as kiwifruit are sold on an organic brand name, which often is associated with being GMO-free. Climate change as a central goal of the application of gene technologies on farms, might change the perception of the demography who were initially repelled by ideas such as gene edited grass or altering cows gut bacteria due to previous popular slurs such as ‘franken-foods’. Moreover, what it means for New Zealand to be “clean and green” as a brand might have to evolve with the efforts to reduce its contribution to environmental degradation. If a technology has the potential to offer a solution to the negative impact farming can have on the environment, then surely this should be seen as an effort to protect the environment, thus protecting a “clean and green” image but with a long-term focus. Trade concerns have also been widely discussed. Opponents to the deregulation of GMOs or the application of gene editing in agriculture, argue that New Zealand trades on a GM-free brand and that this is a competitive advantage. Green Party genetic engineering spokesman Gareth Hughes said “the party would welcome a national discussion on the technology but believes New Zealand’s future is in the production and export of organic food”.109 However, Gluckman, has argued that in light of new gene editing techniques, some of which are GMO free as they do not involve foreign DNA (such as the nitrogen inhibitors), New Zealand must start having a new debate.110 In a briefing paper to the Prime Minister in 2019, Gluckman wrote that this is not a debate about New Zealand’s image or branding but rather a debate about trade.111 While there may be some advantage in branding as ‘GM-Free’ to some businesses, or instead it may be that this advantage is short term as the rest of the world moves forward with technology and innovation. 109 Wallace, “No Plans to Abandon GMO Caution”. 110 Ibid. 111 Gluckman, “Briefing to the Prime Minister on the Report on Gene Editing from Royal Society Te Apārangi”. 2. 25 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 Gluckman argues there is little evidence either way and instead we need to be focusing on the scientific arguments. His paper discusses changing regulations in other countries and, highlights the fact that at our neighbour, Australia, with a similar agricultural context, has recently decided not to regulate genome editing unless new DNA is involved, which allows technologies such as CRISPR to be used. 112 With the future challenges we are facing, we cannot afford not to have the conversation about the potential new gene editing technologies have to offer, argues Gluckman.113 Despite arguments suggesting that changing New Zealand’s regulations on gene editing could harm the brand that New Zealand trades on, not doing so also threatens New Zealand’s competitive edge. As referenced earlier, New Zealand’s Prime Minister proclaimed at the Zero Carbon Bill reading that: We have the ability to be the world’s most sustainable food producers and have the ability to sell the technology and innovation that comes with developing that much needed research development and technology…we will not allow this country to be a fast follower because we damage our country, our environment and our exporters if we allow that to happen.114 While this could be perceived as protecting a GM-free or organic brand, the reverse scenario can also be applied and perhaps more convincingly. Federated Farmers President, Katie Milne, believes that not adopting the use of new genetic technologies risks New Zealand falling behind as an exporter and losing its valued status as a leading rural producer. 115 She explains that in the past other countries have looked to New Zealand for guidance on what sort of methods they can adopt to help their own farmers, and now having embraced genetic advances, some have surpassed New Zealand.116 She argues that not only being able to increase production efficiency and metabolised energy of stock, through the applications of methods such as those discussed earlier in this paper, the reduction of methane and Ibid. Gluckman, “Briefing to the Prime Minister on the Report on Gene Editing from Royal Society Te Apārangi”. 2. 114Ardern, “Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill - Third Reading”. 115 Deavoll, “Adopt GE or risk falling behind competitors: Federated Farmers president”. 116 Ibid. 112 113 26 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 nitrogen emissions from cows and being more efficient in water use, could be a significant production benefit to the New Zealand economy. 117 Moreover, in response to the Zero Carbon bill, this could contribute to food producers becoming more sustainable, keep the return from and ownership of genetic technology research and innovations on New Zealand shores and contribute to New Zealand becoming a leader in Climate Change without falling behind as an innovator. Where to from here? Debate surrounding the HSNO Act is beginning to resurface again in New Zealand, but this time with the call, raised by farmers, scientists and academics, to update regulations so that it addresses new genetic technological developments such as gene editing, and distinguishes them from the technologies of the past. However, in 2019 Hon David Parker, Minister of Trade and Export Growth, reported to Radio New Zealand in 2019 that things are not going to change. People can make applications if they wish but New Zealand’s approach is precautionary; “I would have to be satisfied that there is a need to change the law, and I am not satisfied”. 118 In contrast, this paper makes the recommendation that there is indeed a need to change the law, in response to the opportunities that new genetic technologies, both GM and gene editing, can offer for New Zealand. Firstly, at most, an update of the legal and regulatory framework is needed to address the wide spectrum of GM and gene editing technologies which have been developed, recognising the “range of current and future technologies and be future proof.”119 Gene editing is not made distinct from GM under New Zealand law and academics have argued that a discussion needs to be had about “whether it makes sense to regulate a technology rather than regulating the outcome or product of the technology”. 120 It needs to be understood and represented in the legislation that gene editing produces similar if not identical outcomes to technologies not regulated by the legislation. Further, as some gene editing techniques such as CRISPR do not involve inserting foreign DNA into the Ibid. Dreaver, “Has the time come for genetic modification?” Gluckman, “Briefing to the Prime Minister on the Report on Gene Editing from Royal Society Te Apārangi”. 2. 120 Hudson et al., 6. 117 118 119 27 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 genome of a host organism and that some changes are indistinguishable from natural processes, the New Zealand legislation ought to be re-evaluated and updated to properly regulate, monitor or hopefully embrace the application of gene editing. 121 Sir Peter Gluckman has argued publicly that he agrees with the view that the current legal framework is not fit for purpose, and more importantly that key scientific definitions are inconsistent across legislation.122 An advice panel from Te Apārangi made the recommendation that “New Zealand’s statutory provisions and regulations around GM need to account for an increasingly nuanced view, and reflect the modern reality that organisms cannot be simply categorised as ‘genetically modified’ or ‘not-genetically modified’”.123 Following this issue of inconsistency of definitions across statute and the need for a review and update of current legislation to meet the regulatory needs of new technologies, also comes the need for an improvement of public understanding and opening up of new conversation. Any move towards a refurbishment of the current legislation, in light of climate urgency, would require public acceptance, or, at the very least, awareness of how new genetic-technology works, the opportunities it creates and an educated understanding of potential risks. Both confusion of what genetic technologies are, and the different variants, and the connection to the concerns of the past over health scares, food safety, labelling and ethical concerns, has contributed to a mistrust in consumers towards the assurances made by scientists and this has overshadowed any developments. It has been found that there are no substantial ecological or health concerns correlated with the use of advanced genetic technologies.124 And while like any scientific technology there is always the possibility of risks developing that we do not currently know of, fears attached to the GM debate of the 1990s, still overshadows conversation about progress, improvement and development of genetic-technologies. Te Apārangi’s advisory panel argues that because the legal and scientific definitions are not harmonised across regulatory frameworks and because there is a potential Ibid. Gluckman, “Briefing to the Prime Minister on the Report on Gene Editing from Royal Society Te Apārangi”. 123 Royal Society Te Apārangi. “Gene Editing Legal and Regulatory Implications”. 3. 124 Hudson et al., 7. 121 122 28 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 disconnect between the science community and the public, there is no shared collective language with which to engage, involved and communicate with the New Zealand people. 125 A consequence of this, the panel suggests, is that so much complexity surrounding New Zealand’s stance on the use of genetic-technologies as a whole, limits “the ability to provide coordinated and timely responses to the big environmental and societal challenges such as biosecurity threats; new and invasive diseases (to plants, animals and humans); medical trials; and regional and national climate change challenges to valued flora, fauna and primary produce”. 126 In recent years, New Zealanders have shown an active commitment to reducing their contribution to climate change. Initiatives across businesses have been seen to change their practices to be more environmentally sustainable, there have been public protests and marches, and last year a Zero Carbon Bill was passed to solidify New Zealand’s commitment to not only act on reducing its GHG emissions contribution but to show its commitment and a display of leadership to the rest of the world. The application of gene editing technologies on farms to reduce their agricultural contribution to New Zealand’s climate footprint is a solution which can help supplement this movement, especially as agriculture is the biggest contributor to emissions. Fostering and focussing public debate and conversation on how new genetic technologies can help farms become more environmentally friendly, rather than focussing simply on the negative impact farming has, would contribute to more social acceptance towards technology, along with a more positive framing of New Zealand’s part in the climate movement. There needs to be a focus embracing potential innovation opportunities and ideas that can help New Zealand reduce its environmental footprint, instead of focusing on what sectors cause environmental damage and labelling them as simply ‘bad’ in response, a method which is slowing down any positive change and is quite frankly, unhelpful. Sir Peter Gluckman’s report to the Prime Minister stated: “given the progression of science on the one hand and a broader understanding of climate change on the other, not having further discussion of these technologies at some point may limit our options”.127 Moreover, he argues, it would make it harder to become a leader in both climate change and trade and innovation, which New Zealand seeks to Royal Society Te Apārangi. “Gene Editing Legal and Regulatory Implications”. 3. Ibid. 6. Gluckman, “Mitigating agricultural greenhouse gas emissions: Strategies for Meeting New Zealand’s goals”. 24. 125 126 127 29 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 be. Any change in legislation and a national stance on the use of biotechnologies in general, requires active conversation across New Zealand communities (Māori communities, scientists, consumers, producers, students and the government. etc). That is, ‘involving people beyond the white-coated scientists’ from the early stages of processes until the political decisions which dictate regulation’. 128 A social licence is more likely if we help younger academics become multidisciplinary; preparing young scientists at university with education in civic, political, economic and philosophical understanding of the benefits and consequences of science to these areas. On the other hand, better science engagement needs to be communicated with society in a way that is, as stated by Gluckman, “more constructive and less polarising than in the past”. 129 Concluding Thoughts If climate change is New Zealand’s new nuclear moment, then in order to be a climate leader, New Zealand is not only required to take a strong stance in its view on climate change, as it did in the 1980s against nuclear weapons, but to also take strong action. Committing to a zero-carbon target is certainly a display of a positive response to climate urgency but this goal will also require New Zealand to take a step out of its comfort zone and to move from being a cautious actor to an innovative leader. This paper has highlighted potential solutions that genetic technologies such as GM and gene editing could allow on New Zealand farms, in order to help reduce their farming footprint. Agriculture is both one of New Zealand’s largest industries, contributing significantly to the economy, while also one of the largest contributors to methane emissions. This means it is a sector which requires protection but also the support to innovate and adapt its practices to become more sustainable. This paper has argued that the time has come for New Zealand to open up the debate and public rhetoric on genetic technologies once again. But this time, however, through a positive lens, with the goal of mitigating its contribution to climate change while moving forward as leaders in technology development and innovation and displaying this on New Zealand soil. It is time for the HSNO Act to be reviewed and updated, not only taking into consideration sustainability and climate change, but creating appropriate policy and regulation to address new genetic modification and gene editing technologies and the opportunities they can bring. 128 129 Gluckman, “New technologies and Social Consensus”. 10. Gluckman, “Full interview: Q+A with Sir Peter Gluckman”/One News. 30 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 31 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 Bibliography AgResearch. “Breeding Sheep for Lower Emissions”. June 8, 2018. Accessed January 12, 2020. https://www.agresearch.co.nz/news/breeding-sheep-for-lower-emissions/ AgResearch. “HME ryegrass making steady progress”. August 28, 2019. Accessed January 19, 2020. https://www.agresearch.co.nz/news/hme-ryegrass-making-steady-progress/ AgResearch. “Key step forward for game-changing grass”. July 2018. Accessed January 12, 2020. https://www.agresearch.co.nz/news/key-step-forward-for-game-changing-grass/ AgResearch. “Shortlist of five holds key to reduced methane emissions from livestock”. May 1, 2015. Accessed January 18, 2020. https://www.agresearch.co.nz/news/shortlistof-five-holds-key-to-reduced-methane-emissions-from-livestock/ Ardern, Jacinda. “Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill - Third Reading”. Video 5. Presented at New Zealand Parliament. New Zealand Parliament. November 7, 2019. Belt, Henk van den. “Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the Meaning of Life”. Nano Ethics, 3. November 29, 2009. Buchanan, Kelly. “Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: New Zealand”. Library of Congress. March 2014. Accessed November 2019. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/new-zealand.php Dairy NZ Farmers Forum. “Future perspectives – local and global impact” Rotorua: May 24, 2019. Dairy NZ. “Research and Development”. Accessed January 10, 2020. https://www.dairynz.co.nz/environment/climate-change/research-and-development/ Deavoll, Pat. “Adopt GE or risk falling behind competitors: Federated Farmers President”. Stuff. October 6, 2018. Accessed January 20, 2020. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/107618005/adopt-ge-or-risk-falling-behindcompetitors-federated-farmers-president Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development. “Carbon farming: selective breeding of sheep for reduced methane emissions”. November 21, 2019. Accessed January 12, 2020. https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/carbon-farmingselective-breeding-sheep-reduced-methane-emissions Dreaver, Charlie. “Has the time come for genetic modification?” Radio New Zealand, Insight. November18, 2018. Gluckman, Sir Peter. “Briefing to the Prime Minister on the Report on Gene Editing from Royal Society Te Apārangi”. Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Auckland: August 12, 2019. Gluckman, Sir Peter. “Full interview: Q+A with Sir Peter Gluckman”. By Corin Dann. One News. July 1, 2018. Gluckman, Sir Peter. “Mitigating agricultural greenhouse gas emissions: Strategies for Meeting New Zealand’s goals”. Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Auckland: July 2018. 32 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 Gluckman, Sir Peter. “New Technologies and Social Consensus”. Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Auckland: 2016. Harvie, Will. “Allow gene editing, urges top plant biologist as she retires”. Stuff. December 21, 2019. Accessed January 5, 2020. https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/118088195/allowgene-editing-urges-top-plant-biologist-as-she-retires Hill. W.G, “Selective Breeding” in Encyclopaedia of Genetics. Academic Press. 2001. Hudson M, Mead ATP, Chagné D, Roskruge N, Morrison S, Wilcox PL and Allan AC. “Indigenous Perspectives and Gene Editing in Aotearoa New Zealand”. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 7. No. 70. (2019) doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00070 Hughes, David. “Time for a grown-up conversation about gene editing”. Stuff. September 2019. Accessed December 15, 2019. https://www.stuff.co.nz/science/115465504/timefor-a-grownup-conversation-about-gene-editing Knight, John G, Allyson Clark and Damien W Mather. “Potential damage of GM crops to the country image of the producing country”. GM Crops & Food, 4. No .3. (2013): 151-157, DOI: 10.4161/gmcr.26321 Knight, John G. “New Zealand’s ‘Clean Green’ Image: Will GM Plants Damage it?” University of Otago Marketing Department. March 2011. Licholai, Greg. “Is CRISPR Worth the Risk?” Yale Insights. August 21, 2018. https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/is-crispr-worth-the-risk Lustig A. “Are enhancement technologies "unnatural"? Musings on recent Christian conversations. American journal of medical genetics”. Seminars in medical genetics, 151C. No. 1. (2009): 81–88. doi:10.1002/ajmg.c.30197 McGuinness, Wendy, Miriam White and Steph Versteeg. “The History of Genetic Modification in New Zealand”. Sustainable Futures Limited. April 2008. Ministry for the Environment. “About genetic modification in New Zealand. August 2016. Accessed December 15, 2019. https://www.mfe.govt.nz/more/hazards/neworganisms/genetic-modification-new-zealand/about-gm-new-zealandd Ministry for the Environment. “Genetic modification – The New Zealand Approach”. Wellington. June 2004. Accessed November 10, 2019. https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/hazards/gm-nz-approach-jun04/geneticmodification-new-zealandd Ministry of business Innovation and Employment, “Tourism and the Economy”. Accessed February 6, 2020. https://www.mbie.govt.nz/immigration-and-tourism/tourismresearch-and-data/tourism-data-releases/tourism-and-the-economy/ New Zealand Government. “Environmental Protection Authority”. Accessed January 20, 2020. https://www.govt.nz/organisations/environmental-protection-authority/ New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium. “Agricultural greenhouse gases & the New Zealand dairy sector”. 2019. Accessed October 2019. https://www.nzagrc.org.nz/dairy-sector,listing,308,greenhousegas-awareness-of-livestocks-contribution-to-emissions-rises-among-farmers.html 33 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium. “Reducing New Zealand’s Agricultural Greenhouse Gasses: Methane Inhibitors”. Wellington: July 2017. Accessed October 2019. New Zealand Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium, “Reducing New Zealand Greenhouse Gasses: What we are doing”. Second Edition. August 2016. Page, Michael Le. “Exclusive: Two pigs engineered to have monkey cells born in China”. New Scientist. December 6, 2019. Accessed December 20, 2019. https://institutions.newscientist.com/article/2226490-exclusive-two-pigs-engineered-tohave-monkey-cells-born-in-china/ Prebble, Ray, ed. Designer Genes. Wellington: Dark Horse Publishing. 2000. Ross, Rachel. “What is Genetic Modification?” Live Science. February 1, 2019. Accessed December 2019. https://www.livescience.com/64662-genetic-modification.html Royal Society Te Apārangi. “Current Gene Editing Uses”. Wellington 2020. Accessed December 10, 2019. https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/our-expert-advice/allexpert-advice-papers/gene-editing-technologies/current-gene-editing-uses/ Royal Society Te Apārangi. “Gene Editing Legal and Regulatory Implications”. Wellington: August 2019. Accessed February 4, 2020. https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/assets/Uploads/Gene-Editing-Legal-and-regulatoryimplications-DIGITAL.pdf Royal Society Te Apārangi Gene Editing Panel. “Gene editing in the primary industries” Technical Paper. Wellington: October 2018. Royal Society Te Apārangi. “History of Genetic Engineering”. Wellington. 2020. Accessed December 3, 2019. https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/our-expert-advice/allexpert-advice-papers/gene-editing-technologies/history-of-genetic-engineering/ Royal Society Te Apārangi. “New Gene Editing Technologies”. Wellington. 2020. Accessed December 10, 2019. https://www.royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/our-expert-advice/allexpert-advice-papers/gene-editing-technologies/new-gene-editing-technologies/ Satterfield, Jennifer L. “3.5 altering dairy feed to reduce methane production”. Environmental Science Bites 2. Ohio State University. Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Marilyn Butler. Frankenstein, or, The modern Prometheus: the 1818 text. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1994. Shwartz, Mark. “Target, delete, repair CRISPR is a revolutionary gene-editing tool, but it’s not without risk”. Stanford Medicine. Winter, 2018. Tait-Burkard, C., Doeschl-Wilson, A., McGrew, M.J. et al. “Livestock 2.0 – genome editing for fitter, healthier, and more productive farmed animals”. Genome Biology 19. No. 204. (2018). doi:10.1186/s13059-018-1583-1 Thompson, Paul. “Dangerously Playing God?”. TLS. Accessed January 15, 2020. https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/ethics-gm-food/ Tucker, C. “Collective Action Framing Genetic Engineering Resistance in New Zealand”. Journal of Organic Systems 6, no. 2. (2006): 27-33. 34 Ella Jensen: 300381924 PHPE 589 Word Count: 10568 Tourism New Zealand. “Pure As, Celebrating 10 years as 100% pure New Zealand”. 2009. Accessed January 16, 2020. https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/media/1544/pure-ascelebrating-10-years-of-100-pure-new-zealand.pdf Voigt, Christina. “The Precautionary Principle and Genetic Engineering in New Zealand: Legal and Ethical Implications”. New Zealand Journal of Environmental Law, 6. (2002): 43-96. Wallace, Neal. “No Plans to Abandon GMO Caution”. Farmers Weekly. July 20, 2018. Accessed January 15, 2020. https://farmersweekly.co.nz/# Watts, Geoff. “The cows that could help fight climate change”. BBC Future. August 7, 2019. Accessed January 18, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190806-howvaccines-could-fix-our-problem-with-cow-emissions 35