New Zealand's proposed Gene Technology Bill
Are we facing a technocratic globalist agenda trying to plant its toxic seeds and maleficent ideology into the natural splendor of a South Pacific nation?
Contents
Jr Bruning from the Daily Telegraph New Zealand warns, “The proposed deregulation of GMOs is so extreme that Judith Collins current proposal would turn New Zealand from the best practice type regulated jurisdictions to one of the weakest in the western world.”
The New Zealand Gene Technology Bill had its First Reading and was made available for public submissions on 17 December 2024. The submission period closed just two months later, on 17 February 2025. It’s commonly recognised that introducing a bill in the week before Christmas is typically done as a political manoeuvre to reduce public engagement in the proposed bill. Two months is a fairly typical submission period, although for bills that are complex or significant and therefore require extensive public consultation, a period longer than two months would be expected. There is no question that the Gene Technology Bill is complex (in its implications and the scientific concepts it involves) and that the outcomes could have significant implications for New Zealand.
My Opposition Letter
Here is the letter I provided to the NZ Government in opposition to this Bill:
To: The Health Committee
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
Re: Submission on the Gene Technology Bill
Dear Committee Members,
I am writing to express my grave concerns about the proposed Gene Technology Bill. This legislation represents one of the most significant changes to New Zealand's regulatory framework in recent history, with far-reaching implications for our environment, economy, public health, and national sovereignty.
Economic Impact and International Reputation: New Zealand currently holds a unique and valuable position as one of the last GE-free nations globally. This status has been instrumental in building our clean, green brand and securing premium prices for our exports. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research projects potential losses of $10-20 billion in export revenue if we compromise this position. With 360,000 Kiwis employed in the agricultural sector, the stakes could not be higher. While Tasmania has wisely extended its GE-free moratorium until 2029, this Bill threatens to squander our competitive advantage and jeopardize countless rural livelihoods.
Fundamental Safety and Oversight Concerns: The Bill's abandonment of the precautionary principle in favor of a "risk-proportionate" framework is deeply troubling. Recent scientific studies have demonstrated that gene editing techniques like CRISPR can cause unintended genomic disruptions, yet the Bill provides no meaningful safety standards or ethical guidelines. More concerning still, Clause 187 grants immunity from civil and criminal liability to gene technology users, creating a dangerous lack of accountability.
Public Health and Consent: The provision for "mandatory medical activity authorisations" based solely on overseas approvals is particularly alarming, especially given our recent experience with fast-tracked medical interventions. The tragic outcomes experienced by thousands of New Zealanders following the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine rollout serve as a stark reminder of the importance of rigorous local oversight and independent safety assessments.
Sovereignty and Local Control: Evidence suggesting this Bill may be linked to international trade agreements raises serious concerns about the compromise of our national sovereignty. The centralization of authority under a single Gene Technology Regulator, combined with the removal of regional councils' ability to implement precautionary measures, represents a dangerous concentration of power with insufficient checks and balances.
Environmental and Agricultural Risks: The technical reality of gene editing presents unique and unprecedented risks to our biosecurity. Unlike traditional breeding or even chemical contamination, genetic modifications operate at the molecular level, with the potential for unintended mutations and off-target effects that current science cannot fully predict or control. Laboratory containment protocols, no matter how stringent, cannot guarantee against escape or spread, particularly in a country with such interconnected ecosystems. Once released, gene-edited organisms cannot be recalled, and their genetic material can spread through natural processes, making contamination irreversible. The Bill's removal of labelling requirements and traceability provisions creates a dangerous blind spot - without these basic monitoring tools, neither farmers nor biosecurity experts will be able to track, contain, or manage potential spread of modified genetic material.
Economic Implications: The economic consequences of this Bill cannot be overstated. New Zealand's premium position in global markets, built on our clean, green reputation, would be severely compromised. The shift of contamination liability onto the GE-free sector threatens to devastate small-scale farmers and organic producers who have built their businesses on our current GE-free status.
Historical Lessons and Ecological Wisdom?
We must pay heed to the lessons of our colonial past, where each 'scientific' introduction was made with absolute certainty of its benefits, yet resulted in ecological disaster. Most, if not all, of the significant "pests" we deal with in our gardens, on our farmland, and in our native forests are the result of "smart" humans thinking it was okay to introduce an animal or plant into the ecosystem of New Zealand. Be that gorse (the bane of rural NZ), feral pine trees damaging our native forests, ferrets, stoats, rabbits, possums, rats, pigs, goats, deer, Californian quail ravaging vegetable gardens, and the many insect pests our ancestors either intentionally or unwittingly brought into these lands.
The scale of this inherited disaster is staggering. Possums alone cost New Zealand farmers about $35 million every year, with the Government spending over $110 million annually on possum control [1]. Recent research from the University of Auckland shows that invasive pests cost Aotearoa $12 billion between 1968 and 2020, with ongoing costs of about $170 million per year [2]. Even more alarming, the Ministry for Primary Industries reports that the total economic cost of pests to New Zealand reached $9.2 billion in 2019/20 – representing 2.9% of our GDP, up from $4.2 billion (1.9% of GDP) in 2009 [3].
Our predecessors ignored mātauranga Māori and local ecological knowledge, believing Western science alone knew best. Now we risk repeating this colonial mindset with genetic modifications that could permanently alter the taonga species and ecosystems that tangata whenua have protected for centuries.
Yet now we somehow think we are so much smarter, that we can start moving genetic material from one species to another, from one genetic environment to another. While our ancestors could at least see the physical creatures they were introducing, genetic modifications operate at a microscopic level with far more complex and unpredictable interactions. If a single introduced species like the possum could cause such devastation, imagine the potential impact of genetic material that can self-replicate and spread invisibly through entire species.
It's the same foolish mistake, the same arrogant and ignorant level of thinking that caused our ancestors to leave us with a perpetual mess. But unlike traditional pests that we can at least attempt to control or eradicate, genetic modifications become permanent features of our ecosystem's genetic pool. There will be no 'predator-free NZ' equivalent solution once modified genes spread through our native species. This Bill effectively turns New Zealand into a testing ground for unproven genetic technologies, risking our environment and agricultural sector in ways that could prove even more devastating than the ecological disasters of our past.
Call to Action: I strongly urge the Committee to:
1. Reject this Bill in its current form
2. Reinstate the precautionary principle
3. Maintain New Zealand's valuable GE-free status
4. Implement mandatory labelling and traceability requirements
5. Restore local authority to implement protective measures
6. Establish robust, independent safety oversight mechanisms
The Gene Technology Bill, as proposed, represents an unprecedented threat to New Zealand's environmental, economic, and public health interests. We must not sacrifice our unique advantages and sovereign decision-making capacity for the short-term interests of international trade agreements or biotech companies.
Yours sincerely,
Jonathan Evatt
“This Bill, if enacted, would mean that New Zealand would have one of the weakest regulatory regimes for GE in the world, leaving us open to being a global outlier and guinea pig. The Bill lacks the rigour, checks, balances and liability provisions that would safeguard people and the environment.” - Soil & Health Association
The mRNA and Medical Gene Tech Red Carpet?
The mRNA and Medical Gene Tech Red Carpet?
It is now more widely acknowledged that the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was very likely a lab in Wuhan, China. The New York Times has recently published a number of articles pointing this out.12 One on January 25 2025 reports the CIA tend towards a lab-leak origin.3 To me, this makes a lot more sense than the random and improbable event of the virus naturally jumping from animals to humans, especially when the epicentre of that event was Wuhan, and not one of the many major cities much closer to the natural source of the virus roughly 1,600 km (1,000 miles) away. It makes more sense and is a simpler theory (if we are to apply Occam's Razor, “The simplest explanation is usually the best.”) than the theory that it came from a bat 1,600 km away4. In which case, it was either leaked or was intentionally released. I don’t know of any evidence to suggest it was intentional, so for now, we can assume it escaped inadvertently.
The scientifically and societally accepted solution to the ensuing COVID-19 debacle was a genetic technology presented to the public as a “vaccine.” Despite the fact that there is no scientifically valid way to refute that mRNA-based immune modulators (aka “mRNA vaccines”) are a gene technology, during the pandemic, many so-called “experts” tried to argue that it’s just a vaccine and is not a gene technology. The novel nature of the mRNA immune stimulation technology, as a gene technology, had many people (scientific experts included) concerned it might pose unpredictable or inadequately considered risks to recipients of such injections. This created quite a stir and a great deal of resistance during the roll-out of the mRNA gene technology injections made by Pfizer and Moderna.
Bring in Section 50 and 52 of the Gene Technology Bill.
Under Section 50 of the Bill, all genetic technologies (mRNA “vaccines” and treatments included) must be approved for use in New Zealand if at least two other countries have approved them. This does not, however, apply to emergency authorisations. So, it would not have had any impact on the emergency approval New Zealand gave to mRNA “vaccines” during the COVID-19 debacle.
Here’s a short breakdown of Section 50 and 52 in this regard:
1. Section 50 (Mandatory Medical Authorization):
DOES require NZ to authorize if 2+ overseas regulators have approved
BUT explicitly excludes emergency authorizations
Section 50(1)(b) specifically states it does not apply to authorizations "equivalent to an emergency authorisation"
2. Section 52 (Emergency Authorization):
Emergency approvals are at the Minister's discretion ("may grant")
No requirement to follow overseas approvals
Requires specific NZ-based assessment of:
Actual/imminent threat exists (from relevant Minister)
Threat outweighs risks (from Regulator)
So if two other countries gave emergency approval to a gene technology:
Section 50 wouldn't apply (excludes emergency authorizations)
Section 52 would require independent NZ assessment
No mandatory requirement to follow overseas emergency approvals
So, there is no provision requiring NZ to give emergency approval just because other countries have done so. Emergency authorizations remain at NZ's discretion under Section 52.
However, outside of emergency approvals, for medical gene technologies (like medicines), if at least two recognised overseas authorities have approved them for regular (non-emergency) use, the Regulator must authorise them for NZ use (unless there's imminent risk), subject to conditions and other regulatory requirements.
Based on current medical developments, here are likely examples of genetic medicines that could fall under Section 50's mandatory authorisation pathway:
mRNA Medicines:
Next-generation mRNA vaccines for various diseases
mRNA cancer treatments (personalised immunotherapies)
mRNA treatments for rare genetic disorders
mRNA therapies for autoimmune conditions
Gene Therapies:
CAR T-cell therapies for various cancers
Gene replacement therapies for inherited disorders
Gene editing treatments using CRISPR technology
Viral vector gene therapies for various conditions
Here are some specific examples currently in development:
1. Cancer treatments:
Personalised mRNA cancer vaccines
Gene-edited immune cell therapies
Targeted genetic treatments for specific cancer types
2. Genetic Disorder Treatments:
Gene therapies for cystic fibrosis
Treatments for muscular dystrophy
Therapies for inherited blood disorders
Treatments for rare genetic conditions
3. Common Disease Treatments:
mRNA therapies for heart disease
Genetic treatments for diabetes
Gene therapies for arthritis
Treatments for neurological conditions
Whether these technologies are ultimately beneficial or detrimental, the main concern objectors to the Bill have is that New Zealand is potentially giving up its sovereignty when it comes to approving or rejecting gene-based medicines. Moreover, where is this agenda coming from? It doesn’t provide New Zealand with any specific benefit. Rather, such legislation primarily benefits industry.
Distorted Thinking?
“With growing concerns around climate change, the increased cost of living, and better access to medical innovations, gene technologies look a viable option to ease some of these pressures. The Government has signalled it wants to greatly expand New Zealand’s GE research capabilities.”5
The above quote is from a Newsroom article, as referenced. Three problems are cited: 1. Climate change; 2. Increased cost of living; and 3. The need for better access to medical innovations.
Gene technology is being promoted as a potential solution to these issues. The New Zealand Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, stated in a public interview that genetic engineering can “reduce flowering times and increase plant production,” and that genetic technology will provide “enormous opportunities and benefits for New Zealand in climate change, health, and in our exports and productivity.”
To the undiscerning, this may all sound wonderful. Yay! By allowing financially motivated corporations to manipulate the instructive codes of the natural world we have our most intimate relationship with (i.e., “food”), we can solve climate change, reduce our costs of living, and gain greater medical innovations. What more could we want? What could possibly go wrong?
Assuming human activity is the primary driver of accelerated climate change, how is this an issue of genetics? Surely, the key issue is human activity negatively impacting the living environment of the Earth. Regardless of whether or not this is having any significant impact on the climate, it certainly affects biodiversity and the chemical composition of the entire Earth, from the deepest waters to our upper atmosphere. It’s ludicrous to think or promote the idea that manipulating genes is a solution to this issue.
The root cause of global pollution and environmental destruction is not a deficiency of genetic manipulation or inconvenient genetics in the natural world that need correction. The root cause is, in simple terms, human activity that is unconscious of the broader harmful repercussions—activity primarily enabled and driven by corporate greed and the legal imperative for corporations to perpetually increase profits at all costs. It seems to me that allowing those same corporations to run amok with genetically modifying the planet is simply another expression of that same root cause. It’s the same unconscious behaviour being held up as beneficial.
As for the cost of living, do people really believe these twisted narratives? How on Earth does the cost of living have an inverse relationship to the prevalence of genetic engineering? Yes, industry can advocate for the idea that genetic engineering will allow us to reduce the cost of food production, medical procedures, etc. Yet where is the evidence for similar prior technologies achieving this lofty aim? Or even of existing genetically engineered crops achieving this aim? Again, the number one aim of corporations is to increase their profits. So any benefits corporations deliver to humanity are a means to that end. Yet all profits are balanced somewhere by an equal loss.
Yes, there’s a case for suggesting modern industrial agriculture reduced the price of basic raw materials for processed food, which we can argue reduced the cost of living. However, overall, the cost of living since the introduction of industrial agriculture has only gone up, not down. And the quality of the food we eat has dropped so dramatically that most of what the “food” industry provides to society is no longer real food—it is no longer capable of supporting the human body to maintain its integrity and health. Instead, it’s become the primary driver of most modern disease, which is exceedingly costly to manage. I refrain from saying “treat” or “remedy” as the industrial approach to disease is only ever one of managing symptoms, and this is done at great financial profit and great human cost. The cost of that profit is a rapid decline in health and a huge increase in chronic degenerative disease, the symptoms of which are chemically managed to minimise the pain they cause.
Which brings us to genetic medical innovations. The vast majority of our so-called medical treatments are chemicals used to manage disease symptoms. How is that working out for us? Not very well. As far as we know, modern humans are the sickest, weakest, and least robust society of humans to ever exist on Earth. Yet we are, at great financial benefit to the industrial medical complex (IMC), propped up and (mostly) kept standing with an array of pharmaceutical crutches and surgical bypasses. We are holding ourselves together with an assortment of chemical braces, casts, and band-aids, and the discarding of diseased tissues through surgical procedures.
Very few diseases are inherently genetic in origin. It’s a fallacy of the IMC that has tried to tell us otherwise. Moreover, where dysfunctional genetics have played a direct causative role in disease, it’s almost always an outcome of human debasement of nature. We have damaged our genetic heritage through multi-generational dietary divergence, excessive artificial chemical and artificial EMF and radiation exposure, and a general systemic disconnection from the natural environment in which our genetics emerged. Most so-called genetic diseases are environmental diseases that play out through epigenetics. This is where the environment triggers changes in gene expression. When those changes in gene expression result in a disease condition, we erroneously blame the genes for being problematic. The problem is the toxic, novel environment in which those genes are doing their best to function.
Improving or Compromising Exports?
New Zealand is globally recognised as a producer of GMO-free agricultural and food products. Although it still makes up a relatively small portion of the global market, the demand for GMO-free, organic, and regenerative farming food products is increasing every year. A case could easily be made that New Zealand would be better off basing its competitive edge on the purity and natural quality of its food. GMO-free, organic, regenerative, grass-fed, glyphosate-free, etc., foods fetch a premium. This topic is too expansive for me to dive into here, so I’ll leave it at that.
The main takeaway regarding exports is that embracing genetically modified organisms and the significant increase in glyphosate usage that "Roundup Ready" crops bring about is unlikely to truly enhance New Zealand’s competitiveness in the massive global marketplace. Doing what everyone else is doing is more likely to work against us, as we would be competing on the same playing field as countries with much larger scale and lower-cost production. Conversely, if we put more effort into focusing on being "clean, green, GMO-free, and ecologically sustainable," the competition is greatly diminished; and, although the market is smaller, the returns are significantly higher.
From my perspective, this is a topic that the New Zealand government needs to put more effort into researching, instead of being influenced by industries with vested interests in using New Zealand as a GMO testing ground.
That’s all I feel like writing on this for now. Leave a comment below if you have any constructive thoughts to share on the matter.
Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points (NYT - June 3, 224)
Two Covid Theories (NYT - June 14, 2024)
C.I.A. Now Favors Lab Leak Theory to Explain Covid’s Origins (NYT - January 25, 2025)
The “natural origin” theory suggests that SARS-CoV-2, the virus attributed to COVID-19, originated in bats and was transmitted to humans through an intermediate host, possibly pangolins or another animal. Genetic studies have shown similarities between SARS-CoV-2 and coronaviruses found in bats and pangolins. Pangolins, in particular, have been identified as potential intermediaries due to their coronaviruses’ genetic resemblance to SARS-CoV-2, especially in the receptor-binding domain of the spike protein. However, no definitive intermediate host has been identified, and the exact transmission pathway remains unclear. What’s more, no definitive explanation has been given as to why the jump to humans first occurred in Wuhan, and not one of the hundreds of other major cities in China and Southeast Asia. “Even at hot spots where these viruses exist naturally near the cave bats of southwestern China and Southeast Asia, the scientists argued, as recently as 2019, that bat coronavirus spillover into humans is rare.” (New York Times). With this in mind, the “natural origin” theory is, in fact, significantly more complicated than the “lab leak theory,” since the Level 4 biosecurity Wuhan Institute of Virology was actively conducting gain-of-function research on coronaviruses at the time when SARS-CoV-2 emerged.
Newsroom: Gene technology bill fails to recognise Treaty partnership
CREDITS: Cover image, by Rosalee Yagihara from Vancouver, Canada - 032A3231, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26358924