The National Māori Organics Authority - Te Waka Kai Ora says genetic modification is a Tiriti o Waitangi issue and not something governments can make decisions on outside of Treaty partnerships.
Authority spokesperson Jessica Hutchins (Ngāi Tahu, Ngāti Huirapa and Gujarati) says Te Waka Kai Ora will never consider supporting the introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMO), which she describes as a complex issue that goes beyond just science.
"They're an interesting social and cultural issue and a scientific issue because they reach into every aspect of our lives, into the economic aspect, into the impact of tikanga and culture by science, even as far into the microbiome or the realm of Hineahuone."
National reopened the debate over genetic modification earlier in the week by launching at the weekend its policy on harnessing biotech.
Leader Christopher Luxon says there is only an economic upside to allowing genetic engineering in Aotearoa, while the party's science, innovation, and technology spokesperson, Judith Collins, says New Zealand could be a world leader in agricultural emissions and health, nutrition and environmental innovation.
“Gene technology is being used around the world to treat cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and blood disorders. It is also being used to combat climate change and protect the natural environment.
“It has been used in New Zealand laboratories since the 1970s, but restrictive rules, drafted in the 1990s, make research outside the lab all but impossible. This means our scientists must head overseas to conduct further research."
Who benefits?
Hutchins says people need to be aware of where the vested interests of those looking to promote GMOs lie.
"And they lie with corporations, with multinationals and with governments. They don't live with indigenous peoples or with Indigenous women.
"I would question why New Zealand needs to be a global leader in agritech or agri-business. I know we're an exporting nation but it's based on a long colonial history of feeding the motherland. We actually produce enough food in Aotearoa to feed 50 million people but we export the majority of it overseas.
"We can't even feed the five million people we have in our country, so I do not see how technologies like GMO, which claim to potentially feed the world and deliver technological solutions to climate change, are actually going to do anything to feed our people."
Greenpeace has labelled the policy a "dangerous joke" designed to provide the dairy industry with a way of further delaying emissions reduction.
Christine Rose says GMO and GE will put at risk the competitive advantage New Zealand has with the rest of the world.
"These are not serious people. There are no GE technofixes that will address the climate crisis. Many of New Zealand’s exporters rely on the competitive advantage we have as a GE-free producer. The release of genetically modified organisms risks ecological disaster."
Health benefits
Collins says gene editing has the potential to deliver benefits to human health, and Aotearoa risks being left behind.
"Recently a 13-year-old in London was cured of cancer using genetic engineering.
“New Zealand is at risk of being left behind, with Australia and most of the European Union having safely embraced gene technology."
But Hutchins argues GE and GMO equate to bio-piracy and are a stepping stone to another wave of colonisation.
"Genetic technologies are technologies that deliver profit. First of all colonisation came for our lands and our people. And this wave of colonisation is coming for the DNA or the genetic sequences of what Te Waka Kai Ora describes as ngā mokopuna o Ranginui me Papatūānuku - of flora and fauna.
So we believe that no corporation, no government has the right to own a patent over a life form. And that's what we mean by biopiracy."
Meanwhile, Stuff reported recently that Prime Minister Chris Hipkins had asked the chief science advisor, Professor Juliet Gerrard, in the last couple of months "to do a little bit of thinking around this and give me some further advice on it".
“In terms of issues around gene editing, for example, I think there’s a legitimate discussion for us to have,” Hipkins said.
