The following is the text of our oral submission to the New Zealand Health Select Committee on the Gene Technology Bill made on Monday. We were allowed 10 minutes. The NZ First MP asked a sympathetic question at the conclusion, enabling me to finish with some unscripted points about the threat to small farmers.
This article is also available as an audio version.
“Good Morning and thank you committee members. Since the formulation of the Bill some key scientific papers have been published which upend its fundamental assumptions. I’d like to briefly summarise these in three points before taking questions.
1. SAFETY The Bill contains an assumption of safety which is not justified by research results. It fails to take account of the possible causes of the rapidly growing incidence of serious illnesses which are overwhelming health systems around the world including ours.
A study published in the journal Food Chemistry: Molecular Sciences in 2025 is entitled “Metagenomics-based tracing of genetically modified microorganism contaminations in commercial fermentation products. It found that residual genetically modified microorganism (GMM) contamination is present in virtually all food processing products produced via batch fermentation—the biotech industry standard, which then end up in most of our processed supermarket foods. It found the alarming presence of cell division promoters, antibiotic genes and antibiotic resistant genes in all enzymatic products it tested. Inevitable GMM contamination is currently classified as ‘residue’ which does not need any identification on labels because it is not an ‘ingredient’. A double speak continued by the Bill which side steps this recently discovered potentially serious health issue and fails to safeguard or inform the public
Faced with such alarming findings, why would we want to pass a Gene Technology Bill, which allows even more tinkering with traditional foods without any red lines or discussion of labelling, traceability, specific safety testing procedures, or liability for inevitable mistakes?
2. ACCURACY The Bill is predicated on an assumption of CRISPR accuracy which is outdated and contrary to recent research results and fundamental science
Most of us imagine that genes are as solid as the world around us, made up of distinct objects which can be swapped if one becomes defective. Rather like changing a tyre when you have a puncture. This fails to distinguish between genetic structure and function. The very very small time and distance scales of DNA are completely foreign to our waking world of experience. We have just 20,000 genes controlling trillions of functions. A study entitled “Gene editing of NCF1 loci is associated with homologous recombination and chromosomal rearrangements” has revealed that at this scale many genes appear almost indistinguishable from one another or homologous. As a result, research shows CRISPR gene scissors begin to cut up, rearrange or delete genetic chromosomal structures which were not the intended target, causing potential health problems. This is not because CRISPR has been incorrectly programmed, but rather the inevitable result of a fundamental property of micro matter.
3. EFFICACY The Bill and its surrounding PR contains an assumption of efficacy which is not justified by research results
According to the journal Nature, CAR T cell therapy costs about NZ$820,000 per shot. 85% of patients go into initial remission but only just over half of them are still in remission at the end of the first year. A TEAM of attending well qualified and highly paid doctors is needed to work out how far to push treatment without triggering potentially fatal cytokine release syndrome. Putting the cost beyond the reach of our public health service.
New Zealand has the second fastest growth rate of bowel cancer in the world, just behind Iceland.
As that is the case, shouldn’t our government be prioritising an education programme on lifestyle, exercise, healthy diets, fresh foods, etc.? The costs are very low and the research effect sizes of such programs are very large, around 27% risk reduction for colorectal cancer. It doesn’t stop with cancer, benefits affect the entire health spectrum including 30% risk reduction for heart disease for example. Also reduced incidence of inflammatory and autoimmune conditions
In another gene therapy case reported by Nature, Vertex Pharmaceuticals has revealed the full results of a clinical trial of beta thalassemia and sickle cell anaemia patients treated with a CRISPR-Cas9-based therapy which the popular press has wrongly hailed as a successful gene therapy ‘cure’. In all, 22 patients have received the treatment so far at a cost of NZ$5 million per patient all of whom initially experienced increased levels of haemoglobin and reduced pain. But after one year, only five of the patients had any residual beneficial effects. Vertex paid an additional NZ$85 million in patent fees for the licence to use CRISPR gene editing techniques.
In summary: health improvements are patchy at best, the costs are astronomical and unaffordable, the side effects are very serious and any benefits mostly don’t last very long.
Our overall conclusion: Gene technology remains an experimental intervention that is known to have a high risk profile for human health and food. The genes in our first cell contain the seed of everything that we value in life—intelligence, happiness, health. No one has any idea how genes support human consciousness, the defining characteristic of life. Modify genes at your peril. Gene modification cannot be contained, recalled or remediated. The biotechnology industry needs more strict regulation, not less as the Bill proposes. Thank you.”
Our Reflection after the hearing: The Limits to Power and the Law of the Land
It was a curious process, where the committee members sat passively. They were not required to answer questions or explain their reasons for overriding the public interest and precautionary science. It is extraordinary that the government believes it can adulterate our food choices without any requirement to inform the public what is being done and to what.
There is a relationship that we all naturally enjoy with nature, this is not something that should be usurped by ignorant power seekers. Food is a gift of God to man, or if you prefer it, a gift of the laws of nature—the sun, the soil, the rains and all that this entails. Our relationship with the land is a sacred trust of care and mutual enrichment. There are countless trillions of embodied creatures or organisms with whom we share the land, the early morning light, life giving showers, and the spring winds.
As Robert Frost famously wrote in his poem the The Gift Outright:
“Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.”
The government is about to make an extraordinary misstep, casting aside natural justice and assuming control of our relationship with Nature. They are making an enemy of nature, seeking to alter that which keeps us alive and well. If this goes ahead, time will tell us soon enough we have taken a wrong turn from which there is no safe road to return home. The pandemic should have taught us: there is a collective responsibility to oppose the deregulation of biotechnology, otherwise we will collectively suffer the consequences.
