The world has changed a lot since New Zealand last had this discussion in the early 2000s, writes Wayne Langford.

At Federated Farmers, we believe the potential opportunities from gene editing are too great to leave sitting on the table without even looking at them.

The use of genetic modification, genetic engineering, and gene-editing in New Zealand is a significant issue for many people.

We know there are varying opinions held both in our farming community and the public. These range from those who are completely opposed, to those who think it’s the only way forward, and everything in between.

Federated Farmers’ position is that we strongly believe it’s time for New Zealand to have a national conversation about things like gene-editing, where we consider all the potential benefits, weigh them up against any risks, and decide how we want to move forward as a country.

The world has really changed since we last had this discussion in the early 2000s.

The science has continued to develop at breakneck speed, and so has our collective understanding of some of the big global challenges we’re facing, like climate change and biodiversity loss.

We’ve all got a lot on our plate, and we need some real solutions.

That doesn’t necessarily mean GE is a solution we’ll move forward with but, as a country, we shouldn’t simply close the door on the issue.

We need to continue revisiting it and remain open to new technologies like gene-editing, which have huge potential to help not just farmers, but all New Zealanders when it comes to things like healthcare.

We would be doing ourselves a disservice as a country if we weren’t even prepared to have that conversation.

That’s why, in February this year, Federated Farmers wrote to the five political parties in Parliament (Labour, National, Green, ACT, and Te Pāti Māori) asking them to commit to a review of New Zealand’s rules relating to genetically modified organisms.

That advocacy has prompted both major political parties, and some of the smaller ones, to commit to take another look at whether our current rules are fit for purpose.

Could gene-editing help us completely eradicate pests like possum, which are spreading disease and decimating our native forests?

Could GE ryegrass lower our greenhouse gas emissions and/or improve our resilience to drought?

Could it increase our farm production?

These aren’t imaginary concepts – they’re real possibilities.

Of course, there will always be risks and trade-offs that need to be considered.

Legitimate questions must also be answered about whether the use of GE would have unintended consequences for, or devalue, New Zealand’s international brand.

Do our global consumers care about our GE-Free status, and more importantly, are they willing to pay a premium for it? I also wonder what they would place a greater premium on: our GE-Free status or having a lower greenhouse gas product?

As a country completely reliant on trade, with 82% of our exports coming from the primary sector, of course we need to continue looking closely at what our customers are asking for and respond to those preferences – because they’re the ones who buy our products.

When I look at countries like Canada and Australia, who do allow GE cultivars to be grown, they still maintain a very strong reputation for their high-quality food exports.

At the end of the day, every consumer is different. We all have our own values, views, and preferences – we see this all the time with food. Some people choose to eat only organic; some choose to be vegetarian. Some people make their decisions depending on quality, price, or availability.

Farmers then respond to those market signals when making decisions about what they produce and how they produce it – and GE would probably be no different.

As President of Federated Farmers, what I’d really like to know is whether individual farmers would be able to make that choice for themselves, or would that decision be taken away from them because of the choices of their neighbour?

In other words, can we have a situation where some farmers are producing ‘GE-Free’ products while others are using GE technology?

That needs to be looked into more and explained clearly as part of the conversation. Surely it must be a possibility when a lot of the soy milk sold in New Zealand supermarkets is labelled as ‘GM-Free’ but is produced in the United States, a country with a huge amount of GMO soy being grown. Not that this dairy farmer is buying soy milk.

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it’s really important that we do have the conversation – and that we have it in a respectful way. There should be absolutely no tolerance for misinformation or scaremongering; but equally, we can’t dismiss legitimate concerns.

I look forward to seeing both our farming community and urban Kiwis come together to figure out the direction we want to head in. Between us, I have no doubt we’ll make the right call for the future of New Zealand.