3 OIA requests to understand MBIEs 'facts' and reasoning Re: The Gene Technology Regulator
It's not appropriate that scientific claims underpinning new laws & regulations should be 'pre-settled' in a predetermined manner. Why? Select Committees then rule public comment out of scope.
What scientific and technical information (including surveillance of global laws and regulations) provides the foundation for MBIE and the Hon Judith Collins, in press releases and media packs, to state that New Zealand lags behind other countries?
Have officials and technical experts been ‘spoon fed’ with narrow information - or has an unbiased assessment of global regulations and risks, really been carried out?
For example: This statement is not correct: “New Zealand has lagged behind countries, including Australia, England, Canada and many European nations in allowing the use of this technology for the benefit of their people, and their economies.”
Are officials aware of the big issues still being considered in Europe? The European proposal for deregulation is still stuck in the Council. The Parliament wants labelling and traceability for all new GMOs. It’s unfinished business.
Europe traditionally has stricter rules and the precautionary principle is commonly taken into account. Precaution is still taken into account in the EU.
The question is - just how much does MBIE, the Hon Judith Collins and the technical advisory groups - really know? (We know that FSANZ has been selective in its disclosure of European decisions as well.)
For example: Have officials scrutinised the legislation in middle-high income smaller OECD nations for best practice to protect people, the environment and economies, or are official documents predominantly basing ‘lagged’ claims on weaker jurisdictions?
For example: What about their science claims around many new GMOs being comparatively the same as conventionally bred organisms (mammals, food crops, microbiota …) which would effectively write out case-by-case risk assessment?
For example: Historic examples from the most commonly planted GMO crops (globally) demonstrate how patents (and royalties) incentivise the consolidation of seed ownership. Over time, with mergers and buy-outs, a relatively small group of organisations control access to seeds. Non-GMO seeds may have distinct advantages such as drought tolerance and regional adaption decline, but if cross-breeding occurs, and the patented structure can be identified, the corporations will own that seed and/or demand royalty payments.
It’s all a bit whiffy. How robust is their evidence for the long-term benefit of people and economies - the science claims form the evidence, which forms the basis for the new legislation?
Without the capacity for people to contest the scientific and technical claims that form the basis of justification for new legislation, democracy is short circuited. Without rigorous processes that demand official impartiality in place, without mechanisms for public input when officials fail to take into account relevant scientific information (that might contradict their claims), officials can make science say whatever they want it to say.
That’s why I have made three Official Information Act requests.
There are important processes in place to prevent poor, unfair and inadequate legislation being produced - that is unfit for purpose. How can we understand if they are being followed if all the information is firewalled till the last minute - i.e. until the Bill is up for consultation (presumably over Christmas when everyone is distracted)?
Importantly: Should those policy papers that form the justification for a new Bill remain undisclosed until a Bill is released and consultation is opened up for public input?
What we have seen with other so-called scientific and/or technical controversies (see fluoride and COVID-19 Amendment Bill No.2), are panels being stuffed with peer reviewers who are not impartial, and the release of scientific papers which lack appropriately transparent and accountable protocols to ensure they are not biased. We see ‘stakeholder’ consultation on the quiet (Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill). This is democracy subverted.
Of course - the government position on the safety and efficacy of that technology underpins all the reasoning in the Bill that is released for comment).
… But the public cannot comment on the quality and comprehensiveness of the underlying scientific claims - because those concerns are outside the scope of the Bill.
The legislation is then passed because people did not speak to directly the content of the Bill. Is this a game that is being played - and you and I are out of it? I hope not.
3 OIA REQUESTS
MBIE - information sent to Technical Advisory Group: Gene Technology regulations and powers of regulator - Gene Technology regulations and powers of regulator
MBIE - All policy papers held by MBIE - includes discussion documents, regulatory impact analyses.
Hon Judith Collins - Policy papers held by Collins concerning the Gene Technology regulations. This is because Collins is the key Minister who is speaking publicly on the benefits of deregulation of GMOs into the New Zealand environment.
REQUEST 1 to MBIE- NOVEMBER 19, 2024
This request is to understand what the scientific and technical experts who are acting as consultants to MBIE know, and to understand whether they have capacity to look beyond MBIE’s selected and supplied data. Response due: December 17, 2024.
Re: Scientific advice - technical focus group - Gene Technology regulations and powers of regulator
(Please note - all places where I state - focus group - should be interpreted to mean 'technical advisory group'. Apologies for the confusion).
Dear Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment,
Sir Peter Gluckman (2011) has noted that ‘steps need to be taken early on to ensure that the scientific advice is:
• focused on the data and its appropriate interpretation;
• unbiased with respect to its use of data;
• open about what is known and not known;
• able to communicate in terms of probabilities and magnitude of effect;
• free from conflicts of interest, provided apolitically and independent of any particular end-user perspective.'
(OPMCSA, 2011, Towards better use of evidence in policy formation: a discussion paper).
The public have been told:
'A technical advisory group of 12 scientists and researchers will also support the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on gene technology regulation procedures and technical matters, aiming to ensure officials' interpretation of the relevant science is accurate and risks and opportunities clearly understood.'
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/524990/ban-on-genetic-modification-and-genetic-engineering-outside-lab-to-end-government-announces
'The Technical Advisory Group provides technical advice to MBIE on up-to-date gene technology regulation, including regulatory procedures and science and technical matters related to biotechnology, genetic techniques and gene therapies.
The Technical Advisory Group ensures that officials’ 'interpretation of relevant science is accurate, that opportunities and risks are clearly understood and that technical considerations are effectively incorporated into policy development.'
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/science-and-technology/science-and-innovation/agencies-policies-and-budget-initiatives/gene-technology-regulation
OIA REQUEST
[1] Please supply the terms of reference sent to the technical focus group. This is to confirm that there are systems in place to ensure that the information is free of bias and that there are protocols to ensure that the technical focus group have powers and resources to review and consider probabilities, risks, uncertainties and magnitude of likely impact outside the information sent to them by them, so that science advice is independently provided.
[2] Please supply all scientific information, including that which is listed in policy papers, including references and appendices, sent to the technical focus group.
This necessarily includes advice regarding the FSANZ proposals to change the definition of a GMO and remove process-based risk assessment. Obviously, the FSANZ outcome will impact the risk environment i.e. scientific and technical considerations of risk in relation to New Zealand’s native species and agricultural production and export. (Officials are aware the FSANZ work is in parallel with, and relevant to, MBIE's current consultation.)
[3] This question concerns the extent to which the technical focus group can consider uncertainty and future risks, and the extent to which MBIE have provided them with existing policy documents.
As science advisors, the technical advisory group will be considering future biosecurity risk, including genetic pollution. MBIE plans to create legislation which permits genetically edited organisms to be released into ecosystems (from a microbiomes, toto pasture, water-courses, and native forests) that with no boundaries, that are complex, linear and dynamic.
To quote Peter Gluckman ‘Precision is not the outcome, rather an assessment of probabilities’… There can be a danger of scientists claiming greater certainty than can be justified. Scientific advice must proceed through processes that are cognisant of, and act to limit, such potential distortions.’
New gene editing techniques such as CRISPR-Cas have accelerated development speed and shortened the bench-to-market timeline. Scientists are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to identify development opportunities in whatever genome scientists want to work with – from mammals, to fish to insects and microbes. Gene editing can also be conducted in the outdoors, and removal of process-based risk assessment and potential exclusion of up to 94% of GMO foods as not GMO for the purposes of risk assessment (Bohle, Schneider, Mundorf et al 2024), not only will result in more development in New Zealand (including from offshore developers seeking permissive regulatory jurisdictions) but more releases in New Zealand.
(For references please see this document: https://psgr.org.nz/stewarding-biotechnology)
As the Royal Commission in 2001 advised, navigation over the longer term involves establishing principles and institutions to support the changing risk environment.
https://environment.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Files/Royal-Commission-on-GM-in-NZ-Final.pdf
Attorney General Judith Collins and MBIE allegedly desire to remove the precaution from the legislation and have not appeared to have taken the findings of the Royal Commission into account. There has been no policy paper reasoning considering the risks/benefits of insertion of precaution and/or precautionary principle in legislation text (or removal) would better serve New Zealand culturally, economically and environmentally. New Zealand is a signatory to the many treaties which also require consideration of the precautionary principle.
The technical advisory group must be interested in stewardship/kaitiakitanga over the longer term (see Boston, Bagnall and Barry, 2019, Joseph, 2021, Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi). For the regulator to have foresight and understand risk into the future - not just present risk, the technical advisory group may be considering former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wrights' criteria:
- irreversible
- cumulative – building up over time
- large in scale or pervasive
- increasing or even accelerating in scale and/or distribution
- likely to tip a natural system over a threshold into another state
a. Please supply all meetings/memos/email discussions with the technical focus group with regards to how scientific uncertainty will be managed and how future risk from the scaling up of releases into the environment is scientifically, culturally and politically justifiable.
Please include all meetings/memos/email discussions with the technical focus group referencing precaution and/or the precautionary principle; and the findings of the Royal Commission and work by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.
Discussions around uncertainty and precaution may include the potential for gene edited organisms to have changes to the genome but not be classed as not-GMO as regulators class them as comparable to conventional bred organisms, and how uncertainties relating to risk and contamination in future has been scientifically assessed and communicated by the technical focus group.
b. The technical focus group will presumably be interested in there being sufficient regulatory powers to surveil and assess the changing risk environment, so as to protect health, the economy and the environment. Please supply all discussions with the technical focus group concerning proposed powers for the regulator.
This may include the potential powers to monitor the published scientific literature and surveil the global environment (for newly identified risks from off-target and unanticipated impacts from GMO development and release, regulatory changes, court decisions), and monitor and assess releases into the environment for the long term.
[4] Please supply 'up to date gene regulation' information on how regulations in the top performing OECD nations and the latest decisions by the European Parliament compare against Australia and the proposed hybrid regulations, that have been sent to the technical expert group for assessment.
For example: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0325_EN.pdf
REQUEST 2 to MBIE - NOVEMBER 15, 2024
This request is to understand what policy papers have been produced. Of course, before a Bill can be drafted, policy papers must be published to identify risks and benefits, and stakeholders must have been consulted. Nothing has been released to the public, with the exception of a media pack. Response due: December 13, 2024.
RE: Policy papers: Gene Technology regulations
https://fyi.org.nz/request/29216-policy-papers-gene-technology-regulations
Dear Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment,
Papers concerning the new Gene Technology regulations - no information appears to be released to the public as yet (November 15, 2024)
[1[ Please list all discussion documents supplied to MBIE, the date they were supplied, and which agency/authority/department supplied them.
[2] Please can I have a copy of all regulatory impact analyses held by your office.
[3] Please can I have a copy of any regulatory impact statements held by your office.
[4] All email discussions or memos of who may be 'affected persons'.
REQUEST 3 to HON JUDITH COLLINS - NOVEMBER 15, 2024
This request is to understand the extent and information that is held by the Hon Judith Collins on the Gene Technology regulations. Collins is not only Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology but the Attorney General and has been the key Minister discussing Gene Technology regulations in the media. It is not appropriate that this request is forwarded to MBIE, as Collins, as key media person, will be basing her media claims on the information that she personally holds.
Response due: December 13, 2024.
Re: Policy papers: Gene Technology regulations
https://fyi.org.nz/request/29214-policy-papers-gene-technology-regulations
To Judith Collins
(Hon Judith Collins KC MP, Attorney-General, Minister of Defence, Minister for Digitising Government, Minister Responsible for the GCSB, Minister Responsible for the NZSIS, Minister of Science, Innovation, & Technology, Minister for Space, and Lead Coordination Minister for the Government's Response to the Royal Commission's Report into the Terrorist Attack on the Christchurch Mosques.)
Please supply the following information held by your office (as Attorney-General and Minister of Science Innovation and technology) regarding the Gene Technology regulations which you have discussed in the media, and take an active interest in.:
[1[ Please list all discussion documents supplied to you, the date they were supplied, and which agency/authority/department supplied them.
[2] Please can I have a copy of all regulatory impact analyses held by your office.
[3] Please can I have a copy of any regulatory impact statements held by your office.
This request concerns information specifically held by you and how much information you have access to concerning these regulations. Please do not forward this OIA request to other authorities.
Thank you very much for ths article JRB . We are rushing headlong into a genetic swamo and this allowed by politicians who have no idea at all on the broader imlications of this engineering .
Perhaps a new law outlawing intellectual property rights for seeds is required. Then the dark push for GMO might suddenly disappear again !