Dr Revel Drummond
AgScience Newsletter Issue 6 July
Gene technologies are increasingly becoming part of mainstream agriculture, food production, environmental management, and biotechnology innovation. Their potential to transform agricultural production and food systems is enormous and only in the early stages of showing their full potential. Advances in these technologies (such as genome editing using CRISPR) have made it possible to make smaller and more targeted genetic changes to DNA that can nonetheless still produce big changes in plant or animal traits. At the same time these changes to DNA are such that they may be indistinguishable from those that arise through conventional breeding or natural mutation. As a result, many jurisdictions, including New Zealand, are reconsidering regulatory frameworks that were originally developed when genetic modification was largely associated with the transfer of genes between species.
Regulatory systems must decide what kinds of genetic changes warrant oversight, how those changes should be assessed, and where regulatory boundaries should be drawn. Different jurisdictions have answered these questions in different ways. The language used and the words co-opted into the various legislation has had a marked impact on how the regulations are interpreted. Some examples:
- Canada has largely adopted a product-based approach centred on the concept of the new organism’s overall novelty
- Australia and New Zealand have a specific exemption in our food safety regulation for products with no novel DNA in the final organism or product
- England, Argentina and Brazil largely exempt from genetic engineering regulations organisms with no foreign DNA in the final organism
Every regulatory system relies on key terms that determine what falls inside or outside regulatory oversight. Terms such as novel, foreign, precision bred, genetically modified, gene edited, and conventional breeding are not merely descriptive labels; they are conceptual tools used to define regulatory categories. They influence what regulators assess, what developers must demonstrate, how products are labelled, and ultimately how the public understands the technology. Discussions about gene technology should focus on questions of safety, environmental protection, innovation, and consumer choice. Yet many arguments arise not from the underlying science but from differing interpretations of the words used to describe it and the values entangled in those words. A term that has a precise technical meaning in legislation may carry multiple and very different and value-laden meanings in everyday language.
The danger of ‘simple’ words
The difficulty with terms such as “novel” and “foreign” is that they appear to be simple, objective descriptions, yet they are actually value-laden concepts whose meaning changes depending on the context in which they are used.
The problem of “novel”
In everyday language, novel means “new” or “previously unseen.” In regulatory systems, however, novelty rarely means simply “new.” Canada uses novelty to refer to traits that are changed/added and potentially relevant to safety or environmental outcomes, but not how they were produced. Food Safety Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) now uses its own uniquely defined concept of “novel DNA” as a regulatory trigger for GM regulatory processes.
This creates a communication problem because the public often assumes that “novel” implies “unknown” and therefore “risky.” Philosophically, the concept conflates two distinct questions:
- Is something new?
- Is something hazardous?
A trait may be novel in a regulatory sense while being biologically well understood and presenting minimal risk. Conversely, a familiar trait may still create adverse ecological or food-safety outcomes. The word therefore carries emotional and psychological connotations that exceed its technical meaning.
The problem of “foreign”
The term foreign is even more problematic because it invokes powerful intuitions about belonging and natural boundaries. In ordinary language, something foreign is often understood as something external, alien, or not belonging.
Regulators use the term much more narrowly. In the UK precision breeding framework, the distinction largely concerns whether DNA originates from outside the sexually compatible breeding pool of the organism. Yet from a biological perspective, the boundary between “foreign” and “non-foreign” is not always straightforward. Genes themselves are all composed of nucleotides regardless of species, and evolutionary history contains numerous examples of horizontal gene transfer and natural movement of genetic elements between species.
The public therefore encounters a tension between:
- a cultural understanding of “foreign” as unnatural or invasive; and
- a biological understanding in which genetic material is fundamentally universal.
As a result, the word can unintentionally encourage people to view products through a moral lens, one in this case frequently linked with negative connotations, rather than a purely rational scientific one.
A deeper issue: language shapes perception
Philosophers of language have long argued that categories do not merely describe the world; they help create the way people understand it. When regulators label something as “novel,” people often infer uncertainty. When they label something as “foreign,” people often infer unnaturalness.
The result is that public debates can become centred on the terminology itself rather than on the underlying questions:
- What is the actual biological change?
- What evidence exists regarding safety?
- What environmental outcomes are plausible?
- How should benefits and risks be balanced?
Beyond Regulatory Definitions to National Strategy
The discussion of terms such as novel and foreign highlights an important reality: regulatory systems require boundaries. Definitions are essential for risk assessment, legal certainty, international trade, and public confidence. However, they are ultimately administrative tools rather than strategic objectives. The risk for New Zealand is that discussions become dominated by where regulatory lines should be drawn, rather than by the outcomes those regulations are intended to achieve.
Different jurisdictions have adopted different approaches. Canada focuses on whether a product contains a novel trait, the UK considers the presence or absence of foreign DNA, the EU focuses on whether a genetic outcome could arise through conventional breeding. Yet despite these differences, all are attempting to address a common challenge: how to regulate innovation to maintain confidence in food and environmental safety. The differences therefore reflect choices about regulatory architecture more than fundamentally different visions of agriculture.
For New Zealand, as a nation dependent on agricultural exports the challenge is two-fold. The important considerations are: international harmony in regulatory intent if not the language used, and at the same time what type of agricultural system the country seeks to build. New Zealand’s competitive advantage has never been based on scale. Instead, it has been built on a reputation for high-quality products, science-based innovation, environmental stewardship, and efficient production systems. The challenge is therefore not whether a technology or product is labelled as novel, foreign, genetically modified, or precision bred. The challenge is whether it can contribute to a more sustainable, resilient, and profitable agricultural sector while still fitting smoothly into the world trade systems.
Viewed in this way, gene technologies are simply one tool among many. Conventional breeding, precision agriculture, biological products, genomic selection, environmental monitoring, and gene editing all offer opportunities to improve agricultural performance. The key question is not how a technology is classified, but whether it helps achieve outcomes such as reduced pesticide use, improved nutrient efficiency, greater climate resilience, improved animal welfare, enhanced biodiversity, or higher-value food products raising the value of New Zealand agricultural products on the world market.
An excessive focus on tools and terminology can distract from these outcomes. Public discussions can become centred on whether a technology sits on one side of a regulatory boundary or another, while questions about actual environmental impact, consumer benefit, and economic value receive less attention. In effect, language begins to dominate the conversation even though the language itself was only intended to support regulatory decision-making.
Ultimately, if New Zealand aspires to become a global exemplar of sustainable, low-input, high-quality agricultural production, then the central debate should not be about the tools used or the language used the regulate them. Success will come from maintaining a clear focus on the outcomes that matter: environmental stewardship, economic resilience, consumer trust, and the production of high-value food and biological products. In that context, the most important distinction is not between different forms of genetic change, but between technologies and practices that advance New Zealand’s long-term vision of, and place in, its global agricultural trade and those that do not.
Wednesday 21st October 2026
From Sunset to Sunrise
the Future of Agriculture and Horticulture in New Zealand
Stewart 1, Lincoln University
Link to the programme and registration form
