November 29, 2024
Plant breeders need a more streamlined pathway for testing and releasing new cultivars created using modern gene technologies, says NZ Plant Breeding and Research Association (PBRA) president John Caradus.
PBRA members support the government’s commitment announced last August to review and modify the regulations for gene technology application in NZ by the end of 2025.
Caradus is a member of the Advisory Panel which will advise government officials on the new legislation and says lawmakers will need to tread carefully when they overhaul the current legislation regulating the field testing and further use of gene technologies in NZ.
Government has suggested the new legislation will create a dedicated regulator to oversee applications, based on Australia’s Gene Technology Act 2000 and adapted to work here in NZ.
Testing of GM crops and forages in contained field trials is possible under existing legislation, but Caradus says the application process has become increasingly difficult and challenging.
The main barrier stopping applications is the need for applicants to consult with numerous public and private groups before making an application to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Since 1988, government agencies have approved close to 70 applications to field test GM crops, but only 48 have progressed to contained trial stage. Since 2010, there have been no contained trials, reflecting the increasingly onerous process required for applications.
“The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act has also put drag on applications, but a bigger influence has been the issue of engagement required,” Caradus says.
His own experiences with two EPA applications in 2012 to bring in some new strains of endophyte to NZ were smooth and successful. Back then, the EPA sent out requests to various groups for feedback and about three chose to respond.
“But now it seems that it is up to the applicant to do all the consultation with a wide range of groups so everyone has just gone ‘where do I start?’. It’s the process that has become the issue, not the legislation itself.”
He strongly favours retaining the two-stage system in the existing legislation, where initial contained field trials would test the benefits and consider risks, before a second application for any commercial release phase.
Testing must include monitoring the health of animals consuming a new GM forage or pasture cultivar, looking at the effects on non-target organisms, understanding the impact of GM gene flow and the related issue of co-existence with non-GM crops and plants, he says.
Caradus is involved in a GM white clover field trial in Australia and says the application process across the Tasman was sufficiently robust but much more streamlined.
Once the required application information was submitted to The Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), there was no requirement for applicants to undertake further consultation with affected parties. The application was posted on the regulator’s website and the onus fell on those who might be impacted to put a submission in.
“We engaged a specialist consultant who had prepared applications in Australia in the past so they had a good understanding of what the regulator requires. Our application went through very smoothly and the trial has been running now for past 18 months.”
Caradus is confident the plant breeding science community has plenty of experience to run safe and secure contained field trials in NZ. Some of that expertise has been gained from recent and ongoing trials in other countries, particularly the United States and Australia.
“Most of this type of work is basically common sense. Nobody would be seeking to go straight to the commercial release of a GM crop. Initially we’re just assessing the likely benefit of it before deciding on a commercial release,” he says
Caradus says the current regulations in NZ have held up progress in the development of new, improved cultivars to deal with modern day disease, pest and climate challenges, but he’s confident that given a more streamlined system, local plant breeders can “catch up fast”.
“For NZ our most important plants are pasture plants, and that isn’t the case for other countries, which use conserved feeds like grain, soy or maize to feed livestock. It’s interesting that most of those grains used in livestock feed are GM feeds. In some cases, it is dead seed, but it’s still GM!”
He says suggestions that markets will reject our meat and milk products if regulations permit GM forages to be used in NZ are not supported by evidence.
“That belief system really needs to be challenged because all the markets that we export to already feed their animals GM feed, so I don’t understand why there is all this fearmongering about it.”
He suggests anyone concerned about the impact on market access and prices should look at our nearest neighbour Australia. “Do they have any trouble selling their product to export markets? No, and they now have three species of GM plant widely available – brassica, cotton, and saffron, and just recently approval was granted for a GM banana to be grown.”
Caradus says farmers are calling for improvements in forage plant traits that enhance drought tolerance, disease resistance, or produce higher metabolizable energy levels, lower methane output and reduce urinary nitrogen production from their livestock.
“Fortunately, when you look in the literature there are records of GM for all of those traits, so there is no reason why a lot of that science couldn’t be extrapolated into our forage plants,” he says.
There are also two NZ GM projects that have been field trialled in Australia and the United States that offer significant benefits in the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, and Caradus says both could be tested here if more streamlined approval regulations were put in place.
“The condensed tannins in clover project and the high metabolizable energy ryegrass work are both well developed and I believe could be tested in NZ right now if we could negotiate a way through application process.”
Assuming the new regulations are workable, Caradus says both could be released at commercial level within the next 5-10 years.
Another exciting development with potential for NZ is the success scientists at AgResearch have had editing genes within a particular strain of endophyte that is found only in ryegrass seed and plant, and not in its pollen.
“These Epichloe endophytes are quite special because they don’t travel on the pollen, so you’re not going to get the same co-existence issues arising if they could put traits into these Epichloe endophytes using gene technology,” he says
Caradus says AgResearch has so far found a way to remove the function of certain Epichloe genes, stopping the plants from producing particular chemicals which can reduce the performance of livestock, and is currently running three trials in Australia to test the technology.
He hopes the review of NZ’s current GM laws will allow gene ‘knock-out’ work to be tested in contained field trials more easily in NZ, but he accepts that gene editing to introduce genes would require more robust regulations and safeguards.
“For instance, I’m looking at a project where we are seeking to introduce a number of genes that have the potential to produce anti-methanic compounds within plants.”
“Now that one is 10 years away, but the science behind it looks do-able in spite of some significant technical challenges. From my perspective it would be a relatively safe option,” he says.
Dealing with the challenges from cross-contamination between paddocks and farms is significant with GM forages and crops, but he is confident it is manageable.
In a review of the “co-existence issue” he recently prepared, he found it comes down to neighbouring farmers communicating well and using appropriate buffer zones to prevent spread occurring.
“We are dealing with forages such as outcrossing perennials, so the chances of confining these genes to a paddock is a significant challenge. You could argue if it escaped, is it a problem? If you’re an organic farmer, then yes. If you are a conventional farmer, then probably no.”
He says a good example is the GM technology which makes white clovers express condensed tannin in its leaves, rather than just its flowers (which it does in non-GM plants). If that spread to other farms, it is unlikely to become a problem.
Other countries are managing the challenge of co-existence and Caradus notes that the top 12 organic production countries globally, based on area farmed, are also in the top tier for GM production too.
He is not expecting a rush of applications for GM trials or commercial releases if the new legislation provides a more streamlined process for applicants.
“What we need is system that allows us to get back to where we were between 1988 and 1998, so we can test in contained field trials, to determine whether traits are valuable, and then consider the next stage of a commercial release.
Conventional plant breeding where thousands of individual plants are grown to identify the 10 or 20 that might go through to becoming a cultivar has served NZ well but GM is a game-changing opportunity.
Caradus says conventional plant breeding techniques could deliver similar outcomes but GM would allow specific traits to be introduced or triggered in forages that could take many years of selective breeding to achieve.
“We’re playing with nature, but we have been doing that for 10,000 years. Over that time, we’ve turned plants from weeds into something as good as sweet corn!
“I hope common sense prevails in this review and we can have an evidence-based discussion without the emotion.”
For more information, contact the PBRA office on 03 349 8430 or visit www.pbra.co.nz