Ready to Jump? – What Could the Gene Tech Bill Mean for New Zealand Beekeepers?

  APIARIST’S OPINION: JOSIE SAGE 

By Josie Sage

For many New Zealanders, the Gene Technology Bill may sound like a distant scientific or political debate. But for beekeepers, pollinators, and those working closely with the land, the proposed changes raise important long-term questions about the future of our ecosystems, farming systems, and export reputation.

Josie Sage – for beekeepers, pollinators, and those working closely with the land, the Gene Tech Bill raises important long-term questions about the future of our ecosystems, farming systems, and export reputation.

If someone tells you to jump off a bridge, should you? Should New Zealand jump off of our ‘clean and green’ non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) agricultural practices into the deep waters of gene technology? With 30 countries that have banned GE cultivation, it also begs the question, who is telling New Zealand to jump?

The crux of the debate is not simply whether gene technology itself is “good” or “bad.” Instead, it is whether New Zealand should fundamentally change the agricultural and environmental model that has helped make our primary industries globally respected.

As beekeepers, we know healthy hives do not exist in isolation. Bee health is deeply connected to soil health, biodiversity, flowering plants, water quality, spray regimes, and the resilience of surrounding ecosystems. That is why many within the environmental and apiculture sectors are watching the proposed Gene Technology Bill closely. But I have found that knowledge is severely lacking among everyday New Zealanders on this matter, and it has me wondering, ‘why aren’t more people talking about this?’

New Zealand’s Biosecurity System Exists for a Reason

Anyone who has travelled to New Zealand understands just how seriously we treat biosecurity. Before even leaving the airport, travellers are repeatedly reminded to; declare food, clean your boots, and check your gear for any soil, seeds, plant materials, and the list really does go on and on.

As an isolated island nation, Aotearoa developed separately from much of the world for millions of years. This isolation created extraordinary biodiversity found nowhere else on Earth, and it is part of what makes it such a special and beautiful country. But it means many native species are highly vulnerable to introduced organisms, pests, and diseases.

New Zealand has already experienced the devastating consequences of introduced species: opossums damaging native forests and spreading bovine tuberculosis; stoats and rats decimating native bird populations; myrtle rust threatening native plants; varroa mites transforming beekeeping nationwide; wilding pines spreading across vulnerable landscapes; to name but a few at the tip of a mighty iceberg of ecological impact.

These situations highlight a hard lesson in biosecurity: once a species becomes established, even early intervention does not guarantee full containment or eradication. While invasive insects and genetically engineered organisms are different in origin, they share a common policy challenge – once they are released or become established in open environments, their spread and ecological interactions are extremely difficult to fully predict or impossible to reverse.

These experiences shaped one of the strictest biosecurity systems in the world because New Zealand understands the repercussions of invasive introduced species. GE scientists know there is no current technology whereby GMOs can be effectively controlled or retrieved – they migrate, genetically contaminating whatever they come into contact with. Why would we risk our ecosystem and our food given that history has shown that once these biological “jumps” are made, climbing back to where we were before is rarely possible.

This is why many critics of the Gene Technology Bill believe the discussion cannot simply focus on short-term productivity or technological opportunity alone. It must also consider long-term ecological risk in a country whose economy, biodiversity, and global reputation depend heavily on environmental integrity.

New Zealand already produces globally respected food and honey products under some of the strongest GMO restrictions in the developed world. This international success has been through: selective breeding, advanced horticultural science, strong traceability systems, world-leading biosecurity protections, and premium “clean and green” branding. Why jump when what we have already works? Importantly, these industries succeeded without widespread commercial release of genetically engineered crops into the environment.

New Zealand plant and animal breeding science is highly regarded globally, producing resilient, high-performing varieties through conventional methods that are well trusted by export markets. For many New Zealanders, this raises an important question:

“If our current agricultural and biosecurity systems already support world-class exports and premium international trust, why would we weaken the systems that helped build that reputation in the first place?”

This concern was reflected in submissions to Parliament with 97% of submissions in opposition to the Bill, including from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who warned that genetically engineered organisms released into the environment could become future biosecurity challenges if containment fails.

Why Pollinators Matter in the Gene Technology Debate

Many New Zealand honey brands use various non-GMO accreditations as part of their marketing, but this approach will be put at risk should genetic engineering laws be loosened.  

The Bill could open the door to broader environmental release of genetically engineered organisms. Supporters of gene technology argue that newer techniques may offer benefits such as improved disease resistance and greater climate resilience. However, some overseas studies and farming systems suggest that these gains can sometimes be accompanied by increased reliance on inputs such as fertilisers, herbicides, or insecticides, depending on how the technology is used and managed. And many crops cannot grow without those inputs, even failing completely.

In New Zealand, where regenerative farming practices are increasingly being adopted, it raises the question of whether introducing certain crops or soil organisms would support or undermine the direction our agricultural systems are already heading. As beekeepers, we should undoubtably be asking what the long-term impacts may be for pollinators and ecosystems.

One of the strongest concerns internationally is not necessarily the genetically modified plants themselves, but the agricultural systems that often accompany them.

Globally, many GMO crop systems have been linked to increased use of broad-spectrum herbicides such as glyphosate. While scientific debate continues regarding glyphosate’s direct health impacts, there is growing evidence that intensive herbicide-based farming systems can contribute to pollinator stress through; reduced flowering plant diversity, simplified landscapes (monoculture crops), nutritional stress, disruption of insect microbiomes, and cumulative chemical exposure. We already see firsthand how vulnerable pollinators are when ecosystems lose diversity and resilience.

What About the Honey Industry?

New Zealand’s honey industry depends heavily on international trust.

Consumers purchasing premium native honey types are not simply buying a sweet spread or health food, they are buying a story: environmental purity; remote landscapes; unique honey flavours; natural production systems; traceability; ecological integrity.

For beekeepers, the concern is not necessarily that all gene technologies are inherently dangerous. The concern is that New Zealand could slowly follow other countries into increasingly industrialised systems without stopping to ask whether those pathways align with our own environmental values and export strengths.

A Precautionary Conversation

This debate should not be reduced to “pro-science” versus “anti-science”.

New Zealand scientists, growers, and beekeepers are all deeply invested in innovation and sustainability. The question is what kind of innovation best protects the long-term resilience of our ecosystems, pollinators, and rural industries.

For beekeepers, the precautionary principle matters because once ecological changes spread across landscapes, reversal may be impossible. Beekeepers understand better than most that ecosystems do not operate in isolation. Bees forage across entire landscapes without regard for property lines or regulatory boundaries. Once genetically engineered plants enter open environments, pollen movement and ecological interaction become almost impossible to fully contain.

That is why those in apiculture should see this Bill less as a cautious scientific step and more like standing on the edge of a bridge. Once New Zealand jumps, there may be no practical way to return to the biological purity, traceability, and environmental reputation that currently underpin our honey industry.

Who’s to Gain?

New Zealand does not need to follow global trends simply because larger countries or multinational interests may be moving in that direction. Our ecosystems, export reputation, food and biodiversity are uniquely fragile – and once the jump is made, there is no going back. The waters below are not clear. They are uncertain, constantly shifting, and filled with risks we may not fully understand until long after the jump has been made.

For many beekeepers, growers, and environmentally conscious New Zealanders, that is not a gamble worth taking. And again, who is asking New Zealand to jump? It’s not the people. It’s not the ordinary New Zealanders calling for this genetic manipulation in our food systems.

The growing concern around the influence of those positioned to benefit financially from the expansion of gene technologies is also something to note. It raises serious questions when individuals or corporations are heavily involved in shaping policy to which they stand to profit from. That presents a conflict of interest (at the very least) and risks placing corporate priorities ahead of the long-term interests of New Zealand people, farmers, animals, and the environment.

Around the world, major multinational companies involved in genetically engineered seed, agrichemical, and pharmaceutical industries – including Bayer (which acquired Monsanto), Syngenta, Corteva Agriscience, and BASF – have invested heavily in expanding the global use of patented GE seeds and related chemical systems. Critics argue these models can create ongoing dependence on proprietary products, licensing agreements, and agrichemical inputs, shifting more control of food production away from farmers and into the hands of multinational corporations. There has been extensive outcry from Indian cotton farmers.

New Zealand’s strength has always been its independence, clean-green reputation, world-leading agricultural science, and the trust global consumers place in our products. We should be extremely cautious about handing over our food systems and natural environment to overseas corporate interests whose primary responsibility is ultimately to shareholders – not to New Zealand’s land, biodiversity, or future generations.

Josie Sage is the general manager of Ceracell Beekeeping Supplies, based in Auckland. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Biochemistry from Canterbury University, and a Masters in business management from the University of Auckland.