Good afternoon

 

This is just a quick note to apologise for the delay in getting back to
you regarding your official information request. It has taken us a bit
longer than usual to get some of the information together. I will have a
response to you on Tuesday 7 June 2022.

 

Kind regards

Shelley

show quoted sections

Good afternoon

 

Thank you for your 11 May 2022 email request for information under the
Official Information Act 1982.  You requested information on the
following:

 1. Did any case study groups discuss biotech/gene technology/gene editing
other than the 'four industry case studies' as per the 2021/02 Lewis
et al Working Paper? If so please list the names of the case study
groups

2) Please supply all specific questions (prepared and 'off the cuff')
supplied to participants in all the case study rounds where modern
biotech/gene technology was discussed.

3) Please confirm how many participants were in the case study groups
where modern biotech/gene technology was discussed.

4) Where case studies discussed modern biotech/gene technology, please
confirm which groups from regenerative / organic / healthy or premium
value added food sector / and Mâori food producing operators were invited
into the consultation and who also participated in the consultation.

5) In the Four industry case studies Working paper 2021/02 -
a. Please disclose the institutions/companies employed the individuals
identified as the 'stakeholders' on p.35 that led to this statement:
Stakeholders expressed concern that restricted access to GM tools is
inhibiting the industry’s ability to prepare for biosecurity threats. They
said the current regulatory regime is also acting as a barrier to
innovation and the ability to seize significant opportunities, as well as
protect existing markets..

b. Please confirm whether any stakeholders involved in the 2021/02 working
paper (either in informing the questions, or as participants) included any
persons who were also involved in consulting, advising or providing
information to the Royal Society Te Apârangi concerning gene editing.

c. Please identify if biotechnology, genetic modification, gene editing
and regulation were asked in the in-depth interviews with 17 experienced
iwi and Mâori business people that led to this paper: He Manukura.
Insights from Mâori frontier firms.

 

6) These questions are important because we can see that of the 80
submittors to this inquiry, only 2 mentioned biotech/gene technology and
these were connected to the development and IP 'end' of production, and
connected to medical research. None of the major agricultural industries,
nor Maori organisations, submitted formally to alter regulations relating
to gene technology, and gene editing and the issues relating to outdoors
release and the protection of indigenous varieties from contamination was
not discussed in the He Manukura. Insights from Mâori frontier firms
report. Neither the specific dairy paper [1] nor the Landfall paper
duscussed the issue of gene editing either.

 

New Zealand Productivity Commission response to each question:

 

1)      There were no case study groups outside the four, so the answer is
no

2)      See attached document “Engagement Questions – Horticulture – Plant
and Food. Also see attached pdf with additional questions from New Zealand
Productivity Commission to MPI and GM food labelling.

3)      The engagement meeting with the most extensive discussion of GM
regulation was with Zac Hanley from Plant and Food. Mr Hanley was the only
participant in the zoom meeting apart from two Productivity Commission
staff – see attached notes from the meeting. Other meetings with single
outside participants that touched on GM were with Malcolm Bailey, Simon
Tucker and Peter McBride. Please note: the attached notes have some
information redacted where it relates to the commercial approaches of two
Plant and Food clients. The release of this information would unreasonably
prejudice their commercial positions, so it has been removed.

4)      The Productivity Commission met with Professor Caroline Saunders
of Lincoln University and discussed premiums on value added foods. It met
with New Zealand Apples and Pears and with the Sustainability Council of
New Zealand.

5)      a. The organisations were Plant & Food, Fonterra, DCANZ, and
Trinity Lands, and Ministry for the Environment.

b. We do not hold this information.

c. No specific questions on these topics. These topics were not the focus
in this part of our inquiry. However, we did recommend in our final report
(see Rec 10.4) that a review of GMO regulations should consider the
recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal report WAI262, in particular,
those relating to GM legislation.

6)   Please note that the Productivity Commission published a draft report
and invited submissions on it. One submission came from the Sustainability
Council of New Zealand and another from NZ Apple      and Pears (see our
website), and we subsequently met with two people from the Council (Simon
Terry and Stephanie Howard). We took account of this feedback in our final
report.

 

If you wish to discuss our response with us, please feel free to contact
me at the details below.

 

You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman
regarding the Commission’s response. Information on how to make a
complaint is available at [1]www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800
802 602.

 

Yours sincerely

Shelley Catlin

  

show quoted sections