‘You f***ing muppets!’: Government Genetic Engineering announcement met with public backlash

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Science, Innovation and Technology Minister Judith Collins announced their intention to lift the country’s nearly 30-year ban on genetic engineering outside the laboratory yesterday.

The decision, heralded by the government as a step towards advancing health, productivity, and “climate resilience,” has been met with a wave of criticism and anger across social media.

Luxon took to Twitter to share the news, stating, “This morning Judith Collins and I announced an end to New Zealand’s nearly 30-year ban on gene technology outside the lab in a move which will bring health, productivity, and climate gains for Kiwis.”

He justified the move by claiming New Zealand had fallen behind other nations such as Australia, England, Canada, and several European countries, which have already embraced genetic engineering for the benefit of their populations and economies. “That’s not right, so we’re ending the ban,” Luxon declared.

The announcement quickly sparked a torrent of responses on social media, with many New Zealanders expressing their deep dissatisfaction and concern over the decision. One of the most common calls was for the government to put the issue to a national referendum, reflecting widespread sentiment that such a significant policy shift should be decided by the public, not unilaterally by the government.

“You need to put that to a NATIONAL referendum!!!!” one user demanded, while another accused Luxon of ignoring public opinion, stating, “Nobody wants gene technology…. You’re just another WEF puppet.”

Critics also pointed out the potential risks to New Zealand’s agricultural sector, which has long marketed itself as a producer of clean, green, and genetically unmodified food. “Yeah, so losing our competitive advantage… this has to be the worst decision from a government in New Zealand I’ve ever seen,” read one particularly scathing tweet.

Others highlighted the potential dangers of releasing genetically modified organisms into New Zealand’s unique environment, drawing parallels to past ecological missteps, referencing gain of function experimentation in Wuhan and the subsequent promotion of an ineffective and unsafe gene therapy, marketed to the public as a COVID ‘vaccine’

“What could possibly go wrong? It’s not like we have a history of unintended consequences from introducing new species or technologies into ecosystems. Oh wait, we do. Remember when we introduced rabbits, stoats? Good times,” another user commented.

“Did I miss the referendum about genetically modified substances pushed onto New Zealanders? The trial mRNA gene therapy injection has caused huge issues in NZ, as you know. Were you both exempted from the needle?”

“Genetic engineering does not improve health, it creates the complete opposite effect by contaminating our food supply. New Zealanders do not want this. We should be producing, clean green organic food – that is what will keep us and the rest of the world healthy.”

You F*cking Muppets! This is precisely what we don’t want; more gene technology in our medicines and food chain, as well as kowtowing to the climate gods (aka the World Economic Forum, United Nations & the New World Order)@COUNTERSPIN111

— Counterspin Zulu (Pronouns Told/You/So) (@CounterspinZ) August 12, 2024

Beyond environmental and health concerns, there was also significant apprehension about the economic and corporate implications of lifting the ban. Many voiced fears that the move could lead to increased control by multinational profit-hungry biotech companies over New Zealand’s agricultural sector, with one tweet warning, “We don’t want New Zealand’s agricultural sector to become the Monsanto show, do we?”

The current ban is the result of a widespread public opposition to genetic engineering in the early 2000s, spearheaded by an effective public information campaign by Greenpeace which mobilised tens of thousands of people across the country.

In the late 1990s Greenpeace began urging the government to impose a moratorium on the release of GE organisms into the environment and the use of GE ingredients in foods. The campaign gained significant momentum with the establishment of a consumer network called ‘Genetic Detectives’ and the publication of GE-Free guides, leading to widespread public opposition to GE technology. By the early 2000s, the GE campaign had become one of Greenpeace’s main efforts, culminating in large-scale public demonstrations, including a 2003 march of 35,000 people in Auckland, demanding the continuation of the GE moratorium.

The public campaign efforts successfully mobilised public opinion and influenced major food companies to adopt GE-free policies. The campaign remains a prime example of public activism in New Zealand.

In response to the concerns, the government established the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification in 2000 to explore the issue thoroughly.

The Royal Commission’s report, released in 2001, recommended that New Zealand proceed with caution regarding genetic engineering, which led to the government imposing strict regulations. These regulations effectively created a moratorium on the commercial release of GMOs into the environment, though genetic research continued within controlled laboratory environments.

But one leading scientist has welcomed the New Zealand government’s announcement, citing “missed opportunities” due to “outdated regulations.” Professor Mike Bunce told state media there was a need for a nuanced discussion about the benefits of specific genetic technologies rather than a blanket opposition.

Significant concerns among the public remain, and include:

• Genetic engineering could potentially lead to the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the wild, which might disrupt local ecosystems. For example, if genetically modified crops crossbreed with wild relatives, it could lead to a loss of biodiversity or create “superweeds” resistant to herbicides.
• GE crops that are engineered to be pest-resistant might harm non-target species, such as beneficial insects like bees and butterflies, which could have broader ecological consequences.
• New Zealand is known for its clean, green image, which is a significant marketing advantage for its agricultural products. Introducing GE could damage this image, potentially leading to a loss of trust among consumers, especially in export markets like Europe and Asia, where there is strong resistance to GMOs.
• The perception of New Zealand as a pristine, natural environment is also a draw for tourists. The introduction of GE could affect the country’s appeal as a destination known for its unspoiled nature.
• Many countries have strict regulations against GMOs, and New Zealand’s agricultural exports could be impacted if key markets refuse to accept genetically engineered products. This could lead to economic losses, especially in the dairy and meat industries, which are major export sectors.
• If GE crops are introduced, there may be significant costs associated with keeping GE and non-GE products separate to meet the demands of different markets, which could increase production costs for farmers.
• Historically there has been considerable public resistance to genetic engineering in New Zealand, and lifting the ban could lead to social unrest or protests. Public concerns are often rooted in ethical considerations, such as the unnaturalness of genetic modification and its long-term effects on future generations.
• Some Māori have cultural objections to genetic engineering, particularly if it involves altering native species.
• The safety of GE foods for human consumption is not settled and is subject to ongoing debate. While many studies, usually those funded by multinational ‘Big Food’ companies indicate that GE foods are safe, some opponents argue that long-term health effects are not fully understood and that more research is needed to ensure their safety.
• Some genetic engineering techniques involve the use of antibiotic resistance markers, which could theoretically contribute to the broader problem of antibiotic resistance, posing a public health risk.
• Introducing genetic engineering would require robust regulatory frameworks to manage and monitor GE organisms. This could strain government resources and require significant investment in new regulatory infrastructure.
• New Zealand’s biosecurity is already a top priority due to its unique environment and reliance on agriculture. GE could introduce new biosecurity risks that are challenging to manage, especially if unintended gene flow occurs between GE and non-GE organisms.