[As published in May/June BayBuzz magazine]

There’s a bit going on in Scott’s life when we meet. 

His organic blueberry harvest is nearly wrapping up for the season, and he’s just finished recording a podcast for Organics Aotearoa New Zealand of which he’s the spokesperson. He’s squeezed me in before a visit down the line to attend a trade show. 

Scott Lawson has 6 hectares of blueberries planted not far from Bridge Pa. ‘We’re certainly not big,’ admits Scott, but the fruit does well here, favouring a low PH soil, high in organic matter. First grown commercially in the Waikato about 25 years ago, blueberries are now grown from Far North to Southland, although this will no doubt change as the climate does. 

Scott’s interest in sustainable foods started as a young boy looking for ways to make some pocket money, growing pumpkins in the family’s Twyford orchard. ‘Now we’re importing fresh pumpkin from Asia. And kumara,’ says Scott, pointing out how broken and industrialised our food system has become. “We don’t eat local and we don’t eat seasonally and we don’t eat fresh,’ he adds, telling me that frozen South American blueberries arrive here cheaper than what local growers can supply. 

Even food grown here is often shipped to a supermarket distribution centre in Auckland, then distributed all the way back to the supermarket in the Bay. ‘They call that progress,’ says a frustrated Scott dryly. 

True Earth Organics grows 15 varieties of the small round deep blue fruit, largely for the domestic market, with a premium grade and a ‘baking grade’, which is pretty much just cost recovery, says Scott, and sounds much fancier than ‘seconds’. 

Certified organic means grown in a biologically active manner, and that means soil, rather than the somewhat less organic sounding ‘growing media’ often based on coconut husk. But it also means managed in a way to increase biological activity. GMO and pesticide-free are givens. There’s even a mantra: healthy soil equals healthy food equals healthy people, says Scott, repeating it again for emphasis. 

The organics industry is a billion dollar business in New Zealand, in 2020 we exported $420 million dollars worth, which is not to be sneezed at. “We need to protect and enhance our natural capital. Our soils and our water.” Scott is pretty resolute on that. 

The food system is pretty fragile the way Scott sees it. There are no commercially grown capsicums or tomatoes in the Bay anymore. Market gardens in the fruit bowl of New Zealand are closing. Scott estimates we had about 20 at the start of 2000 and thinks there’s about half a dozen today. There’s a whole lot of reasons for the closures, and land use is a biggie. “In the Bay we’ve lost 10,000 acres of prime land in the last 40 years to housing and industrial development,” says Scott, quoting ex-MP Rick Barker. 

But if it’s not one thing it’s another … 

The Government’s 2023 legislation, the Organic Products and Protection Act, was designed to provide some sort of protection for growers like Scott. “It gives legal protection to the word organic,” he adds. The process took ten years to get the bill passed and it’s yet to be implemented. Hardly what you’d call moving with indecent haste. 

GMOs 

Where there is urgency, however, is in passing another piece of legislation – the Gene Technology Bill, which is doing the rounds as we speak. The bill, essentially designed to take the handbrake off the ban on GMO, covers two main areas, the medicinal side – T-cells for cancer treatments and insulin production, and food and the environment. 

On the food side, it’s legislation at complete odds with the Organics Protection Act and “it’s so poorly written it isn’t fit for purpose,” says Scott. 

Minister Judith Collins is unsurprisingly quite front foot about the bill. 

“This is a major milestone in modernising gene technology laws to enable us to improve health outcomes, adapt to climate change, deliver massive economic gains and improve the lives of New Zealanders,” says Collins, who added how proud she was to be driving these changes for the country. 

Our history with Genetic Modification in New Zealand is quite visceral. 

Following a 2001 Royal Commission, in the infamous 2002 ‘Corngate’ interview, journalist John Campbell asked Prime Minister Helen Clark if she had misled the commission, and covered up a release of genetically modified corn onto ‘our dinner plates over summer.’ A right kerfuffle followed, with the PM calling Campbell “a sanctimonious little creep”. 

The Royal Commission meanwhile concluded we should explore genetic technology, but “preserve our opportunities”. 

The role ‘Corngate’ played in making genetic engineering politically untouchable is probably one of the reasons MBIE notes in its advice to their boss that, “there may not be social licence for some of the potential uses” and “generally New Zealanders are more supportive of the use of gene technologies in healthcare and conservation than in food production and farming”. 

Scott and Organics Aotearoa New Zealand have commissioned the only economic impact report on the proposed legislation, using the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, who say: “If market perceptions that New Zealand is GE-free creates a premium of 24 percent over basic world prices, the loss of that perception would be worth $10.6 billion.” 

So if that’s what the government is prepared to risk, what are the ‘massive economic gains’ that has made the Minister so proud? 

It’s hard to say. MBIE, the government ministry who should have commissioned this sort of research, say they didn’t have time. Their Regulatory Impact Statement – a due diligence report that outlines the costs, benefits, and likely impacts of any proposed law – said: “We are unable to comprehensively quantify these expected benefits as technology development is uncertain.” 

The public consultation process on the bill was roundly criticised, even by the Regulatory Impact Statement, as at best minimal, buried over the Christmas/ summer break. “They cynically called for public submissions two weeks before Christmas,” says Scott, making it easier to understand his frustration. He is at a loss to explain the rush. 

What MBIE were more certain of was that there would be a cost to organic farmers like Scott if the bill becomes law. The report says: “The expected costs of the proposal are in unquantified costs to organic/non-GMO primary producers. There would also be additional costs for organic and other certified non-GMO supply chains to meet assurance requirements.” 

The “massive economic gains” Minister Collins claims for the Gene technology bill remain a mystery. 

The only example MBIE gives of how we might benefit from genetically modified food, is non-browning mushrooms that would stay white longer. They’re not great keepers mushrooms, and have a shelf life of only ten days. 

Again, it was left up to NZIER to uncover the real story. 

Like Dolly the sheep, the world’s first cloned mammal, and the dire wolf – recently made de-extinct in a Jurassic Park-like moment – non-browning mushrooms have had their DNA altered. 

Non-browning mushrooms were developed using gene editing technology called CRISPR by Penn State University back in 2015, a feat that got everyone all excited, until they weren’t, and a decade later we still don’t have non-browning mushrooms available in any meaningful commercial way. 

The NZEI report makes a good point. The removal of regulation alone doesn’t mean a successful economic outcome. Not every innovation makes it to market. 

If there is more risk than there is reward with the legislation, and given New Zealanders don’t seem particularly ready to embrace the “massive economic gains” to be made through the growing of non-browning mushrooms, why not carve off the food modification aspect of the bill entirely? 

It’s a strategy that OANZ are looking at, says Scott. If they can’t put the skids under the gene tech bill entirely, Scott believes limiting gene tech use to healthcare applications is certainly an option. 

But this too comes with a risk, as all tampering does. There’s no putting stuff back in the bottle. “Humans share 98.5% of our DNA with monkeys,” says Scott, to make the point. “You don’t have to change much for a completely different organism.” 

The gene tech bill is definitely something to think seriously about, but it’s also somewhat of a sideshow, according to Scott, overshadowing the fact that we’re not resourcing our food system. 

“We’re bad at marketing the importance of good quality food,” says Scott. “We could reduce poor health outcomes by investing in quality food production,” he adds. “We need a food strategy. Start with the basics, what do we need to resource food production. People, training, investment, supply the right seeds.” 

I wonder if Scott has thought about mentioning this to the powers that be in Wellington, as it’s the sort of thinking from which “massive economic gains” can be made. 

Food for thought indeed.

Scott Lawson. Photo: Simon Shattky