Court ruling highlights the dangers of RMA reforms

/in , , , ,

A new court ruling highlights how the Government’s RMA reforms will ride roughshod over public participation in resource management and the power of councils to regulate the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within their territories, says Soil & Health Association chair Marion Thomson.
On Friday the High Court rejected Federated Farmers’ bid to oppose court costs for its failed challenge to members of the public and councils that seek to manage the outdoor use of GMOs under RMA plans. Costs have now been awarded against Federated Farmers for a second time.
“Not only has Federated Farmers now been ordered to pay court costs of more than $10,000 to the Whangarei District Council and the Soil & Health Association, but the High Court found it was not acting in the public interest.
“In fact Justice Peters noted Federated Farmers ‘brought these proceedings because it was in its members’ interest to do so’.
“The National-led Government’s Resource Legislation Amendment Bill will jeopardise local authorities’ ability to manage GMO land use by giving the Environment Minister new powers to override council planning rules.
“These reforms threaten the economic sustainability of a wide range of agricultural export activities reliant on GMO-free status, and would override the ability of councils to respond to community concerns about the planting of GMO crops in their area.
“Friday’s ruling further entrenches the legal rights of councils and communities.
“Environment Minister Nick Smith believes genetic modification should be regulated on a national level by the Environmental Protection Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO), not under the Resource Management Act.
“He is no doubt under pressure from Federated Farmers who choose to ignore the fact that while HSNO controls the introduction of new organisms (including GMOs), it is the RMA which oversees the environment new organisms are introduced into.
“Nick Smith is being mischievous in suggesting the management of genetically modified organisms under the RMA will stop access to the development of GMO medicines. He conveniently overlooks the fact that GMO veterinary vaccines are already permitted under the Auckland Unitary Plan.
“The Minister’s claims that GMOs were only ever intended to be regulated under HSNO have now been found to be wrong by both the Environment Court and High Court.
“Nick Smith must protect the ability of councils to act in the best interests of their ratepayers and local producers by amending his Bill to explicitly exclude using these new powers to regulate the release of GMOs.
“There are huge uncertainties around the adverse effects of GMOs on natural resources and ecosystems. The risks are large and consequences irreversible.
“If GMOs were to be released into the environment, they would be very difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. There is also potential for serious economic loss to regions marketing their products and tourism under New Zealand’s ‘clean green’ brand,” Marion Thomson says.

Comprehensive New Review of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Underscores Urgent Need for Global Action

/in , , ,

In a “state of the science” review released today, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International presents a large body of research documenting the adverse human health and environmental impacts of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides and underscores the need for these to be phased out globally. Environmental and health advocates say the monograph on the world’s most widely used herbicide, commonly known as Roundup, should serve as a wake up call for regulators, governments and users around the world.

Adverse human impacts detailed in the review include acute poisoning, kidney and liver damage, imbalances in the intestinal microbiome and intestinal functioning, cancer, genotoxicity, endocrine disruption, reproductive and developmental reduction, neurological damage, and immune system dysfunction.

Aggressive public relations and marketing by glyphosate’s developer, Monsanto, has resulted in the widespread perception that the chemical is ‘safe’. Registration processes continue to allow its use without raising concerns about its safety even as new data identifying adverse effects emerge.

This review dispels the so-called safety claims and highlights the urgent need to re-examine the authorization of products containing glyphosate. A full chemical profile is presented, along with the regulatory status of products containing glyphosate in many countries and information on viable alternatives.

Glyphosate is included in PAN International’s “List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides” (1) targeted for global phaseout. The global network is calling for the herbicide to be replaced by agroecological approaches to weed management in diversified cropping systems and non-crop situations.

Glyphosate is currently sprayed on numerous crops and plantations, including about 80% of genetically engineered (GE) crops. It is also used as a pre-harvest desiccant, so crops such as wheat have a uniform moisture content at harvest time. This practice results in high glyphosate residues in foods. It is also widely used in home gardens and public places including roadsides, and semi-natural and natural habitats. Due to its widespread use, residues are now detected in different types of foods, drinking water, wine and beer; and even in non-food products derived from GM cotton. The extent of human exposure is confirmed by the presence of glyphosate in human urine wherever it has been tested, principally in Europe and North America. It has also been found in breast milk in the USA.

The 2015 classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen has resulted in widespread concern about its continued use, especially pre-harvest and in public places.

Some countries, including Sri Lanka, Italy and France have imposed a partial ban and/or phase out of the spraying of glyphosate in agriculture and in public areas. The European Union has extended approval for glyphosate for only 18 months instead of the usual 15 years.

Environmental impacts detailed in the monograph are no less concerning, and include adverse effects on ecosystem functioning, pollination services, biological controls, soil fertility and crop health. Residues are widespread in the environment, including in rainwater, surface and ground waters, and the marine environment. Glyphosate can persist in some soils for up to 3 years; and there is some evidence of bioaccumulation.

Resistance to glyphosate is now recorded in 35 weed species and in 27 countries, mostly caused by the repeated use of glyphosate in GE crops, no-till agriculture, and amenity use.

Soil & Health NZ Inc. past co-chair Dr Elvira Dommisse points out that, “the monograph also contains a useful section on alternative weed management and provides information on a wide variety of non-chemical approaches to weed management in various situations. These are people-friendly and environmentally-friendly, resulting in weed management that is benign or even beneficial to ecosystems. We can and should embrace such methods to preserve and restore our soils and waterways and to minimise health risks to human and animals.”

MEDIA CONTACT

Dr Meriel Watts

PAN New Zealand

+64-21-1807830; merielwatts@xtra.co.nz

Dr Elvira Dommisse

021 0575 123 elvira@clear.net.nz

References:

The full Monograph review can be accessed here:  https://pan-international.org/wp-content/uploads/Glyphosate-monograph.pdf 

Supporting document:

(1)  PAN International’s “List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides”

https://pan-international.org/wp-content/uploads/PAN_HHP_List.pdf

Quotes from PAN International representatives:

Keith Tyrell, Director, PAN-UK:

“This new study from PAN International’s team of scientists clearly shows that glyphosate can cause a multitude of health and environmental problems. Our regulators need to wake up and ban this chemical now.”

Dr Meriel Watts, PAN New Zealand:

“The time has come for global recognition of the widespread harm caused to people and the environment from the constant use of glyphosate. For too long regulators have ignored the mounting evidence of damage, hiding behind unpublished studies by Monsanto, which not surprisingly paint a picture of a benign chemical startlingly at odds with reality.”

Fernando Bejarano, PAN Mexico (RAPAM)

“The intrinsic hazards of glyphosate and their use in tolerant transgenic crops are unacceptable if we want to achieve a sustainable food system, so we need a global phase out and a shift in policies promoting instead agroecological alternatives for weed control and crop rotation in diversified crop systems.”

Dr. Peter Clausing, PAN Germany:

“In 2017 the European Chemicals Agency has to decide whether it accepts the compelling evidence for glyphosate’s carcinogenicity and declares it a carcinogen. This would be an overdue acknowledgement of the reality.”

Dr. Emily Marquez, staff scientist, PAN North America:

“The glyphosate mess illustrates the problems with industrial agriculture. Farmers are again trapped on a pesticide treadmill, as widespread adoption of Monsanto’s genetically engineered “Roundup-Ready” crops resulted in glyphosate-resistant superweeds. And yet again, human health impacts of the chemical come to light after years of widespread use. It’s time to shift away from this failing cycle of chemical reliance.”

Jayakumar Chelaton, PAN India

“Every month we get a new story of how glyphosate is harming people in the farms and off farms in rural India. It is clearly damaging people and planet.”

Sarojeni V. Rengam, PAN Asia and the Pacific

“Glyphosate is a highly hazardous pesticide. There are other ecosystem based non-chemical alternatives that do not require the use of such hazardous herbicides.  We therefore urge Monsanto and other agrochemical corporations to stop the production and marketing of glyphosate in order to ensure the health of people and the environment.”

Dr Angeliki Lyssimachou, PAN Europe

“This remarkable compilation of scientific studies reveals that glyphosate-based pesticides -despite what their manufactures’ claim- are far from ‘safe’. Hundreds of non-industry funded studies show that these products are gradually poisoning our people, our environment and its ecosystems. Regulators must stop playing blind and take action to ban all uses of glyphosate.”

GE Free from the Bombays to Cape Reinga

/in , , , , ,

GE Free Northland and the Soil & Health Association are celebrating the Far North and Whangarei District Councils’ decisions to retain precautionary and prohibitive genetically modified organisms (GMOs) provisions in their new District Plans.  This follows Auckland Council’s recent decision to retain similar precautionary and prohibitive GMO provisions in the new Unitary Plan.  The result of which is a GE Free northern peninsula from the Bombay Hills to Cape Reinga.

Whangarei District councilors voted unanimously last week to protect the community, local economy, and environment from the risks of outdoor uses of GMOs.  Their neighbours in the Far North voted a week earlier to introduce similar rules to their District Plan.

“These decisions, and our recent victory in the High Court, represent a huge win for Northland.  Our elected representatives are to be congratulated for their tenacity and commitment in supporting the aspirations of their constituents and protecting our biosecurity,” said Martin Robinson, spokesperson for GE Free Northland.

In June this year, GE Free Northland together with the Soil & Health Association gathered a panel of expert witnesses, mana whenua, and community representatives, to present evidence to the independent commissioners at the councils’ hearings on GMOs.  Both groups offered strong support for the District councils’ proposed precautionary approach to outdoor GE experiments, strict liability provisions, and outright ban on the release of GMOs.

“This is necessary because of serious deficiencies in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act).  Government agencies have a poor track record in containing outdoor GE experiments, and the law has very limited liability provisions for damage” said Soil & Health Chair Marion Thomson.  “The GMO policies they have now adopted are a sophisticated, collaborative, and fiscally prudent response.”

For more than a decade the Far North District and Whangarei District Councils have worked with the Auckland and Northland Regional Councils to plot a path that works for farmers, the wider community, and the environment.  The councils’ decisions to adopt the independent commissioners’ recommendations help protect the Northland region’s GM Free status, biosecurity, economy, and environment by requiring additional local protections that are not required by the national regulator, the Environmental Protection Authority, under the HSNO Act, with an outright prohibition of release of GMOs.

“Environment Minister Nick Smith has tried to portray local bodies as anti-science and anti-progress.  His claims are untrue, unjustly attempting to denigrate the robust course that our councils have charted,” said GE Free Northland’s Chair Zelka Grammer.

Despite the minister’s statements, the global Non-GMO food market is currently valued at US$250 billion, and trends show this is only going to grow.  It is clear that New Zealand producers benefit from access to this huge non-GMO market.

Soil & Health and GE Free Northland combined represent more than 10,000 members and supporters, including primary producers and consumers, both organic and conventional, who want to avoid genetically modified organisms and products made from them.

CONTACT

Marty Robinson

Spokesperson, GE Free Northland

022 136 9619

Marion Thomson

Chair, Soil & Health Association

027 555 4015

Zelka Linda Grammer

Chair, GE Free Northland

022 309 5039

GMO COURT RULING PROTECTS ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

/in , , ,

New Zealand’s biotech industry is not under threat as a result of a High Court ruling upholding an Environment Court’s decision to give regional councils control over use and release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their district, says the Soil and Health Association.

The High Court ruling on Wednesday was based on an appeal by Federated Farmers, which argued the release of GMOs was already regulated by the Environmental Protection Authority and regional councils were not qualified to make such decisions.

Donald Nordeng of BioGro New Zealand says the ruling protects GMO use in healthcare and in agriculture as a whole.

“This ruling confirms that under the Resource Management Act, regional and territorial local authorities can manage the use of GMOs in the same way as any other land use. This does not impact on GMOs used in medicine or the treatment of people.”

“This will not impact on our health industry. A hospital will not need a local consent to undertake its medical work.

“This landmark ruling is about having clarity about the distinction between GMO areas and non-GMO areas and allowing local communities to have a say in the GMO policies in their areas.

“There is no economic or technical reason why outdoor use of GMOs should not be subject to regional and district plans – like everyone else. GMO use, even when approved by the EPA still is not risk free. For example, management accidents could wipe out a neighbouring organic or non-GMO producer’s livelihood, or lead to the loss of GE free status for wider areas.

“This ruling benefits everyone in New Zealand. The global organic food market is currently valued at US$80 billion, with the global Non-GMO market at US$250 billion, and trends show this is only going to grow. All New Zealand farmers benefit from access to this massive non-GMO market, not just organic farmers. This ruling protects our valuable organic export market (worth approximately NZ$240-250 million in 2015) and provides a safe source of supply to the two-thirds of New Zealanders who choose organic products at least some of the time,” Nordeng said.

For more information: Effie Lochrane 027 433 6373 / Anna Kominik 027 472 4293

High Court ruling on GE a win for democracy

/in , , ,

The High Court has today upheld the ruling that regional councils do have the right to decide on the provisions, policies, and rules regarding the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their region.

 

The Soil & Health Association (Soil & Health) celebrates this landmark decision as a win not only in the fight against genetic engineering (GE) and keeping a clean green Aotearoa, but also for democracy as it allows community values and concerns about GMOs to be taken into account when drafting regional policy instruments.

 

Judge Mary Peters ruled in favour of the Whangarei District Council (WDC), Northland Regional Council (NRC), Soil & Health, GE Free Northland and others, dismissing the appeal on all questions raised by the appellants Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Federated Farmers).

 

“We welcome this landmark ruling,” said Soil & Health chair Marion Thomson. “It confirms the ability of all local councils to determine GE policies in their areas. We support communities around the country who want to keep Aotearoa New Zealand clean, green and GE-free.”

 

The decision comes after Federated Farmers appealed the Environment Court’s ruling in May 2015 that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act (RMA) for local councils to control the use of GMOs via regional policy instruments.

 

Federated Farmers challenged that decision in the High Court in February this year where they argued that local government “has no role” in legislating about GMOs and that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO), not the RMA, is the overarching legislation that governs how GMOs are used in New Zealand.

 

Judge Mary Peters however stated in her decision today that the Environment Court “was conscious of the overlap between the RMA and HSNO but it was not persuaded that overlap required a conclusion that GMOs (and other new organisms) are required to be excluded from consideration in the promulgation of a regional policy statement or plan.”

 

Background:

Much of the New Zealand public today is still under the impression that New Zealand is a GE-free nation. The truth however is more complex.

1.     GE in the environment: The moratorium on GE organisms (such as crops and animals) in the environment was lifted in 2003, but since then no applications have been made for commercial release, although there are and have been GE field trials.

2.     GE in food and animal feed: While we do not grow any GE crops or animals, there are many imported GE ingredients in our food. As of July 2012 Food Standards Australia New Zealand has approved 53 applications of 71 different GE food lines into our country, and an estimated 70% or more of processed non-organic foods for sale in New Zealand contain GE ingredients. In addition to human food, New Zealand imports large quantities of animal feed which is almost certainly genetically engineered.

 

Significant gaps exist in the law around GMOs in New Zealand. There is a lack of strict liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO, and no mandatory requirement for the Environmental Protection Authority to take a precautionary approach to the outdoor use of GMOs. Under the HSNO Act there is no requirement for ‘polluter pays’ to ensure companies causing unintended or unforeseen adverse impacts from GE crops of GE animals are held responsible. Due to these gaps in the law, a number of councils around New Zealand have been moving to protect their primary producers and communities by introducing precautionary or prohibitive policies.

 

The Northland Regional Council is one such council which, after receiving hundreds of submission from Northland ratepayers, district councils, Northland Conservation Board, iwi authorities, hapū and community groups, choose to adopt a precautionary approach around the outdoor release of GMOs in the proposed Northland Regional Policy Statement. The Northland Regional Council also identified GMOs as an issue of significance for Northland tangata whenua and an issue of concern for Northland Communities in their Regional Policy Statement.

 

Federated Farmers of New Zealand lodged an appeal with the Environment Court in 2015 opposing these precautionary GMO provisions in the Northland Regional Policy statement. Principal Environment Court Judge L. Newhook however found that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act for regional councils to make provision for the outdoor use of GMOs through regional policy statements and plans. Since comprehensively losing the appeal (which it initiated) on all points of law, Federated Farmers filed a second appeal against the Environment Court’s decision with the High Court.

 

Soil & Health, GE Free Northland, Taitokerau mana whenua, Far North District Council and several other groups and individuals joined the appeal in the High Court as section 274 (interested) parties pursuant to the RMA, in support of respondents Northland Regional Council and Whangarei District Council. Soil & Health was represented by Dr. Royden Somerville QC and Robert Makgill.

 

Dr Somerville argued that Environment Court Judge L. Newhook was correct in his decision that the RMA and HSNO Act hold complementary and not overlapping roles. The two Acts offer different purposes and functional responses to the regulation of GMOs in New Zealand. Thus, regional planning documents can control the use of GMOs as part of promoting sustainable management under the RMA, taking account of regional needs. This argument has today been confirmed by High Court Judge Mary Peters.

 

Soil & Health and GE Free Northland combined represent more than 10,000 members and supporters, including consumers and producers, both organic and conventional, who want to avoid GE. Soil & Health believes that there is no economic, health or environmental case for GMOs. There are huge uncertainties around the adverse effects of GMOs on natural resources and ecosystems. The risks are large and consequences irreversible. If GMO’s were to be released into the environment, they would be very difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. There is also potential for serious economic loss to regions marketing their products and tourism under New Zealand’s ‘clean green’ brand, if GMO land use were permitted.

 

CONTACT

Marion Thomson
Chair, Soil & Health Association
027 555 4014

 

Organic dairy farmers reaping just rewards

/in , ,

The huge rise in the milk payout to organic dairy farmers is a welcome encouragement for the dairy sector to move towards clean, green and high-value production, according to the Soil & Health Association.

Fonterra just announced a big jump in the milk payout to organic farmers, due to increasing global demand. For the 2016-17 season organic farmers will receive $9.20 per kg of milk solids, up from the current organic price of $5.65. Non-organic milk solids fetch just $3.90.

“Consumers worldwide are demanding safe, healthy food, and are prepared to pay for high quality, GE-free, organic dairy products,” said Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health.

“It’s great to see Fonterra responding to this demand,” Thomson said. “Their announcement is a much more positive backing of organic dairy farmers than we have seen from them in the past.”

New Zealand organic dairy consumption mirrors the global trend. Domestic organic milk sales reportedly rose by 50% in 2014, according to the recently released NZ Organic Market Report. Nearly all the growth in domestic milk sales in 2015 came from organic milk (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18f0vUhTC4w8HMZ1o_I4Kg5Uy7_applRv/view?usp=sharing

To meet the demand, Soil & Health says organic milk processing needs to be more widely accessible in all regions, including the South Island.

Soil & Health expects to see increased interest from farmers in converting to organics.

“Organic dairying not only brings in a decent income for farmers, it also results in cleaner rivers and healthier people,” said Thomson.

Organic dairy farms have a lower environmental footprint than conventional farms, with improved soils and reduced nitrate leaching, resulting in cleaner waterways. Organic farms have lower greenhouse gas emissions and greater carbon capture in the soil. They have lower stocking rates, but receive a premium for a high-value, healthy product.

“To help farmers make the transition to organics, Soil & Health would like to see the government reinstate the successful organic advisory programme,” said Thomson. “New Zealand urgently needs to shift away from environmentally unsustainable farming practices and big irrigation schemes, and instead focus on sustainable farming.”

About two thirds of producers who took up the organic advisory programme went on to convert to organics.

NOTE:

The Organic Advisory Programme was established as part of an agreement between the Green Party and Labour Government, and ran from 2006–2009. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU0906/S00692/organic-advisory-programme-ends.htm

MEDIA CONTACT

Marion Thomson, co-chair, Soil & Health
027 555 4014
advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Joining forces to clean up food and farming

/in , ,

The urgency of what’s happening to our food supply has motivated two key organic organisations to join forces. To counter industrial-style factory farming and food production, which is causing environmental degradation and ill health, Soil & Health and BioGro are working together to offer clean, green organic solutions.

The Soil & Health Association (publisher of OrganicNZ magazine)1 and BioGro Society (owner of the BioGro organic certification company)2 are discussing a merger, following the approval by both memberships in July 2015 to explore a variety of options. Both organisations are well established in their own right, and are taking the opportunity to join their expertise and resources and work together to enliven the organic sector.

“New Zealand needs live up to its clean, green image. We urgently need to shift towards high-value, safe, sustainable, GE-free organic farming, for the sake of our health, economy and environment,” said Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health.

“Organic food and farming can play a major role in countering rising health problems like cancer, allergies, diabetes and obesity,” Ms Thomson said.

“There is a big future for organics in New Zealand, and a strengthened and unified organic sector will highlight our successes and take a leadership role in sharing the solutions to current problems,” says Gaz Ingram, chair of BioGro Society.

“With changing weather patterns, we need robust and sustainable ways of producing food and fibre,” Mr Ingram said.

As consumers increasingly demand clean, safe, GE-free, organic, ethical food and other products, there is a growing need for a strong, unified organic sector that can represent and advocate for consumers and producers alike.

The joint initiative is an exciting opportunity to combine forces and unite the two organisations, whose values and goals are very closely aligned.

A working party which includes members from Soil & Health’s National Council and BioGro Society’s board is developing a strategic direction that will see a refreshed and united organisation that will capture the strengths, skills and resources of both organisations. A plan will go out to all members around March 2016. Members will vote at the AGMs of both organisations in July 2016.

NOTES
1.    The Soil & Health Association is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand. In 2016 it celebrates its 75th anniversary. Soil & Health was founded in 1941 as the Humic Compost Club by New Zealanders who were concerned about degraded soils, increasing refined foods, and the links of both of these with declining nutrition.
It promotes sustainable agricultural practices and principles of good health based on sound nutrition and the motto ‘Healthy soil – healthy food – healthy people’.
www.organicnz.org.nz

2.    The BioGro Society was formed in 1983 by Soil & Health, the Biodynamic Association and the Henry Doubleday Research Association, who saw the need for a credible and internationally respected organic standard and certification process, in order to safeguard the interests of producers and consumers.
The BioGro company (owned by the BioGro Society) is the premier organic certification agency in New Zealand. It certifies and accredits over 600 producers in New Zealand and the Pacific, is accredited to IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) and has an excellent reputation with domestic and export markets.
www.biogro.co.nz

Climate-friendly farming: we have the solutions

/in ,

We have good news for John Key! At the climate talks in Paris, Prime Minister John Key said that cost-effective technologies for reducing New Zealand’s agricultural emissions were not yet available.

 

However, according to the Soil & Health Association, not only do we already have the technology and the know-how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, but using this technology will also have multiple other benefits for our economy, our environment, our soils and waterways, and our health.

 

“We already have low-emission climate-friendly farming practices – it’s called organic farming,” said Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health.

 

Because nearly 50% of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from farming, we cannot continue to ignore this. By moving towards organic and biological farming, we will reduce carbon, methane and nitrous oxide emissions.

 

“Soil & Health is calling on the government to reinvest the taxpayer money going to the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, and instead use it to help farmers transition to organic practices,” said Thomson.

 

“The $20 million Mr Key just promised to the Alliance would be infinitely more effectively invested in growing the organic farming sector. Helping farmers transition to eco-friendly, climate-friendly organic farming will be good for our health, wealth and environment. What’s not to like about that?” asked Thomson.

The organic approach ticks all the right boxes. By farming organically, farmers can reduce stock numbers and still get the same income, because global markets are crying out for clean, green, pasture-fed, GE-free and organic food, and are prepared to pay a premium for it.

 

Lower stock numbers mean lower greenhouse gas emissions, as well as reducing the impacts on soils and waterways, which desperately need to be cleaned up.

Mixed pasture species including those with high tannins like birdsfoot trefoil can be grown to reduce methane emissions from ruminant animals.

In addition, organic farms have better soil structures and better soil moisture-holding capacity, which will help farmers cope with the effects of climate change that we are seeing already. Organic farms are more resilient in the face of floods and droughts.

 

Non-organic farms generally use pesticides that are either known or suspected carcinogens, so going organic will also reduce the nation’s health bill by reducing or eliminating the use of harmful chemicals.

 

 

MEDIA CONTACT:

Marion Thomson, co-chair, Soil & Health

027 555 4014

Maize spill shows risks of GE seed escape

/in , , , ,

New Zealand’s valuable GE-free status is under threat from biosecurity breaches, says the Soil & Health Association. Two spills in New Plymouth last week of maize imported from the USA show how it’s possible for genetically engineered seed to escape containment – and potentially grow.

“Well over 80% of maize grown in the US is genetically engineered, so there is a high likelihood of this seed being GE,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “MPI has claimed that the maize is not GE, but we want to see the documentation, such as certification and test results, to be assured of this.”

New Zealand imports hundreds of thousands of tonnes of seed to be milled for stock feed. Much of it, including maize/corn, soy, canola and cottonseed, comes from countries where these GE crops are widespread.

“Have there been other spills of viable GE seed that we don’t know about?” asks Thomson. “The longer we continue to import this seed, the greater the risks are from contamination, and reputation to New Zealand’s clean, green image and primary exports – including GE-free maize.”

“New Zealand needs to be more self-sufficient and grow more of our own maize,” says Thomson. “Especially in terms of pastoral and dairy farming we need to focus on healthy, biodiverse pastures and reduce our dependence on external inputs.”

Soil & Health agrees with the majority of Kiwis that New Zealand should be GE-free in our food and environment. This is part of a healthy lifestyle, environment and economy based on sustainable, organic farming and growing.

CONTACTS

Marion Thomson,

Co-chair, Soil & Health Association of NZ

027 555 4014

Will new farming leader jeopardise NZ’s GE-free advantage?

/in , , ,

The recent election of William Rolleston as president of Federated Farmers could mean a push towards genetic engineering (GE) in farming, warns the Soil & Health Association. Dr Rolleston has for many years been a proponent of GE, and some farmers, both organic and conventional, fear he may use his position to continue to promote the risky, unwanted and unnecessary technology.

“Markets the world over want clean, green, GE-free and organic food,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “New Zealand is in the perfect position to satisfy this demand by remaining GE-free in our farming and environment. It’s not just organic farmers who want to stay GE-free; many other producers, such as Pure Hawkes Bay, recognise the advantages.”

Federated Farmers has to date said that farmers should have the right to choose how they farm. However in practice GE crops cannot coexist with GE-free crops.

“Once the genie is out of the bottle there is no putting it back in,” says Thomson. “Overseas experience shows crop contamination causes huge problems for GE-free farmers, such as loss of markets, loss of organic certification and court cases.”

Soil & Health deplores the fact that millions of dollars of New Zealand taxpayers’ money has been spent on GE experiments over the past two decades, with no benefits yet produced. GE crops planted overseas have led to more pesticides being used, the rise of resistant pests and ‘superweeds’, and no long-term increases in yields. Our public money should instead be spent on agricultural research that will benefit everyone: farmers and consumers, our health, economy and the environment.

“Farmers already have great systems and know-how – we don’t need GE,” says Thomson. “Organic and biological practices provide particular benefits such as excellent soil health and structure, animal health, biodiversity, drought-resistance and nutrient density, plus organic products are free from nasty chemicals.”