Caged Poultry Farmer’s Imprisonment Justifies Animal Liberators Efforts

/in , , ,

The New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) is to be congratulated for successfully prosecuting a poultry farmer for animal welfare offences, but should be exposing other cruel poultry farmers, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
Gerard Bogaart, trading as Golden Harvest Poultry, was yesterday sentenced by Judge McAuslan to 12 months in prison under the Animal Welfare Act for the wilful ill-treatment of broiler hens and roosters in his care and for two months concurrently for failing to provide for their physical, health and behavioural needs. (1)
“Considering Golden Harvest proudly quotes 46 years in the industry, audits of all large scale broiler hen and egg operations should be undertaken immediately,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. (2)
“Animal rights activists such as Animal Liberation Front, Auckland Animal Action and SAFE, have been doing fantastic public service in raising the attention of agencies and the public to the cruel practices followed by cage poultry farmers.”
“It appears that NZFSA only showed interest after the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), in 2007, publicised continued animal welfare issues by poultry farmer Gerard Bogaart, who had also been convicted in 1996 for cruelty to sheep in his care. Similar action by ALF in 2004 at Bogaart’s poultry operation had not inspired NZFSA it seems.”(3)
The NZFSA attention against Golden Harvest initially was to get compliance with food safety risk management plans. Animal welfare considerations only followed when enforcement against illegal egg and poultry sales was undertaken.”
“While NZFSA staff became deeply concerned with animal welfare considerations, they should not have waited for more than a year ahead of enforcement, while poultry continued to be treated in a cruel and disgusting way.”
“1100 birds had to be euthanased to relieve their suffering when action against illegal sales was finally taken. Action against all cruel poultry farmers needs to be taken immediately, whether illegally trading or not.”
NZFSA’s media release 25 May included;
“In early 2007 NZFSA served a notice of direction on the company to cease the sale of poultry and eggs as well as slaughter of poultry, which Mr Van Den Bogaart continued to disregard.
Prior to the operation, NZFSA had tried in vain to help Mr Van Den Bogaart make his operation compliant by developing a Risk Management Programme (RMP), which is a legal requirement for all poultry slaughterhouses and all egg producers with more than 100 female birds.
In June 2008 New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) investigators and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) investigators – assisted by police, local council officers and a veterinarian – executed NZFSA search warrants on two rural properties in South Auckland that Van Den Bogaart was operating from. This was done under provisions of the Animal Products Act on the basis of the suspected illegal slaughter and sale of poultry and eggs to a number of Auckland retailers.”
“Compliance with food safety was never going to attend to all animal welfare concerns, and NZFSA’s Risk Management Programme for poultry makes little difference to human health in NZ. However, the removal of all caged and crate farming operations would improve animal welfare conditions for millions of chickens, ducks, and pigs,” said Mr Browning.
“Clearly, Bogaart and his Golden Harvest operation was a bad example among poultry farmers, but all caged poultry farmers need immediate inspection.”
“Bogaart has been removed from his cruel business, but the leaders of the cruel caged poultry industry best not feel complacent. Thinking consumers and animal welfare proponents such as Soil & Health will not rest until the hens are out of the cages.”
Soil & Health supports humane free range and organic poultry farming which fits with its vision of an Organic 2020.
Notes:

Links accessed May 2010
(1) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2010/2010-01-22-van-den-bogaart-sentencing.htm
(2) http://www.finda.co.nz/business/listing/y0rl/golden-harvest-poultry/
(3) http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/72934/activists-liberate-25-battery-hens-convi

AgResearch’s Cruel Experiments Cover A Wide Range of Animals

/in , , ,

New revelations of cruel outcomes on experimental genetically engineered (GE) calves at AgResearch’s GE facility are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“AgResearch already has a bad track record with its Annual Reports to ERMA for GE cattle showing a less than 9 % live birth rate, deformed foetuses and calves, gangrenous udders and animals suffering from respiratory conditions,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.(1)
The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) last year also granted AgResearch permission to experiment on cats, dogs, pigs, guinea pigs, sheep, mice, rats, rabbits, possums, cattle, goats, and chickens using genetic material from almost any form of life.(2)
“How many cats and dogs, rabbits and guinea pigs, mice, cattle, and other animals are to suffer for AgResearch’s unnecessary experiments?”
“AgResearch’s media tour last year showed off apparently healthy cattle but they were just the lucky survivors. It is now evident that some calves ovaries were growing to the point of rupture, causing death, but the scientist in charge Dr Jimmy Suttie has been quoted as saying the deaths are not a big deal.”(3)
“Animal welfare is a big deal, especially when there are animal free alternative experimental and production methods for the compounds that AgResearch ultimately wants to produce,” said Mr Browning.
“Science Minister Wayne Mapp and Agriculture Minister David Carter have both shown acceptance of AgResearch’s poor animal welfare record, presumably a ‘pragmatic’ response to the dubious promises of high financial returns that AgResearch’s international partners have said will be coming.”
“However good animal welfare records and a GE free reputation are very important for New Zealand’s trading image and increasingly demanded by consumers. Cruel experiments for a GE farming future are not what either New Zealanders or valuable overseas consumers want.”(4)
“AgResearch is at the cruel operator end of a business partnership with a dirty drug manufacturer, Genzyme, who is under investigation by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) for poor manufacturing practices.” (5)
“Knowing that it would be a nuisance for AgResearch and its overseas partners, the government disbanded the New Zealand Bioethics Council a year ago in full knowledge that distressing animal welfare issues are clearly predictable in GE research. The Bioethics Council had been calling for ethics reviews of all GE animal experiments.” (6)
Soil & Health wants AgResearch’s cruel animal experiments stopped immediately, the reinstatement of the New Zealand Bioethics Council, and the government to quickly move towards desirable high value sustainable, animal friendly, GE free and organic production.

Notes:

Links assessed March 2010
(1) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/no/compliance/agresearch.html ERMA Annual reports on GMF98009 and GMD 02028
(2) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/BertDocs/GMD09011%20decision%20final%20(2009.09.04).pdf
“Donor genetic material may be derived from the Kingdoms Animalia, Planta, Fungi, Protista and Monera and viruses and viroids…”
(3) http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10642031
(4) https://soilandhealth.org.nz/media-releases/kiwi-poll-rejects-ge-animals/
(5) http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/genzyme/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&ndmConfigId=1019673&newsId=20100324005866&newsLang=en http://www.marketwatch.com/story/genzyme-to-pay-175-million-for-allston-plant-woes-2010-04-21http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2124303620100421
(6) http://www.mfe.govt.nz/website/closed-sites/images/bioethics.jpg New Zealand Bioethics Council, August 2004 Report: The Cultural, Ethical and Spiritual Dimensions of the Use of Human Genes in Other Organisms

ERMA GE Decision Smells of US and Political Influence

/in , , ,

The main benefactor of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) decision to allow the application by Crown Research Institute AgResearch a carte blanche application to genetically engineer (GE) cattle, sheep, and goats using a huge range of E.coli bacteria, human, mouse, sheep, goats, cattle, and viruses, and other material is the United States biotech company GTC Biotherapeutics (GTC), an offshoot of Genzyme Corporation, according to the Soil & Health Association.

“There has been panic on the part of AgResearch and its partner Genzyme ever since the earlier applications by AgResearch for GE animals were halted in June 2009 by the High Court through action taken by GE Free NZ,” said Soil & Health Association of NZ Spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“AgResearch should not have been presumptive in its contractual arrangements with GTC, but appeared to have had the indication from ERMA that they would get the earlier application approved. ERMA has been bending over backwards ever since to ensure AgResearch could meet its US partner’s needs. Even the US Secretary of State’s science and technology advisor Nina Federoff came calling on the government in late January.”(1)

“While ERMA  says the approval is purely for research,(2) AgResearch acknowledge it allows them to meet their contractual obligations (3), and GTC is very clear that AgResearch is to “establish appropriate transgenic founder production lines” (4), this is totally commercial and the New Zealand public are funding it to the tune of at least $8million with science funding(5). GTC’s contribution is only $200,000 but holds the US patents to any transgenic therapeutic mammalian milk proteins. (4)”

“The Chief Executive of ERMA ensuring GTC’s interests would be met, promptly ticked through AgResearch applications for indoor GE goats in December 2009 without public consultation even though ERMA acknowledged existing high public interest.”

“Highly conflicted Dr. Kieran Elborough, as chair of ERMA’s GM Standing Committee, and who had been involved with AgResearch through his own GE work in the past, renewed the consent duration of AgResearch’s existing GE cattle on 11 March 2010 for another 2.5 years. And on 1-2 March as chair of the ERMA Decision Making Committee heard the submissions about the GE sheep, cattle and goats. Soil & Health, on March 3, had again publicly exposed the Chair’s conflict of interest but on 8 March he met with the Committee on the decision-making task. On March 26 Dr. Elborough joined the board of a combined CRIs joint venture, and finally acknowledged a perceived conflict of interest and stood down on 29 March, leaving just one more meeting for the remaining 3 decision-makers.”

GTC is highly reliant on AgResearch and has been under serious financial pressure following product development failures, contaminated medicines, and penalty costs. In its annual report GTC acknowledges its survival relies on its partners and equity programs.

Excerpts from Genzyme’s financial statements September 2009 (7)

“We also have a development agreement in place with AgResearch in New Zealand for co-funding further development of selected follow-on biologics, particularly where European patents expire prior to U.S. patents…

…We have operated at a net loss since our inception in 1993, and we used $20.3 million of net cash in our operating cash flows during the first nine months of 2009. Our recurring losses from operations and our limited funds raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We are entirely dependent upon funding from equity financings, partnering programs and proceeds from short and long-term debt to finance our operations until we achieve commercial success in selling and licensing our products and positive cash flow from operations.”

Not only  is the New Zealand taxpayer spending precious taxpayers science funding money on GTC, it is at risk of being implicated in liability actions down the line as GTC’s parent Genzyme has a poor safety record in its medicines manufacture,” said Mr Browning.

“Viruses and inert contaminants have led to massive international alerts and the most recent events had the US Food and Drug Agency (FDA) on 26 March moving into a major Genzyme plant to enforce manufacturing practice regulations.”

From Genzyme’s own media release that day, “The FDA enforcement action will likely result in a consent decree, under which a third party would inspect and review the plant’s operation for an extended period and certify compliance with FDA regulations. Under a consent decree, Genzyme also would be required to make payments to the government and could incur other costs.”(8)

“Once again our taxpayer owned Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FoRST) is dishing out precious research money to big US corporates trading in risky dangerous activity. Another one that has gloated about NZ taxpayers money on its annual statement is Arborgen who want to be the Monsanto of GE trees internationally and are partnered with CRI Scion. Scion also benefitted from Dr Elborough signing off without public consultation another 8 years for a previously discontinued GE pine tree field trial in full knowledge of the history of non-compliance there.”

“New Zealand government agencies are tripping over themselves to get into bed with large US corporations, and run roughshod over the New Zealand public to avoid due process and corruptly give blanket approvals to their friends GE experiments.”

“It is no wonder with such disregard for fair process, precaution and law by the agencies, that protestors consider direct action.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 without risky GE or influence by US corporates over New Zealand’s science and decision making processes.

NOTES

Links accessed April 2010

(1)   http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/science+meeting+highlights+strong+tie…

(2)   http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/archives/media-releases/2010/mr-20…

(3)   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1004/S00040.htm

(4)   http://www.allbusiness.com/science-technology/experimentation-research/1…

(5)   The decision http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/find/WebResultsDetails.aspx?ID=1103

(6)   http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/contracts-law-licensing-agreements/1138…

(7)   http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=687…

(8)   http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/genzyme/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news…

Organic Sector Firmly Opposed To Genetically Engineered Animals

/in , , ,

Organic sector members opposed to AgResearch’s continuing efforts to experiment on genetically engineered (GE) animals have taken a look at the facility that threatens to further tarnish New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure branding. (1)
With the knowledge that the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) was both consenting non-notified applications for GE cattle and goats within the AgResearch Ruakura containment buildings, and was to consider further outdoor field trials there, attendees at the Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) conference in Hamilton in November took a spontaneous look at the current GE cattle grazing nearby.
The group including OANZ annual award winners James Millton of Millton Vineyard and Colin Ross, Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning, organic farmers, consultants, certification staff, writers and consumers expressed disappointment that inhumane and risky GE science was being government funded, although threatening the advantages of clean and sustainable production such as organic.
“While the GE cattle grazing at Ruakura looked healthy, they were the few GE experimental animals that had survived the less than 5% embryo success, still births, and gross birth deformities that AgResearch don’t want to be open about,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
Current GE cattle are from previously consented AgResearch GE field trials that ERMA have allowed to remain pending new applications for GE experiments to be processed. The expectation that ERMA would tick the AgResearch applications through, regardless of public and scientific concern, was not met when an appeal to the High Court by GE Free NZ had the applications declared invalid in June this year. Although AgResearch has, in turn, appealed the High Court decision, to be heard on 25 January, AgResearch and ERMA have continued to try and allow the AgResearch contractual obligations with overseas GE companies to be met, and both non-notified indoor applications and another outdoor GE field trial application including cattle, sheep, and goats have been lodged. (2,3)
“While the High Court process is still running, it is a mockery of the judicial system for ERMA to allow further applications for essentially the same purpose, and to have the public excluded from decisions allowing GE experimental animals to the mercy of scientists already proven to fail the animal welfare and ethical standards expected by the community.”
“With no public consultation, ERMA has also now allowed indoor GE goats to become bioreactors at Ruakura, in direct contradiction of the findings of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (RCGM) that recommended food-animals not be used as ‘bioreactors’. The ethical considerations have also been marginalised.”(4)
Groups such as the Soil & Health Association (5), GE Free NZ, Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR), Sustainable Future, and many individuals, including organic farmers, have also submitted to ERMA against AgResearch’s latest notified application for GE animal experiments on cattle, sheep and goats. Submissions closed on Friday 18 December.
“Genetic engineering of plants or animals is one of the biggest threats to our organic producers and New Zealand’s rapidly growing international trade in organic products.” said OANZ Chair Derek Broadmore.
“The growing organic sector presents the best possible image for New Zealand primary production overseas and leads in sustainable practices, yet it has to compete for funding with risky science that promotes products that consumers the world over have firmly rejected.”
“New Zealand and overseas consumers appreciate our clean green 100 % Pure NZ certified organic foods, why would we compromise that by allowing GE plants and animals into the New Zealand environment?”
In his submission opposing AgResearch’s current application, an organic farmer Mr Peter McPartlin said, “We farm, organically, 2000 acres in Marlborough producing prime Angus beef for the Asian markets and prime venison for the restaurant trade in Europe. Our marketing exploits the government funded “New Zealand Pure” brand and we have a heavy reliance on being perceived as clean, green and natural and GE free. None of our consumers in these markets ask for GE products in preference to natural ones – any scientist telling you otherwise is lying!”
“AgResearch GE field trial animals, milk and effluent is disposed of at the Ruakura site, with risk of contamination into surrounding land, stock and waterways,” said Mr Browning.
“Organic standards and production rules such as BioGro, have zero tolerance for GE, and any risk of contamination by GE animals or plants should be eliminated.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that includes a clean green and 100% Pure GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand.

Notes:

Links accessed May 2009
(1) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/focus/gm-cattle-amend.html

(2) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/BertDocs/ERMA200223%20Application%20summary%20-%20FINAL.pdf

(3) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/find/WebResults.aspx?search=GMD09016&submit.x=31&submit.y=11&submit=Search

(4) http://www.organicnz.org/ link at; Read the Soil & Health Association submission to ERMA requesting this application be declined !

NZ Free Range Pigs Farmers Deserve CoOL Support

/in , , ,

New Zealand pig farmers that are practising humane free-range animal management practices deserve the benefit of Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling (McoOL), and inhumane farmers need further ‘outing’ following SAFE’s expose of intensive pig farming, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“Good clear labelling on animal products including pork that shows the country of origin and farming style, should be available to New Zealand consumers who wish to choose their food ethically,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“The New Zealand pork industry which has been very disadvantaged by the lack of Country of Origin Labelling, with up to one million kg of pork imported weekly, must not let that disadvantage be used as an excuse for cruel farming practices here, but implement a labelling code of practice that supports its free-range farmers.”
SAFE’s (Save Animals from Exploitation) excellent work again exposed the cruelty of battery type pig farming this week along with comedian Mike King who had previously promoted NZ Pork in advertising.
“SAFE has shown up farming practices that are often hidden by poor retail labelling that disadvantages the farmers that show responsibility with animal welfare,” said Mr Browning.
“Ambiguous and misleading labelling that hides the Country of Origin of often cruelly raised imported pork combined with little effort by retailers to source humanely raised pork has encouraged cheap and cruel farming methods.”
“Clear labelling will support consumer choice of sustainable and ethically produced foods and encourage demand for products from the better farmers. Why should those that produce with humanity and environmental care be disadvantaged by poor labelling regulations.”
Soil & Health wants to see urgent implementation of Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling in New Zealand, as has happened just 2 months ago in the United States, along with a pork industry labelling code of practice that differentiates between free range and battery intensive raised pork.
Soil & Health is opposed to inhumane farming practices and has a vision of an Organic 2020. Organic farming standards do not allow the farming practices as SAFE has exposed.

GE Ingredients In Inghams Chicken Feed

/in , , ,

Inghams advertisements are misleading the public by claiming that their chicken products have no genetically modified ingredients, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“Inghams are taking huge advantage of consumer resistance to GE foods by making GM free claims in television and print advertising, yet hidden well away on their website in their GM Policy(1), they argue for their use of GE soy in chicken feed,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Soil & Health and Inghams both know that surveys show most consumers remain opposed to genetic engineering, whether in plants, animals, food or the environment. Consumers also prefer 100% New Zealand produced food with no added hormones or artificial colours, flavours or preservatives.”
“Chickens fed on genetically engineered soy or maize do not meet those consumers expectations and the Commerce Commission needs to act quickly against Inghams. Inghams chickens are fed with GE soy at least, and Ingham’s marketing varies from directly false to blatantly misleading.”
“Ingham’s bagged chicken advertisements strongly emphasise 100% New Zealand chicken and no GM ingredients, added hormones, artificial colours, flavours or preservatives. The advertisements for Ingham’s processed products such as Kiev, Kebabs, Fillets Nuggets, Chipees, and Burger Patties also proudly proclaim 100% New Zealand chicken, free of GM and various additives. However, Ingham’s are again mischievously misleading, with each product still containing some other artificial additive.”
“Ingham’s are also allowing Greenpeace supporters to be misled as the Greenpeace GE Free Food Guide, with its traffic light colour coding, has Ingham’s chicken in the ‘Orange CHANGING’ section due to Inghams’ previous statements.”
Greenpeace states; “Companies in the Orange section have committed to removing GE crop derived ingredients from their products and are in the process of doing so.
Greenpeace quotes from Ingham’s August 2007 website policy statement;
“Ingham’s is committed to continuing to source non-GM ingredients for its poultry products. We will use our best endeavours to source non-GM ingredients for poultry feeds – such raw materials must meet our quality standards, be available in substantial quantities and be economically sustainable. Our policy also includes a commitment to our customers that they would always be advised before any changes to the above.”
“Ingham’s on the contrary, have shown no commitment since they indicated a move to GE free feed some years back, nor have Ingham’s advised their customers that they are still using GE soy for their manufacturing of poultry food. Ingham’s is Australasia’s largest stockfeed manufacturer, and some of their fellow chicken or egg producer customers are listed in Greenpeace’s Red ‘MAY CONTAIN GE’ section. The Greenpeace guide quotes:
“Brink’s Chicken policy:
NB: Brink’s chicken use Ingham’s feed which has tested positive for containing soy that is 85 per cent GE contaminated. – 2003
Mainland Poultry policy:
“Our feed continues to be manufactured from GE soy as we have not been able to source a viable non-GE alternative to date. We continue to investigate this option on an ongoing basis.” May 2007”
Have Ingham’s forgotten? No. Ingham’s direct consumers with GE questions to their website but appear to be cheating in their advertising. Ingham’s are likely to be no more serious than Mainland Poultry with its ongoing investigation of a non-GE alternative or Brink’s Chicken 2003 use of Ingham’s feed containing 85% GE contaminated soy.
“Like organic poultry producers, Ingham’s and their feed customers could all be GE free, but are continuing to take a cheap easy option, with Ingham’s going further and blatantly misleading well-intentioned consumers,” said Mr Browning.
Ingham’s Genetic Modification (GM) Policy begins, “Ingham’s Enterprises have a clear GM position. As is the case with all Ingham’s products, our chickens contain no GM content and are not genetically modified”… “The use of GM Soy in feed does not compromise the absolute GM-free status of the poultry products the company produces. Animals that eat feed with a component of GM Soy are no different to other animals that may have been fed a low GM or GM-free diet. This position is verified by numerous feeding studies:”
“Not only does Ingham’s advertising misleading but its policy contradicts itself, stating that all Ingham’s products, chickens included ‘contain no GM content…’ Rather an unusual statement considering the chickens are eating GE food and more recent GE feeding studies show the transfer of DNA into the gut of animals,” said Mr Browning.
“Ingham’s uses dated reports suggesting that GE soy is equivalent to conventional soy, yet feeding studies have consistently shown differences for GE foodstuffs, soy included. One reference by the Federation of Animal Science Societies, a pro-GE industry organisation shows its bias on its website, “Consumers should appreciate that absolute safety is not the objective with respect to any approach used to evaluate complex substances such as food.”
On finding Ingham’s use of GE feed, consumers will be further confused when reading the Ingham’s philosophy, vision, and mission. As Ingham’s word it:
“Quite simply the Ingham’s philosophy is,
“Doing the right things and doing things right”
Our Vision: To be Australasia’s first choice for poultry products, recognised for brand excellence, a commitment to its employees, food safety, the environment and innovation.
Our Mission: To be responsive to customer and community needs and to provide trusted quality food products to fit today’s changing lifestyles at a competitive price.”
“Soil & Health struggles to see how Ingham’s is doing the right things or doing things right, how it can be recognised for brand excellence, how it shows commitment to food safety and the environment, or how it is providing trusted quality food. Ingham’s are misleading consumers and have not seriously tried to go GE free.”
“As Ingham’s also currently exports its feed to South Pacific countries, it is spreading its GE-contaminated feed wider. Do the consumers elsewhere in the Pacific know what is in their chicken feed?”
Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and promotes an environment and diet free from GE and synthetic additives.
————-
Note:

Links accessed May 2009
(1) Ingham’s GM Policy http://www.inghams.co.nz/consumernz/aboutus.aspx?docId=285 or below.
GE and GM are used interchangeably for this media release. Soil & Health prefers the term GE (genetic engineering) believing that GM (genetic modification) is a misused term that could also include natural breeding techniques including hybridisation.
Ingham’s GM Policy NZ
Ingham’s Enterprises have a clear GM position. As is the case with all Ingham’s products, our chickens contain no GM content and are not genetically modified.
Ingham’s GM policy is based on good science, healthy chickens, and sustainable practices that benefit both our customers and suppliers while creating net social and environmental benefits.
Ingham’s is committed to continuing to source non-GM ingredients for its poultry products. We will use our best endeavours to source non-GM ingredients for poultry feeds – such raw materials must meet our quality standards, be available in substantial quantities and be economically sustainable.
Our policy also includes a commitment to our customers that they would always be advised before any changes to the above.
Ingham’s abides by all regulations in Australia and New Zealand, regarding food safety, labelling, and packaging. It has food safety procedures in place to ensure the integrity of all its non-GM ingredients and monitors suppliers to ensure that this high level of integrity is maintained.
The use of GM Soya in feed does not compromise the absolute GM-free status of the poultry products the company produces. Animals that eat feed with a component of GM Soya are no different to other animals that may have been fed a low GM or GM-free diet. This position is verified by numerous feeding studies:
(i) “NZ Royal Commission Report & Recommendations (2001)”
(ii) “Federation of Animal Science Societies (2000) FASS Facts, On Biotech Crops – Impact on Meat, Milk and Eggs. Savoy IL”
(iii) “The Royal Society (2002) Genetically modified plants for food use and human health – an update. Policy document 4/02 (February)”
Ingham’s understands that there is considerable community interest in the uses of genetic modification and we believe it is important to keep customers informed of our policies and relevant facts.

NZ Bans Endosulfan

/in ,

The coalition of groups that have long campaigned for banning the controversial pesticide endosulfan is extremely pleased that New Zealand’s Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has announced it will ban it. Effective immediately. Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand (PAN ANZ), Soil and Health Association, and Safe Food Campaign have been urging ERMA for many years to ban the use of endosulfan.

Action to get rid of the insecticide began back in the mid-1990s, when Dr. Meriel Watts of PAN ANZ, with the Soil & Health Association, worked with Toxins Action Group and other community groups in Auckland to get the City Council to stop using endosulfan on sports fields because of the risk of breast cancer posed by the pesticide.

Endosulfan, already banned in 55 countries including all the European Union countries, is an insecticide used on a wide range of fruit and vegetables and also on sports turf in New Zealand. Illegal residues have been found twice in beef destined for South Korea, resulting in enormous costs for exporters.

“We are delighted that ERMA has overturned its earlier ‘proposed’ decision to keep using this pesticide” stated Dr Meriel Watts, Co-ordinator of the Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand. “It would have been deeply embarrassing for New Zealand to continue its use when the pesticide has entered the process for a global ban under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.”

Endosulfan has triggered international action because of its toxicity, persistence in the environment and its ability to accumulate up the food chain. In October the Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) agreed that endosulfan meets the screening criteria for a POP, and is now undertaking a rigorous assessment preparatory to listing it for a global ban, alongside DDT and its other persistent organochlorine relatives.

“ERMA has made the right decision to get rid of a pesticide that is contaminating the global food supply,” declared Ms Alison White of the Safe Food Campaign. “Endosulfan has been found in body fat, breast milk, placental tissue and umbilical cord blood, largely as a result of residues in food. We would also welcome an urgent reassessment of other hazardous pesticides still used in New Zealand, notably the herbicide 2,4-D and the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos,” she added. “Like endosulfan, these pesticides can have an effect on hormone function even at minute doses. Chlorpyrifos and 2,4-D have both have been linked to brain damage in young animals, embryos and foetuses.”

“ERMA have made a real Christmas present for food safety and the environment by banning the use of endosulfan in New Zealand from January 16, 2009,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“The decision is much better than previous ERMA reassessment decisions would have had us expect and is a credit to the many people that signed the petitions and made submissions, as part of the campaigns of Dr Meriel Watts and Pesticide Action Network, Soil & Health, Safe Food Campaign, Sue Kedgley Green Party MP, and also those in Tauranga that campaigned against the sports field use of the insecticide.”

The three organisations carried out a number of residue tests on produce earlier this year to draw attention to the extent of endosulfan residues, especially in tomatoes.

“We found residues in both New Zealand and Australian tomatoes. The residue levels were not safe, despite being legal, and in some cases were high enough to trigger the growth of breast cancer cells. Lets hope Australia now revisits its decision to keep using the insecticide, so that the tomatoes they send us in winter will also be free of endosulfan” said Dr Watts.

“This decision vindicates our call for urgent reassessment of the older pesticides. There are many others needing reassessment and ERMA must have a substantial lift in funding to speed its reassessment process.”

“Methyl bromide, subject to international treaty due to its devastating effects on the ozone layer, is due to begin the ERMA reassessment process but economic benefits to forestry risk allowing that neurotoxin to continue being released into the atmosphere” said Mr Browning.

“While we are pleased ERMA has a program of reassessment, it will take at least another five years for just the 20 worst pesticides to be looked at. In the meantime pesticides with known adverse effects on health and the environment continue to be used. ERMA must speed up reassessments by looking at groups of substances together, such as organophosphates and pesticides which are aerially sprayed.”

“New Zealand needs to be a leader in removing pesticides not a follower,” said Mr Browning, “Organic foods produced without such pesticides are the fastest growing sector of the food and beverage trade internationally and have been identified as best value products for New Zealand to be exporting.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 and a future proofed clean green Aotearoa New Zealand.

More endosulfan residues found in food as ERMA submission period closes

/in , ,

Once again the highly controversial pesticide endosulfan hits the news: more residues have been found in tomatoes and capsicums.

Endosulfan is a highly toxic pesticide used in New Zealand on a range of vegetables and fruit and also used to kill earthworms on sport fields, cricket pitchs, golf courses and bowling greens.

Independent residue testing, commissioned by Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa NZ and the Soil & Health Association, has once again found endosulfan residues in New Zealand produce – this time in capsicums as well as tomatoes. It was found in 50% of tomato samples taken in Auckland, 100% of samples in Wellington, but not in tomatoes on sale in Blenheim or Christchurch. Earlier tests carried out for the organisations had found it in Nelson grown cherry tomatoes purchased in Blenheim. The latest tests also found endosulfan in New Zealand capsicums on sale in Wellington.

Although used in New Zealand, Endosulfan is a particularly persistent insecticide and is banned in 55 other countries. The European Union is proposing a global ban under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

“These residues are a real concern” said Dr Meriel Watts of Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa NZ. “Because endosulfan is an endocrine disruptor, mimicking the effects of oestrogen, it takes only a very, very low level of exposure to it, such as we are seeing with residues in food, to cause breast cancer cells to grow. In a country like New Zeeland with one of the highest breast cancer rates in the world, such exposure is simply unacceptable.”

“Endosulfan is also linked to birth defects, intellectual impairment in children, epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease. It accumulates in our bodies and is handed down to the next generation across the placenta and in breast milk, a situation that is regarded as no longer acceptable in countries such as those of the European Union. Endosulfan is the worst pesticide still in use in New Zealand: if ERMA don’t ban this they are never going to ban anything.”

ERMA is reassessing endosulfan and its proposed decision is to allow continued use despite it being banned already in 55 countries. The reassessment has been open to submissions for 6 weeks but closes at 5pm today, Friday.

Both organisations had joined the Green Party and a number of individuals in calling on the Minister for the Environment to override ERMA’s proposed decision to continue all uses of endosulfan. But the Minister declined to do so, saying that he trusted ERMA to make the right decision.

“Lets hope his trust in ERMA is not misplaced,” said Steffan Browning of the Soil & Heath Association. “This toxic, persistent pesticide that is contaminating our food, our soils and our wild remote places has got to go. There are plenty of safer alternative ways of managing pests and earthworms in turf without resorting to endosulfan.”

“New Zealand’s international reputation for clean, green, sustainable agriculture is looking tattered, especially with the repeated findings of endosulfan in beef exported to Korea. DDT, another persistent organochlorine pesticide, has caused New Zealand enough grief and this sister compound endosulfan should now also be banned.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 with food and environment free from synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.

Endosulfan: NZ exports at risk – is ERMA listening?

/in ,

The highly toxic pesticide endosulfan, found in residues all over the world in food, people and the environment, has turned up again in NZ beef exported to Korea, and not surprisingly Korea is not happy.

“But is ERMA listening,” asked Dr Meriel Watts of Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand. “In their reassessment document released last week ERMA have proposed on-going use of endosulfan on a number of crops, including fodder crops that are fed directly to animals. It is well established in science that residues from such crops can subsequently turn up in the meat of such animals – and in the milk, which may not make Fonterra happy either.”

“New Zealand sells its produce with a clean, green, pure, natural, branding image that is contradicted by actual practices, such as using one of the dirtiest pesticides in the world in our food supply. Sooner or later the global markets are going to catch on to this hypocrisy and New Zealand can expect a much tougher time making the image stick,” said Dr Watts.

“Endosulfan has been banned in 55 countries around the world already, including all the European Union countries. ERMA’s proposed decision to continue its use here could see us being one of the last in the world to keep using this persistent and bio-accumulative pollutant.”

“If New Zealand’s meat producers want to keep their markets open, then they might need to consider asking ERMA and the Minister for the Environment to get rid of this nasty once and for all,” said Steffan Browning of the Soil & Health Association.

“We support the Green Party’s call for the Minister for the Environment to override ERMA and urge Federated Farmers, Fonterra and the Meat Industry to add their voices, so they can protect their export markets.”

“If New Zealand is exporting beef to Korea with residues of endosulfan in it, who knows what residues are in our locally consumed meat,” said Alison White of Safe Food Campaign. “Who is testing it? The answer is nobody. Yet at even very low levels of exposure this gender bending chemical can have a profound and lasting effect on our bodies and those of our offspring.”

“People all over the world are carrying toxic time bombs of endosulfan residues,” said Dr Watts. “For many people these have come largely from eating food containing residues of this pesticide. Until it is finally banned the situation will only get worse.”

“DDT another persistent organochlorine insecticide that is also ecotoxic and an endocrine disruptor, just like endosulphan, still persists in many New Zealand soils although long banned,” said Mr Browning.

“It is as though the difficulties persisting from DDT do not exist for ERMA and the lazy users of Endosulfan. Other options to endosulfan exist and the organic sector for example manages just fine without it. Endosulfan must be removed from New Zealand use urgently to reduce long term contamination, and events such as this current second beef for Korea contamination.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 and a future proofed clean green Aotearoa New Zealand.

Organic farming is the clean green solution

/in , ,

Organic farming is the truly sustainable solution to our dirty record in agriculture, says the Soil and Health Association, in response to the recently released 2007 State of the Environment Report.

“It is imperative that we improve our environmental record in agriculture, so we can live up to our clean and green image, improve our waterways, soils, human and animal health, and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” says Soil and Health spokesman, Steffan Browning. “A lot of damage has been done, but we’re offering the solution. The way to make our farming truly sustainable is to go organic, and we need to grab this opportunity immediately with both hands.”

“There are increasing numbers of farmers out there showing that organic production methods are good for the environment, for animal and human health, and for the bank balance. Thanks to the Green Party’s agreement with the government, funding for the Organic Advisory Programme is giving a helping hand to farmers interested in converting to organics.”

Due to natural fertilising regimes, organically farmed soil holds onto nitrogen, virtually eliminating run-off into waterways. Soil structure is improved under organic systems, providing greater drought and flood resistance, and minimising erosion. Under organic systems, soil biology is healthier, and there is greater biodiversity.

Organic farming also offers a way of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. The soil in organic production systems sequesters more carbon than that in conventional farming. Also, no synthetic oil-based fertilisers are used.

Demand for organic food is growing exponentially as consumers seek out produce that is residue-free, tasty and nutritious.

Soil and Health urges the government to encourage farmers to go organic, by increasing funding to help farmers convert, and setting an initial target of 10% organic production by 2012.

The Association encourages farmers and home growers alike to introduce organic practices, and has a vision of New Zealand being completely organic by 2020.