Food – Page 6 – Soil and Health Association of NZ

What We Want For Christmas – Strawberry Growers To Go Organic

22 December 2009/in Food, Health, Media Releases, Organics

Analysis of New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) pesticide residue results out yesterday show strawberries laced with multiple residues and dodgy chicken take-aways in Auckland. (1)
Samples of strawberries bought in late July and August in Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin and Napier, were tested along with 60 other food types as part of the NZFSA Total Diet Survey.
The 4 combined strawberry samples from each city all had at least 8 different pesticides, with the Christchurch composite having 13 different chemicals, and Dunedin 11.
“Lets hope this Christmas the strawberries are a lot better or preferably organic,” said Soil & Health –Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Certified organic growers successfully grow fruit and vegetables without dangerous pesticide residues.”
“It is possible that the out of season strawberries were imported from Australia, but without dimethoate residues as expected in Australian imports, it appears a New Zealand grower needs some organic growing lessons for Christmas. 8 to 13 residues is disrespectful to consumers and shows a casualness that appears to be creeping back into New Zealand growers approach to pesticides.”
“The Auckland Chicken Take-Away composite sample contained 10 different pesticide residues, while the other cities had two residues each. Something is definitely dodgy in some Auckland take aways.”
“Multiple residues expose consumers to increased risks including cancers, reproductive, cardiac, respiratory and nervous system disorders. The Food Safety Authority needs to look much more closely at these results. Non-compliance with the NZFSA accepted maximum residue limits (MRL) was evident in other testing of celery, spinach and ginger, with one celery sample having 4 different pesticides over the limit and another with 3.”(2)
All 27 celery samples had at least one residue, and only 5 did not contain chlorothalonil fungicide (sold as Bravo) and which is implicated in aggravating the health affects of other pesticides. Those 5 contained dithiocarbamate fungicides, as did most fruit and vegetables tested for NZFSA.
Dithiocarbamate and chlorothalonil are both on the Pesticide Action Network International list of Highly Hazardous Pesticides for global phase out.
Dithiocarbomate fungicides (eg mancozeb, maneb, thiram) are severe central nervous system toxicant, carcinogen, and endocrine disruptors; also causing sterility and birth defects, and affecting liver, kidney and respiratory and cardiac, systems. Chlorothalonil, apart from aggravating the health effects of other pesticides is carcinogenic, mutagenic and an environmental toxin.
“The lists go on, with apples, pears, pizza, muffins, bread, courgettes, grapes and hamburgers, and hot chips being the more common multiple residue foods. A New Years resolution for consumers will be to grow your own or go organic, or get your local grower or baker to go organic,” said Mr Browning.
“Soil & Health – Organic NZ will be meeting with NZFSA in the New Year to look at how we might encourage grower improvement towards significant pesticide reduction in clean green 100% Pure Aotearoa New Zealand.”
Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People and a vision of an Organic 2020.
References:
(1) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/science/research-projects/total-diet-survey/q3-2009-nztds-analytical-report-final-15-dec-09.pdf
(2) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/science/research-projects/food-residues-surveillance-programme/

Celery at top of dirty dozen

13 December 2009/in Food, Health, Media Releases

GE Food and Environment Regulators Need Changing

12 November 2009/in Food, GE, Media Releases, Organic Community

New Zealand’s food and environmental safety regulators need either some major staff changes, political policy push or a culture change, if public safety is to be considered properly, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

The latest revelations showing that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) distorted research results in 2000 from studies of animals fed with soy that was genetically engineered (GE) to produce high amounts of the amino acid lysine soybean. FSANZ has also failed to take the feeding studies into account when approving a similarly GE high lysine corn, now rejected by European governments.

The study referenced in the FSANZ approval documents showed that some pigs required 66% more feed to grow as well as pigs on a normal diet. This indicates that the GE feed is having an anti-nutrient or toxic effect.

Dr Elvira Dommisse, a former GE scientist for Crop & Food and now an advocate of GE-free organics said, “FSANZ have not actually understood the animal feeding studies, because if they had, there is no way they could have approved such GE food crops for human or animal consumption.”

“This will be another regulatory example for my presentation on GE mis-regulation in New Zealand tomorrow at the Organics Aotearoa New Zealand conference being held at Waikato University,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Following the series of non-compliances at GE field trials, the complicity between the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), MAF-Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ), science funders and research institutes such as Plant and Food, AgResearch, and Scion, has been outstanding and needs exposure.”

“The culture of economics first and complicity to avoid public scrutiny, or precaution pervades ERMA, MAF, the Crown Research Agencies in terms of environmental risk, but it is also rampant in terms of the food supply in FSANZ and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA).”

“FSANZ has ticked through 61 GE plant lines as safe for human consumption with NZFSA standing right behind them, although feeding studies have shown increasing serious health concerns.”

“Each of ERMA’s granted GE field trials have had consent conditions breached, and along with MAF inspection and enforcement teams, have effectively assisted those involved to dodge meaningful penalty. AgResearch is being assisted by ERMA to dodge both public processes and meaningful precaution with new GE animal applications that either dodge public process or have unintelligible information to technically circumvent the findings of GE Free NZ’s successful High Court outcome.”

“Organic production, as highlighted in the Innovate – Go Organic titled conference 13-15 November in Hamilton, avoids the risks of GE and requires no backroom complicity for it to succeed. A Clean Green 100% Pure New Zealand will support the market preferred safe and sustainable organics, and shun dodgy unsafe GE technologies,” said Mr Browning.

Soil & Health has a vision of a GE Free NZ in an Organic 2020.

Proposed Amendment to the New Zealand Folic Acid Standard

11 August 2009/in Food, Health, Media Releases, Organic Community

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc remains supportive of the position of the existing Standard to exempt organic bread from mandatory fortification with folic acid.
Soil & Health remains opposed to the mandatory fortification of all bread, but is pleased that the integrity of organics was supported by then Food Safety Minister Annette King, the Commerce Commission and FSANZ. The exemption of organic bread allows a measure of choice for all consumers and generally has the advantage of having higher base levels of natural folate than many other types of bread, due to the ingredients being less processed.
Soil & Health received significant communication of support from members and also several organic bakers to the news of the organic exemption. Soil & Health interprets the current Standard as protecting the integrity of organics, a position it expressed in consultation and submissions to FSANZ and the Food Safety Minister.
Soil & Health agrees with the substance of the New Zealand Commerce Commission (NZCC) and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) findings in relation to consumer expectations of foods labelled ‘organic’ or ‘certified organic’, as expressed in the earlier Issues Paper.
Soil & Health has some degree of concern that foods labelled ‘natural’ were not exempt, however unless those foods are reasonably certain to be pesticide and additive residue free, as expected with organic foods, the ‘natural’ claim may be spurious.
Foods labelled ‘natural’, are without the benefit of standards and certification processes as in the organic sector, however should a food supplier be able to provide evidence of the ‘naturalness’ of its product, for example wild harvested and organic ingredients with no synthetic additives, Soil & Health would expect that it should also be exempt.
Soil & Health supports increased education of the community and in particular women of childbearing age, of the function of folate in NTD prevention, and Soil & Health accepted it has a role with its membership of communicating that function, the dietary sources and options available.
Of the suggested options
* 5.1 Status Quo
* 5.2 Amendment to Commencement date (preferred option)
* 5.3 Revocation of the New Zealand Folic Acid Standard

Soil & Health prefers option 3 (5.3), Revocation of the NZ Folic Acid Standard.
Revocation of the Standard in conjunction with a strong public health educative program that not only targets women of child bearing age, but educates the public in general to the benefits of folate and a healthy full diet.
Noting that there are significant increases in obesity and other symptoms of poor dietary choice, there is an opportunity to address folate intake as part of a more comprehensive nutritional campaign that will have benefits far in excess of the most optimistic outcomes of mass medication, and without the possible risks associated with synthetic folic acid or other mandatory supplements.

NZ Free Range Pigs Farmers Deserve CoOL Support

21 May 2009/in Farming, Food, Health, Media Releases

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

17 May 2009/in Farming, Food, Health, Media Releases

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.

Plant & Food’s GE Brassica Trial Closure Celebrated

10 February 2009/in Food, GE, GM, Media Releases

Soil & Health and GE Free NZ are celebrating the commitment by Crown Research Institute (CRI) Plant & Food Research to discontinue the genetically engineered (GE) brassica field trial at Lincoln in Canterbury less than 2 years into its 10 year consent, but say the CRI’s GE alliums (onion family) field trial approval must also be revoked.

GE Free NZ President Claire Bleakley and the Soil and Health Association of NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning met with Plant & Food(1) staff yesterday, to discuss the CRI’s internal report of its biosecurity breach(2) at its genetically engineered (GE) brassica trial site. The report recommends that the GE brassica trial should be closed down immediately and a new team of personnel monitor the site over one year for regrowth GE plants.

In December a serious biosecurity breach of a flowering brassica was discovered at the secret GE field trial site by Soil and Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. Initially the breach was dismissed and denied by regulator Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry – Biosecurity New Zealand (MAF-BNZ) and Plant & Food. However presented with photographic evidence, they were forced to admit the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) controls had not been followed and at least one GE plant had been left to flower, thereby breaching their permit to conduct field trials.

“The report vindicates the very real concerns of more than 900 submitters who opposed the original application with pollen escape a major concern. Plant & Food have acknowledged a likely breach as early as February 2008. This was of an early flower, just as my fellow Soil & Health Co-chair Dr Elvira Dommisse warned was a significant risk in brassica, when she submitted to the ERMA consent hearing,” said Mr Browning.

“This begs the question, just how many GE brassicas flowered in the Lincoln environment throughout the last year? Extensive testing for GE contamination must be carried out in the area.”

“We are very pleased that the trial is to be closed down and that the internal report reflects the seriousness of the breach” said Claire Bleakley.

“The report however shows many discrepancies regarding events leading up to the breach. Excuses of over work and under resourcing of the project manager are cited as a main problem in the break down of the controls. Reported inexperience and bad advice on how plants perform in the field show that there was inadequate expertise on the aspects of plant performance in the field and the trial manager admits she did not properly read the decision or controls that ERMA placed on the trial (3).”

“These are all poor excuses and show that the Plant & Food managers and regulatory agencies did not properly oversee the trial. The whole internal support and team leadership is outrageous and defective, as is the GE technology. The total lack of enforcement and expertise by all people involved has left the trial manager as the scapegoat,” Ms Bleakley said.

“This whole debacle highlights the poor nature of the ERMA and MAF process of setting controls, monitoring and enforcement. The ERMA decision pointed out that the expertise and training of the GE team made any breach “highly improbable,” and approved the experiment with ambiguous and extremely broad controls open to gross exploitation by Plant & Food managers. The inspection agency MAF-BNZ overlooked enforcement protocols and allowed the field trial to continue with verbal assurances of site events rather than visual confirmation.”

“Everyone involved in this trial should be held accountable for the breach and the CRI should loose all its permits to carry out GE trials. This is not an individual staff fault but shows that the systemic arrogant laissez-faire attitude is rife all the way to the top. This culture treats anyone who raises concerns about GE technology with derision and this must stop immediately.”

“We hope that the ERMA and MAF reports due out later in the week will treat the breach by MAF-BNZ staff and the CRI as seriously as Plant & Food have done in their internal report and follow through with the appropriate HSNO Act penalties,” said Ms Bleakley.

“GE field trials have no place in the economic survival of New Zealand farmers and growers, and with just one other GE trial approval currently consented for (GE onion family plants yet to be planted), and the flawed Agresearch GE cattle trial on hold, now is a prime opportunity to stop all GE field trials,” said Mr Browning.

“The stopping of these dangerous risks to New Zealand’s biosecurity helps maintain and build the clean green image that is more and more important for the sales of New Zealand produce.”

“Producers and consumers share the desire for an economy based on the clean green environment that New Zealand’s discerning markets are looking to. Plant & Food’s research needs to focus on natural breeding techniques and extend its expertise into valuable organic research.”

Soil & Health is committed to GE free food and environment and aspires to an Organic 2020.

References & Notes :
(1) Crop & Food merged recently with HortResearch to form Plant and Food Research. HortResearch’s Kieran Elbrough and Max Suckling were half of the 2007 ERMA decision making committee that approved the Crop & Food GE brassica field trial application.

(2) NEW ZEALAND: SAFETY BREACH DURING GM TRIAL
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/01/12/12459800051c
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0901/S00010.htm
http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/call_ge_field_trials_be_closed

Press releases on the trial breach:
www.gefree.org.nz
www.organicnz.org

(3) Plant and Food internal report on the GE brassica field trial breach.

Plant & Food Research needs to drop GE

14 January 2009/in Food, GE, GM, Media Releases

Plant & Food’s misleading statements and conflicts of interest further show the need for genetic engineering (GE) field trials to be abandoned says the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

“Plant & Food’s spin shows desperation to continue its GE field trials taking Aotearoa New Zealand down a path away from its current Clean Green and 100% Pure branding,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“A revamp of the board, management and direction of this important crown research institute is required if intentional false information around risky science is to be the norm.”

In an attempt to cover up failings at the institute’s GE brassica field trial on National Radio yesterday Plant & Food Research’s Chief Operating Officer Dr Bruce Campbell stated that only one flower was the issue, that a guard row would catch any pollen, and that no plants remained at the site.

“Dr Campbell was quite wrong to say that there was just one flower on one stem. Several flowers had opened and Dr Campbell and his staff not only have had access to my photographs of the split stem with the two flower heads that included a seed pod from a fertilised flower but have that stem in their possession,” said Mr Browning.

“Each of the opened flowers will have released pollen into the environment and GE seed pods may have resulted on non-GE brassicas in the area as a result of this negligence. A wide range of brassicas including broccoli, cabbage, forage kale and cauliflower would have been susceptible to insect or wind pollination.”

“Dr Campbell was wrong to suggest that a guard row completely surrounding the site would intercept any pollen – it would not. Even if there had ever been a complete and robust guard or buffer row, it would never have been able to ensure that no pollen would go beyond the site. However the original brassica guard row had been chopped back in August and the occasional regrowth and many weeds would not miraculously scoop up all the GE pollen released. That was never the function of the so-called guard rows.”

“Dr Campbell’s statement that all GE plants had been removed and destroyed was also wrong. The same sloppiness by Plant & Food Research that allowed a GE plant to flower continued with at least one experimental plant and one buffer row plant still evident among the weeds at the site when we inspected following the supposed removal of all remaining live plants.”

“The field trial site is another example of the lack of monitoring of GE science in New Zealand. This so-called GE research is also a huge waste of the scarce research dollar. There is no demand, locally or internationally for GE crops. There are organic growers out there who can successfully grow brassicas without harmful synthetic pesticides”

“ERMA’s consent conditions for the field trial state that following the growing season monthly inspections for volunteer plants must occur and any volunteers must be removed and killed by steam (autoclaving). Dr Campbell stated on radio that monitoring was carried out more regularly than required, yet when I inspected the site in December the dozens of plants showing regrowth were many months old and at least one had flowered. There was no evidence that anyone had been moving in the site and the principal scientist involved had started her holidays,” said Mr Browning.

“This is the same type of sloppiness that occurred at the Scion GE pine tree trial which also showed very poor monitoring of consent conditions.”

“Dr Campbell, Plant & Food’s management and board appear to be blinded to the risks of GE and need to reassess the appropriateness of their involvement with GE and in fact any positions in the ERMA and Foundation of Research, Science and Technology (FORST) funding agency.”

“Such blatant misinformation coming from a research organisation that is largely funded by the taxpayer shows a need for a major shake up and revamp of agricultural and horticultural science in this country.”

“It appears that Plant & Food have strong GE intent as in a statement on the merge of the crown research institutes Crop & Food and Hortresearch into a single organisation Plant & Food Research, Dr Campbell promoted the benefit of combined GE plant research and stated, “both science companies had similar stances on the use of genetic engineering in food production, as both were using biotechnology.”

The chair of Plant & Food is a FORST director and two senior HortResearch staff were on the ERMA GE Brassica field trial committee that approved this field trial.

“Plant & Food and most of its staff have the capacity for better results if resources weren’t being tied up in the dangerous, risky and unproven GE area. Plant & Food through its predecessors have produced fantastic results in a range of non-GE areas that do not carry the risks of GE.”

“The fastest growing category of the international food industry is in organics and Plant& Food and FORST would be better to invest in that exciting, proven and environmentally safe growth area.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that includes a GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand.

Country of Origin Labelling fairness wanted by NZ consumers

3 November 2008/in Food, Media Releases

New Zealand consumers deserve urgent commitment by government agencies to Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling, considering the main excuse by Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is no longer valid, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

“Access to the United States market has been the most used example of why New Zealand doesn’t support Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling (MCoOL), yet consumers in the U.S. have now had MCoOL introduced,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

Soil & Health is part of more than 25 organisations in a group, ‘CoOL New Zealand’, formed to continue the push for change in New Zealand’s country of origin labelling laws. At an official launch hosted by Horticulture New Zealand in Wellington this morning, CoOLNZ officially launched www.cool.org.nz – Country of Origin Labelling website and facebook group ‘I Want A CoOL New Zealand’.

Country of Origin Labelling became effective in the United States for meat and perishable agricultural commodities such as fresh fruits and vegetables on September 30 *. Fish and shellfish had been subject to COOL requirements since April 2005. Products falling under US CoOL requirements now include beef, lamb, pork, chicken, goat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh fruits and vegetables, and some nuts such as peanuts, pecans and macadamia nuts.

“Meat and milk powder exports particularly to the United States are the commodities generally believed to be responsible for the lack of fair labelling in New Zealand, however Meat & Wool New Zealand said in the October 6 Farmers Weekly that there was not an issue of cost to them.”

“Considering the United States move, it is blatantly unfair that any other exporter or a free trade philosophy should prevent Kiwi consumers from full country of origin choice when purchasing their food.”

“Australian consumers also have vastly better CoOL choice than Kiwis, and New Zealand maintains a difference to Australia contrary to most other Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) decisions.”

“More and more often, New Zealanders are hearing of pesticide or additive residues, poor labour conditions, environmental degradation and animal welfare issues from a range of countries, but cannot easily choose to avoid products from those countries when shopping here.”

“Soil & Health’s own residue sampling showed the pesticide dimethoate in Australian tomatoes purchased in New Zealand, and although New Zealand growers do not use the chemical, shoppers are often not able to tell the difference as our current law has no mandatory Country of Origin Labelling.”

Dimethoate, a systemic organo-phosphate insecticide, is used as an insecticidal dip to kill the Queensland fruit fly in produce imported from Australia to New Zealand.

“Pesticide residues in imported food and the health effects of them are an urgent consumer and health issue. Although fantastic labeling examples such as at most New World supermarkets do exist, voluntary labeling as promoted by Foodstuffs or Progressive through their supermarkets is often either not working or is poorly utilized, and certainly not enforceable.”

“Soil & Health submitted to the Parliamentary Health Select Committee in support of the 39,000 signature Green Party- initiated petition calling for mandatory CoOL. ”

New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) was a submitter against CoOL to the Parliamentary select committee, which recently considered the Green Party initiated petition of 39,000 Kiwis wanting MCoOL.

“Consumers wanting to avoid growth hormone and antibiotic laced meat deserve to be able to bypass products from the huge proportion of imported pork. Whatever the soothing tones from authorities on melamine or other toxins, consumers must be able to make their own choices,” said Mr Browning

Soil & Health promotes a vision of an Organic 2020 with emphasis on locally produced healthy food.

NOTE:
* U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov

Aspartame promotion again lacks independence

24 September 2008/in Food, Media Releases

A public relations exercise that is currently responding to a 5% drop in sales of products sweetened with the artificial sweetener aspartame is once again misleading the public about aspartame safety, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

Seminars to promote the artificial sweetener are being run by the New Zealand Nutrition Foundation and supported by Coca- Cola Oceania. Speakers are Dr Bernadene Magnuson, a consultant to aspartame manufacturer Ajinomoto, and celebrity nutritionist Nikki Hart.

“The New Zealand Nutrition Foundation is a trade sponsored organisation whose title belies its real purpose, to facilitate trade for its members. It frequently uses material from its similarly funded peers in the United States,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Dr Bernadene Magnuson is internationally known for her biased review and selective quoting of industry funded science, whilst ignoring the large body of independent science that reveals the adverse effects of aspartame. The review, which used a non-independent panel, was funded by aspartame manufacturer Ajinomoto. Magnuson is an industry mouthpiece, sponsored by heavy aspartame user Coca-Cola and its misleadingly-titled The Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness of The Coca-Cola Company.”

“Since when has any Coca-Cola product been useful in health and wellness?”

“Nikki Hart, who is actively promoting aspartame use in presentations in Auckland and Wellington, failed to mention an important study published in 2005 that was conducted over eight years at the University of Texas. This study reported a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day. She instead uses research from Dr Blackburn, another Coca-Cola and industry supported collaborator of Dr Magnuson.”

While aspartame consumption has not been independently and conclusively been proven to help with weight loss, some research shows aspartame and other artificial sweeteners induce carbohydrate craving, which results in weight gain.

“Unfortunately our own New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) with its trade focus also uses similarly biased reviews instead of initiating genuinely independent research. Maybe its NZFSA title should read New Zealand Food Sales Authority.”

“New Zealanders are ill from the use of aspartame and yet it remains available in ‘Diet’ drinks in many schools.”

An analysis by Walton in 1996 of 166 studies on aspartame showed that all of the 74 published industry-funded studies attested to aspartame’s safety, whereas 92% of the independently funded research identified a problem. This pattern has continued.

Aspartame is the most commonly used synthetic sweetener in “Diet” drinks and sugar-free products, but has been the subject of controversy ever since early research linked it to cancers and neurological problems. In New Zealand aspartame gained more prominence in May 2007 following publicity of Wellington woman Abby Cormack’s aspartame poisoning symptoms. Ms Cormack conclusively linked the aspartame in the Wrigley’s chewing gum and Diet Coke that she was consuming, to her severe health problems.

During presentations to the Parliamentary Health Select Committee this year in response to an 8,000 signature petition calling for restrictions and warnings on aspartame use, the Ministry of Health’s Elizabeth Aitken and New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s toxicologist John Reeve both agreed that there was a link between aspartame and some illnesses.

“The petition has not been acted on by the Parliamentary Health Committee which, apart from a thorough minority report by Green MP Sue Kedgley, took the NZFSA ‘yes minister’ information as adequate,” said Mr Browning.

“The New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) continues to claim that aspartame is one of the most studied substances in the world, yet conveniently brushes aside the fact that while all industry-funded studies do not show a problem, the overwhelming majority of independent studies do. The reason it has been so studied is because its use has always been controversial.”

According to Nikki Hart there has been a recent drop of 5% in the consumption of products containing aspartame due to the “anti-aspartame bombardment” last year.

“Thanks to the efforts of Abby Cormack, the Soil & Health Association, Safe Food Campaign, Phoenix Organics, the Green Party’s Sue Kedgley and other active consumers and NGOs, that is something to celebrate. Many New Zealanders will be the better for it and Nikki Hart would do well to be involved with promoting natural sweeteners like the herb Stevia,” said Mr Browning.

Following its motto; Healthy Soil, Healthy Food and Healthy People, the Soil & Health Association advocates the use of natural and organic sweeteners and an Organic 2020 free of synthetic food additives.

Notes:

The global market for aspartame is around 17000 tonnes, worth US$637m (Leatherhead Food International)

For a referenced rebuttal of Dr Magnuson’s Ajinomoto funded science review;
http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_and_manufacturer_funded_reviews.htm

Aspartame (951, Equal, Nutrasweet) is an artificial sweetener found in over 6000 products including diet drinks, sugar free products, dietary supplements, sports drinks and medications.

Aspartame has been linked to many health symptoms, including those expressed as ADHD, anxiety, depression, irritability, confusion, memory loss, insomnia, dizziness, migraines, cramps, abdominal pain, numbness or tingling of extremities, rashes, chronic fatigue, and sight and personality changes.