NZFSA refuses to meet Betty Martini

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association and Safe Food Campaign are calling for the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) to meet with visiting aspartame expert Dr Betty Martini.

Dr Martini has been refused entry at NZFSA today, even though Alison White of Safe Food Campaign has an aspartame presentation along with aspartame sufferer Abby Cormack. NZFSA have also discounted any future possible meeting with senior staff or scientists by Martini, which calls into question the purpose of NZFSA,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“The carcinogenic, neurotoxin sugar alternative aspartame has been implicated in many serious illnesses and NZFSA is putting its head in the sand over this issue. Dr Martini has had access to top EU and UK officials so she should be able to get the same access in New Zealand.”

Martini who has the ear of all the main scientist players in the international anti-aspartame debate – Drs Soffritti, Roberts, Blaylock, Olney, and Cabot, is being hosted in New Zealand by Soil & Health Association and Safe Food Campaign.

Dr Martini was invited to New Zealand in the wake of Abby Cormack’s well publicised poisoning with sugar free chewing gum.

“Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) who set the actual food standard for aspartame in New Zealand have yet to respond to a meeting request. A meeting would show that these agencies are capable of considering resisting the influences of the international pharmaceutical and food giants, and their dubious food safety assertions,” said Alison White, Co-convenor of Safe Food Campaign.

“Dr Martini is able to refute the aspartame misinformation that NZFSA promulgates, and she has documented proof that the FDA (US Food & Drug Administration), which NZFSA slavishly accepts, knew of the cancer causing and other serious health properties of aspartame.”

Public meetings are planned in Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland.

Successful Therapeutics Campaign needs to push further

/in , , ,

The success of the community in stalling the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill needs to be extended to rolling back Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) decisions allowing risky additives in food, according to the Soil & Health Association.

The Government admitted yesterday that it currently could not get the Therapeutics Bill through Parliament. This comes at a time when there are big questions about the decision by FSANZ allowing the artificial sweetener Aspartame into the food chain, and when the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) is unable to control a baby food manufacturer’s use of un-assessed additives.

“Soil & Health congratulates the thousands of therapeutic products consumers and producers who signed our petition opposing a trans-Tasman agency that would have regulated natural products and supplements,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Agencies such as FSANZ and NZFSA appear to operate mostly to facilitate trade, and there is good cause for consumers to resist another such agency.”

“Soil & Health will this morning welcome international anti-aspartame campaigner Betty Martini to New Zealand, highlighting products such as Aspartame, NutraSweet, Equal, E951, Canderel and Benevia, that have been criticised for a range of serious health ailments but have been allowed through FSANZ into widespread New Zealand use.”

Food Standards Australia New Zealand sets food standards for both countries, and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority monitors food to those standards.

“Soil & Health is also concerned that another sweetener additive has been included in baby food by international company Nutricia without the required safety assessment. NZFSA is not even insisting on withdrawal of the product, which shows the legislative flaws,” said Mr Browning, “I expect that FSANZ will push the baby food additive (fructo-oligosaccharide -fos) through an assessment process, as the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA has already given it a tick, and if the corrupted FDA says its fine, invariably so does the trans-Tasman agency FSANZ.”

“While ‘fos’ is often derived for supplement use from natural chicory root, large commercial operations like Nutricia often use the cheap and questionable genetically engineered form. New Zealanders need agencies that reflect deep caution over GE and baby foods and proven risky food additives.”

“The success of consumers against the Therapeutics Bill must be rewarded with a New Zealand regulatory system that reflects the low risk of most natural products, but uses effective precaution and genuine independent research, in decisions about the synthetic food ingredients that international big business pushes,” said Mr Browning.

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020, free of risky synthetic and GE food ingredients.

Former Crop & Food Scientist says GE Brassica field test approval lacked scrutiny

/in , , ,

A former Crop & Food GE scientist, Dr Elvira Dommisse, said today that proper scrutiny by ERMA of evidence would have prioritised the need for food studies over fund-wasting field trials.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has once again approved an application to field test genetically engineered (GE) crops, namely GE brassicas – cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower and forage kale for stock feed.

This decision, which gives Crop & Food Research in Lincoln the go ahead, has angered groups with scientific and environmental safety concerns, who note the lack of scrutiny ERMA has shown in its decision.

At the public hearing in April this year, a number of scientific submitters with referenced evidence, stressed that it was important to first carry out rat feeding experiments with these GE crops to establish that they were safe to eat, according to Dr Elvira Dommisse of Soil & Health.

“One thing that needs to come through very clearly is the huge waste of public money if, at the end of ten years, rat feeding trials take place and the crops are found to be toxic or allergenic.”

“This is quite possible, given the past record of other GE crops. We only have to look to Australia, where GE peas modified with a harmless bean protein produced immunological problems in mice. The GE brassicas to be field tested at Lincoln are modified with a highly altered bacterial protein, which produces a pesticidal toxin. This is all the more reason to believe that such crops will be toxic or allergenic to mice or rats and ultimately humans and other animals.”

Yet when asked about rat feeding experiments on National Radio Dr Mary Christey, the leader of the GE brassica project said, “we do not think that food safety experiments are necessary.” [Our Changing World, Thurs 3,10 May, 2007]

“Apparently in support and bypassing solid food safety evidence ERMA have said, “She’ll be right Crop & Food, have your play at taxpayers expense, and we’ll worry about the real point of all this later,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Food safety scares in other parts of the world have increased the international demand for organically grown produce, which has much stricter criteria about what crop protection measures can be taken to deal with plant pests and pathogens.”

“Organic certifiers BioGro and Organic FarmNZ are receiving increased applications for organic certification with BioGro receiving a record number last week. This is indicative of the huge worldwide growth in consumer demand for safe, natural and nutritious produce. GE crops are excluded from that demand for good reason. It is time for ERMA and government to listen.”

Organic Means Certified Organic

/in , , ,

Soil & Health is celebrating that the Fair Trading Act is being interpreted to mean that products called organic should be certified organic, following the release last night of Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s Review Report, again recommending the introduction of folic acid fortification to all but organic bread.

“The recommendation appears to mean that foods labelled ‘organic’, but not certified to be organic, will not be exempt. FSANZ has said that foods labelled ‘natural’ will not be exempt as they are not subject to certification criteria. However organic foods are to be exempt, as there are certification criteria against which they can be checked”, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

The FSANZ Review states;

Exemption of wheat bread-making flour represented as ‘organic’ will allow the organic milling and bread industry to comply with fair trading legislation[1], which takes precedence over the Code.

Approach:

* FSANZ consulted the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on the status of products labelled ‘organic’ and ‘natural’ under mandatory fortification in relation to fair trading legislation.

Conclusion:

* Under fair trading legislation mandatorily fortified foods would not be able to be labelled as ‘organic’ or ‘all natural’.
* It is proposed that foods represented as ‘organic’ be exempt from mandatory fortification.

Foods labelled ‘natural’ will not be exempt from mandatory fortification as there is no certification criteria for ‘all natural’ foods, and manufacturers are able to use labelling descriptors which indicate the type of product without misleading consumers.

“This is a long awaited and clear message that anything from pork to pickles, if it’s to be called organic, it is on the premise that it is certified organic”, said Browning. “This is significant for consumers who are too often sold products as organic, even though the producer is not subject to any checks that their claim is authentic, and comes at a time when access to organic certification has never been easier.”

“The recently launched Organic Advisory Program, managed through Organics Aotearoa New Zealand, is currently assisting producers with a subsidised consultancy to convert to organics. BioGro New Zealand, Organic FarmNZ, Demeter, Agriquality, or Te Waka Kai Ora, can all give consumer assurances not available with uncertified produce,” said Browning. “ The potential use of Standards New Zealand’s National Organic Standard as the minimum requirement for organic production also needs exploring,” he added.

The proposed changes to the draft variations to the Food Standards Code

a) require the mandatory addition of folic acid to wheat flour for bread-making;
b) exempt wheat flour for bread-making represented as ‘organic’ from this requirement;
c) retain the voluntary permissions that allow voluntary fortification of non-wheat breads and flours;
d) allow a transition time of two years for implementation.

This is expected to reduce the number of Neural Tube Defect (NTD)-affected pregnancies by a further 14-49 (or up to 14%) in Australia and by 4-14 (or up to 20%) in New Zealand. NTD’s often present as spina bifida.

“ Soil & Health is hopeful that the folic acid education program, to educate about spina bifida risks and prevention, also recommended by FSANZ, will put significant emphasis on a complete and preferably organic diet. Certified organic food disallows pesticides linked with birth defects, and nutritional properties including folate are generally superior”, said Browning.

Soil & Health had submitted to the FSANZ Issues Paper;

“Soil & Health has some degree of concern that foods labelled ‘natural’ may not be 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.”

The exemption for organic bread will give all consumers a choice of a fortification free product while still accessing a healthy option.

[1] In Australia, Trades Practices Act 1974; In New Zealand Fair Trading Act 1986.

Food tests before field tests

/in , , ,

Soil & Health is calling for more integration of environmental and food safety analysis on GE and pesticide applications, following last weeks Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) Bt Brassica hearing.

ERMA denies food safety responsibility, as Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) develops food standards covering the content and labelling of food, and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) administers the legislation covering food for sale.

“Soil & Health and others, through submissions and questions of clarification at last week’s hearing, pointed out the nonsense of ERMA considering field trials of GE food crops ahead of food safety tests of those same intended crops”, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning, “The agencies and legislation need a shot of commonsense”.

“It is ludicrous to be field testing a vegetable that carries pesticide in every cell, without testing its safety as a food thoroughly first, particularly when there is vast opposition to GE in food and the environment in the first place. A 10 year field study of GE peas in Australia, had to be discontinued when it was found that they were harmful as food. Valuable New Zealand research money would be better spent on safe high value organic production”.

“Significant evidence of human and animal health suffering from plants genetically engineered in a similar way to those being experimented with at Crop & Food, was presented at the ERMA hearing”.

“Crop & Food, the applicant for the GE Brassica field trial, intends to test outdoors a range of cabbages, cauliflower, broccoli, and forage kale, all modified with synthetic genes modified from the Bascillus thuriengensis bacteria (Bt), yet in India, workers are sick from handling GE Bt cotton, and livestock are dying from eating it, and rats in only 3 months of feeding studies of Monsanto’s Mon 363 maize, also modified with a Bt toxin, have shown signs of liver and kidney toxicity, as well as differences in weight gain between the sexes”.

“Long term feeding trials on Crop & Food’s GE Brassicas should happen ahead of any outdoor tests, saving the tax payer the expense of the CRI’s unwanted field tests”, said Mr Browning, “such tests and experiments do not belong as part of clean green New Zealand”.

Soil & Health has a target of an Organic 2020, which would not allow any GE crops or animals in the New Zealand environment.

Yes to Organic Exemption from Mandatory Folic Acid Fortification

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association is pleased that efforts to have organic bread exempted from mandatory fortification with folic acid appear to be successful.

As part of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) review, released last night, of its 2006 Final Assessment Report which proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid, FSANZ is proposing that bread in New Zealand represented as organic be exempted from mandatory folic acid fortification, should fortification be implemented as intended.

“An exemption allows organic products to remain free of synthetic ingredients, maintaining the integrity of the organic label, and also provides consumer choice”, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Thanks to efforts by Soil & Health, Organics Aotearoa New Zealand, The Green Party and others, Food Safety Minister Annette King brought up the issue of organic products at the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council meeting in October 2006”.

As part of the Review initiated by the Ministerial Council, FSANZ was tasked with examining and providing further advice on a range of issues relating to the mandatory fortification proposal.

Mandatory fortification with folic acid is seen by the Ministerial Council as a possible means of reducing the incidence of neural tube defects (NTDs).

The proposal would mean nearly all bread in New Zealand would be synthetically fortified in order to reduce by 20%, the estimated 70 pregnancies affected by NTDs.

Soil & Health had submitted that organic products must remain free of synthetic ingredients, consumers must have choice, and that mass medication is not a suitable alternative to a strong healthy diet campaign and education regarding risks of NTDs.

Soil & Health had also pointed out the difficulty in compliance with mandatory fortification by small organic flour millers and bakers.

The Issues Paper which is open to further submissions by April 18 includes advice to FSANZ from the New Zealand Commerce Commission and its Australian equivalent, “that consumers are likely to expect that foods labeled ‘organic’, or ‘certified organic’ have ingredients derived from living organisms without the use of chemical fertilizers and/or pesticides, and would not contain synthetic vitamins such as folic acid”.

“With regard to organic representations of foods, it is the opinion of the NZCC and the ACCC that the use of the term ‘organic’ in relation to foods fortified with folic acid (without clear and meaningful qualification) may mislead consumers into believing that the product is the result of organic processes and thus may risk breaching the New Zealand Fair Trading Act 1986 or the Trade Practices Act 1974.

“Australia and New Zealand have a number of national organic certification bodies, none of which have identical standards. Organic standards however generally do not currently allow synthetically produced substances into organic production systems, and vitamins and minerals are generally not permitted.”

“Soil & Health remains opposed to the mandatory fortification of all bread, but is pleased that the integrity of organics is being supported by the Food Safety Minister Annette King, the Commerce Commission and FSANZ”, said Mr Browning.

Breast cancer pesticide to be reassessed this year

/in , ,

Combined mMedia Release: Safe Food Campaign, Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa, The Soil & Health Association of NZ

The reassessment of a pesticide linked with cancer is great news, according to the Safe Food Campaign, Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa and Soil and Health Association. The three groups all commend today’s announcement by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) to give priority to the reassessment of endosulfan this year.

ERMA today released a report listing 20 pesticides it will reassess and the four it will reassess to begin with. The other three pesticides are two organophosphates (azinphos methyl and methyl-parathion), and the wood preservative pentachlorophenol (PCP).

The three groups are pleased about the reassessment of endosulfan, which is banned in at least 20 countries, but are very concerned by the delayed reassessment of some very high risk pesticides such as chlorpyrifos and 2,4-D.

“Usage of endosulfan remains high in New Zealand, in spite of research linking it to adverse health and environmental effects,” commented Dr Meriel Watts of the Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa. “Apart from breast cancer, this highly toxic insecticide has been linked to hormonal disruption, mimicking oestrogen and producing infertility, as well as foetal, gene, neurological, behavioural and immune system damage at very low doses. We have one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the world and we must do everything we can to reduce exposure to chemicals that increase the risk of breast cancer,” she added. “This pesticide has caused many deaths overseas and we want it completely banned here.”

“We also urgently want to get chlorpyrifos and all other organophosphates banned,” stated Alison White of the Safe Food Campaign. “Research published last year shows that 3-year-old children exposed to chlorpyrifos suffer nerve and mental damage as well as increased attention deficit disorder. A lot of very recent research reveals disturbing damage to the prenatal brain. Several overseas authorities, including the USA, EU, Canada and Australia, impose stringent restrictions on this insecticide and other organophosphates,” she commented. “We cannot accept the ongoing risk to our children of brain damage from this insecticide.”

“An urgent priority for reassessment is 2,4-D, the other half of Agent Orange, which is still aerially sprayed and used a lot in New Zealand,” said Steffan Browning, Soil and Health Association spokesperson. “It causes a lot of spraydrift complaints and needs to be banned. It has caused severe economic losses and serious health effects to a number of farmers and their families, resulting in some of them giving up farming. Research has linked this herbicide to prenatal brain damage, breast and other cancers, and to have an effect on hormones, with continuing dioxin contamination of 2,4-D causing even further effects.”

“Soil & Health urges increased Government resourcing to speed up reassessments from the ERMA Chief Executive initiated priority list reported today, as well as an urgently needed review of all pesticides available at retail outlets,” said Mr Browning.

“While we are pleased ERMA is going to reassess the announced four pesticides this coming year, at this rate of reassessment, it will take at least another five years for just the 20 worst pesticides to be looked at,” concluded Ms White. “In the meantime pesticides with known adverse effects on health and the environment continue to be used. We look forward to working with ERMA to speed up reassessments by looking at groups of substances together, such as organophosphates and pesticides which are aerially sprayed.”

Withdraw GE and apologise FSANZ (Food Safety Australia New Zealand)

/in , , ,

Soil & Health wants a ban on seed imports of alfalfa, soy, corn & maize, as well as GE foodstuffs, from the USA and other GE producing countries, following shonky environmental and food safety appraisals by overseas agencies coming to light.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Monsanto have both been found wanting in the last month, with implications for New Zealand’s environment and food supply, according to Soil & Health.

“Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA), MAF, and the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) have all accepted pseudo science or untested recommendations from Monsanto, Syngenta, USDA, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and others, rather than the concerns of cautious New Zealanders”, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Now with US courts and independent scientific peer reviews showing up flaws, including environmental and human health risks, in previously accepted data and institutions, it is time to smarten up clean green New Zealand’s controls.”

A number of genetically engineered foods have been allowed into our food supply without adequate testing, and the risk of environmental contamination from GE contaminated seed or microbes remains high, according to Soil & Health.

Following the release of previously blocked Monsanto data on rat feeding studies of MON 863 corn, approved by FSANZ in 2003 for use in food and feed in New Zealand, it was found that the rats fed with the GM corn showed signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys compared with those fed non-GM corn. Possible hormone alteration was also shown.

“FSANZ and NZFSA are too quick to accept GE company pseudo science and have consistently ignored the concerns of those providing precautionary advice,” said Mr Browning.

“A FSANZ staff member has said that no independent feeding tests or independent assessments of company data are necessary and confidential company data are fine for safety assessments.”

“The new information shows that the FSANZ approach does not treat risk seriously enough, and MON 863 corn should be immediately withdrawn, with an apology to New Zealand consumers.”

Ministerial Review

“The ministerial review, recently requested by Food Safety Minister Annette King, of FSANZ’s draft decision to approve another Monsanto GE Corn (High-Lysine LY038), is a necessary change to the FSANZ once over lightly and she’ll be right mate approach to novel foods that have obvious health risks. The Minister now needs to review all GE foods with a view to the corrupt processes and risks to the health of New Zealanders,” said Mr Browning.

“NZFSA’s appalling acceptance of untested LL601 rice shows another agency’s predisposition for not rocking commercial interests, although consumer surveys consistently show that New Zealanders do not want GM food.”

Disturbing research that has been ignored to date by food safety authorities includes foods well established in New Zealand: GE soy and canola. Ten-year feeding studies on GE peas showed significant health risks and the peas were destroyed. However, most studies are short term and not independent, but more are finding a dangerous link between chronic illness and GE foods, says Soil & Health.

Syngenta

Giant seed company, Syngenta is also involved with cover-ups, illegal plantings, and contaminated shipments. Syngenta is responsible for the largest case of GE contamination in the world, with at least 185,000 tonnes of Bt-10 GE corn, which although approved only for animal feeds, was mixed with US grain meant for human consumption between 2001 and 2004, and sent around the world.

According to The Lancet, “BT10 contains certain synthetic genes and proteins which are not easily broken down by stomach enzymes. In some cases, such proteins may survive in the gut for ten to twenty times as long as most ‘natural’ proteins, and this may account for the lesions and other physiological abnormalities observed in animal feeding studies involving GM crops.” There are concerns that allergic reactions may follow, and that some abnormalities may lead to cancerous growths.

According to Dr. Brian John of GE Free Cymru, “Syngenta knew about the contamination of Bt11 corn by the illegal Bt10 variety several months before the story was broken by Nature magazine in March 2005. For at least four months Syngenta and the US regulatory authorities, including the USDA and USEPA, connived to keep the contamination incident under wraps, while contaminated grain continued to be distributed on the world market. Dr John maintains Syngenta at first failed to reveal that Bt10 contained antibiotic resistance marker genes, but then had to admit it under pressure from independent scientists.”

Soil & Health says that it is time for Syngenta products to be dropped. Syngenta was the company behind Corngate and withheld information from that inquiry, and all four sweet corn varieties implicated with the 2006 contamination event were Syngenta seeds.

USDA

Last month the USDA was found violating the law and called ‘cavalier’, by a U.S. District Court Judge for failing to adequately assess possible environmental impacts before approving GE Roundup Ready alfalfa developed by Monsanto.

Less than two weeks before, another judge found that there is ‘substantial evidence that the field tests (of GE Roundup Ready Bentgrass) may have had the potential to affect significantly the quality of the human environment’, and that the USDA could not process any further field test permits without conducting a more thorough review.

“New Zealand should ban seed import from companies and administrations with such a shonky record,” said Mr Browning. “GE Free alfalfa has particularly high potential as a high value export crop for New Zealand, according to a successful plaintiff in the USDA alfalfa case. The US alfalfa grower, Mr Phil Geertson, who visited New Zealand recently, told me that the US was contaminated due to Monsanto and the USDA’s incompetence, and New Zealand had huge potential as an exporter of varieties already in the country.”

“These revelations of corrupt corporate and closely connected US agencies, supplying misinformation and poor judgement, must mark a turning point for New Zealand agencies charged with food safety, health and environmental sustainability,” said Mr Browning.

“It is time for New Zealand to turn around from risky and unnecessary GE experimenting, and create a truly sustainable nation with an international point of difference: GE Free, clean and green, and heading to an Organic 2020.”

Ban Breast Cancer Pesticide

/in , , ,

A pesticide that has been linked to breast cancer needs to be banned, say several community groups. The pesticide, endosulfan, is already banned in at least 20 countries.

The pesticide is at the top of the priority list of hazardous substances that the groups say the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) ought to reassess. ERMA is calling for submissions on which hazardous substances should be given priority reassessment by this Tuesday 30th January.

The groups, Safe Food Campaign, Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa, the Soil and Health Association and the Breast Cancer Network, point out that usage of this pesticide remains high in New Zealand, in spite of research linking it to adverse health and environmental effects. Apart from breast cancer, the insecticide has been linked to hormonal disruption, mimicking oestrogen and producing infertility, as well as foetal, gene, neurological, behavioural and immune system damage at very low doses. It persists in the environment and has been found in groundwater, soil and human breast milk.

“This antiquated organochlorine is long past its use-by-date”, said Dr Meriel Watts of Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa. “Many other countries have found safer alternatives and it is long past time we did too. It has devastated exposed communities overseas, causing many deaths and birth defects. It can cause breast cancer cells to proliferate at very, very low doses, and yet it is turning up in our food supply at increasing levels. It simply has to go. We have one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the world and we must do everything we can to reduce exposure to chemicals that increase the risk of breast cancer”.

“We also urgently want to get chlorpyrifos and all other organophosphates banned”, stated Alison White of the Safe Food Campaign. “Research published last month shows that 3-year-old children exposed to chlorpyrifos suffer nerve and mental damage as well as increased attention deficit disorder. A lot of very recent research reveals disturbing damage to the prenatal brain. Several overseas authorities, including the USA, EU, Canada and Australia, impose stringent restrictions on this insecticide and other organophosphates”, she added.

“2,4-D, the other half of Agent Orange, is still aerially sprayed and used a lot in New Zealand”, said Steffan Browning, Soil and Health Association spokesperson. “It causes a lot of spraydrift complaints and needs to be banned. It has caused severe economic losses and serious health effects to a number of farmers and their families, resulting in some of them giving up farming. Research has linked this herbicide to prenatal brain damage, breast and other cancers, and it has been shown to have an effect on hormones”, said Mr Browning. “Continuing dioxin contamination of 2,4-D causes even further effects.”

“Growers urgently need to stop using these damaging pesticides and change to more sustainable ways of growing which don’t damage our health, environment and New Zealand’s clean green reputation”, concluded Mr Browning.

Dirty Food Technologies

/in , , ,

Time for Government to Pull Up NZ’s Slide into Dirty Food Technologies.

The Soil & Health Association wants 2007 to be the year that New Zealand confirms its Clean Green image and snaps the crown agencies out of the slide into the unsustainable and unwanted activities of GE and animal cloning.

Soil & Health also wants Fonterra, Meat New Zealand and other key commercial agencies and productive sectors to confirm that they will not be part of the slide to food production using cloning or genetic engineering.

Although against international consumer trends, government agency AgResearch has supported the US Food and Drug Administration’s direction of bringing food from cloned animals into the food chain.

Crop & Food another government institution continues to push ahead with genetically engineered food plant trials. Forest Research continues with its GE tree trials. Landcare Research is researching GE biological pest controls.

“With key politicians mooting a new era of sustainability and for ‘sustainability to be central to New Zealand’s unique national identity’, Clean and Green and 100% Pure need to be reinforced as New Zealand images, not attacked by unproven, high risk and unwanted technologies,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

Of particular recent concern was AgResearch’s cloning call, according to Soil & Health. AgResearch is way out of step with consumer preferences, and AgResearch support for the US FDA’s position that includes a no labelling intent for foods derived from cloned animals, is both arrogant and a call for commercial disaster.

GE Free and Clone Free must be standard for New Zealand in the new era of sustainability and huge international market growth for organics.

New Zealand benefits from its clean and green reputation, and foods need to be labelled to ensure consumers both in NZ and overseas can choose GE and clone free.

Consumers won’t want food that has animal welfare implications either, according to Mr Browning, noting that cloning has caused significant suffering in animals already.

Any involvement by Fonterra in cloning is also a step away from a sustainable future for its farmer owners. Real value-added products will have genuine ECO sustainability ticks or organic certification, not risky new food concoctions.

Organic certification, which is the vanguard of consumer guarantees for sustainable production, does not allow either GE or cloning in either production or processing.

Government expressing a target of an Organic 2020 to its funding and research agencies would be far more productive for New Zealand’s reputation, market appeal, and food and environmental safety.