Goodbye Glyphosate! Rethinking Weeds

/in , , ,

Learn how to eliminate glyphosate and other harmful herbicides.

This recording is available to members, below. Please log-in using the email associated with your membership. If you have trouble logging-in please contact our team by email: info@organicnz.org.nz

About the video

This webinar is part of the Soil & Health Association’s campaign to strengthen regulation of glyphosate: https://soilandhealth.org.nz/glyphosate/

Join Philippa Jamieson, former editor of Organic NZ magazine, in conversation with Dr Charles Merfield and Mike Palmers who will discuss the way we think about and experience the plants we call “weeds”, and offer some organic, non-chemical and agro-ecological ways of managing them.

Followed by questions and discussion about practical weed solutions for your home garden, small block or farm.

The panelists

Dr Charles Merfield is head of the BHU Future Farming Centre and Merfield Agronomy Ltd. He has a particular interest in physical and ecological weed management.

Mike Palmers is an organic landscape gardener, he is currently a member of Soil & Health’s national council, and has served on the board of BioGro.

Video series

Suggested donation $10 – funds go towards Soil & Health’s glyphosate campaign. Make your donation by credit card: https://soilandhealth.org.nz/donate/#!form/Donate

Or transfer funds to our account: BNZ Account number: 02 0108 0058415 001

Wake-up call on the environmental and human health harms of toxic agrichemicals

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association is welcoming last week’s “Knowing what’s out there” report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The report criticises New Zealand’s lack of monitoring and regulation of environmental harm from chemicals.

Jodie Bruning, national councillor for the Soil & Health Association

“New Zealand lags behind other countries on monitoring and regulation of toxic agrichemicals, putting our health, environment and overseas trade agenda at risk,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Jodie Bruning.

“A more integrated framework, suggested by the report, will help the right hand know what the left hand is doing, this is currently not happening in New Zealand, when it comes to environmental chemicals.

“For example the Environmental Protection Agency, our government watchdog on these issues, had to make a public appeal last year for information on glyphosate use. Why do they need to resort to this?  Because they don’t monitor glyphosate’s use, availability, or impacts. There’s no feedback loop between the agencie and our territorial and local authorities.

“It’s been shown that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen and its widespread use in New Zealand must be stopped. 

“Glyphosate is the tip of the iceberg. Our regulatory settings are useless if we are not informed about environmental pollution, and if regulator is not keeping an eye on what’s happening on the ground.

“The government needs to take this report seriously. This includes expediting a formal reassessment of glyphosate as a key next step in protecting New Zealanders and the natural environment from harm.”

ENDS

Notes

The PCE report is covered here: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/462653/lack-of-mechanisms-to-govern-chemical-use-in-nz-commissioner

Glyphosate risk assessment urgently needed

/in ,

The New Zealand Environmental Protection Agency’s call for information on the use of glyphosate in Aotearoa is a missed opportunity to properly risk assess the substance says Jodie Bruning, spokesperson for the Soil & Health Association.

Today the EPA extended the process for a second time. Submissions were due to close today but now close on October 22nd. 

“The NZEPA is delaying. This call for information should be integrated into a genuine risk assessment of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides sold and used in this country.

“Government is moving to review glyphosate because it knows that glyphosate causes health and environmental damage. But the major users of glyphosate will fight strongly to keep hold of it.

“On behalf of the thousands of New Zealanders who want action to reduce the harm from toxic agrichemicals we’re making this submission as part of the call for information.

The key points in the Soil & Health Association submission are:

  • A glyphosate risk assessment is needed urgently
  • The health risks from glyphosate keep getting bigger
  • Farmers and applicators are exposed more often than regulators assume
  • New mowing and robotics technology mean there’s no excuse for spraying roadsides and urban environments
  • The economic risks to glyphosate-based herbicides are real and growing

“Further delays to this process are unacceptable and we need to get on with the formal risk assessment,” says Bruning.

ENDS

Japanese glyphosate scare highlights lack of regulation in New Zealand

/in , , , ,

A blasé approach to glyphosate regulation in New Zealand threatens our international reputation and poses a risk to New Zealand consumers, Soil & Health Association spokesperson Jodie Bruning said today.

“Japanese authorities have now rejected five shipments of glyphosate-contaminated honey from New Zealand’.

“New Zealand needs to take glyphosate contamination seriously. The International Agency for Cancer has recognised glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. Bayer, the producer of Roundup, has already paid over NZ$15 billion NZD to nearly 100,000 individuals around the world who developed cancer after being exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides.

“We support Apiculture New Zealand’s call to have a national conversation.

‘We believe the New Zealand government can adopt a more nuanced approach to glyphosate. This is not an all or nothing conversation. Farmers can still have access, but glyphosate can be more cautiously regulated to ensure premium exporters don’t get nasty surprises like the honey exporters have received with these rejected shipments.

Controls have been placed on honey exporters by MPI following Japan’s announcement that glyphosate residue had been found above the allowable limit. Jodie Bruning says these controls are necessary, but continue to place the burden of responsibility on the honey industry.

“It’s not the beekeepers or honey industry’s fault that glyphosate regulation in New Zealand is so poor.

“We don’t have prudent controls on the use of glyphosate in New Zealand and it’s time we realised that consumers who care about food, care that it is not contaminated with a probable carcinogen.

“Glyphosate is a contaminant and a health risk. Whatever we do to protect our export markets will ultimately protect our freshwater, our soils and our families.

Soil & Health launches glyphosate campaign

/in ,

The Soil and Health Association are calling for councils to stop spraying glyphosate to keep New Zealand families safe.

‘The public increasingly understand that it is no longer acceptable to be exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides,’ says Soil & Health spokesperson Jodie Bruning,

We are working with US based Non-Toxic Neighbourhoods who have had significant success helping councils transition affordably to non-toxic urban management.

The importance of glyphosate science

Public health scientists think it is bizarre that the findings of the most prestigious cancer agency in the world were rejected by New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority (the EPA).

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate probably causes cancer in humans. The IARC also found that glyphosate (and it’s commercial formulations) definitely causes cancer in laboratory animals – placing our pets at risk too.

 In 2016 the EPA produced what scientists consider to be a flawed cancer review to discredit the findings of the EPA’s own cancer authority.  New Zealand professors and scientists remain ‘mystified’ and have spoken repeatedly (here and here and here) about the EPA’s frozen stance on glyphosate. An Official Information [ENQ-35127-N5J6C7]request has found that the EPA has never conducted a formal risk assessment of glyphosate or the commercial formulation.

Glyphosate is not just a cancer risk. Scientific studies show that glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, may not only probably cause cancer but cause oxidative stress and disrupt endocrine system function which can set the stage for disease and delays.

Chemical companies are paying out for the damage caused

Following the IARC decision, cases in the U.S. have awarded the claimants damages against Monsanto (since 2018, owned by Bayer). The court cases uncovered evidence that showed how Monsanto took action to limit and distort public knowledge. Punitive damages were awarded for ‘reprehensible’ conduct. The jury trials are now under appeal with Bayer claiming the verdict of regulators across the world upholds Bayer’s stance. Unfortunately, as scientists have illustrated (in Europe and the USA), regulatory agencies relied on ghostwritten industry studies and ignored data that the IARC considered important.

In June 2020 Bayer proposed a settlement of USD$8.8-10.9 billion to settle over 125,000 U.S. lawsuits to resolve Roundup litigation. Bayer has framed the complex settlement proposal as an end to ‘uncertainty’. The proposal contained no admission that glyphosate-based herbicides caused the cancer claimed by cancer sufferers, many former farmers, who see the proposal as a slap in the face. The settlement proposal may restrict future claimants from a jury trial. New Zealand doesn’t face the same court cases here because the ACC covers such cases as accidents.

Why isn’t New Zealand taking action?

Ignoring the calls of scientists, New Zealand councils refer to the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZ EPA) to claim that glyphosate is a ‘low toxicity herbicide’. The hazard rating given by the NZ EPA provides a legal rationale that it is safe enough to spray in public places. This is wrong!

It is evident from operations in Auckland and Christchurch that councils and contractors need to make a lot of changes in order to shift away from glyphosate dependency – like any addiction – shifting to a new mindset isn’t always easy. Much of the management and contract negotiation are out of the public eye – so it is difficult for the public to understand what is going on. Councils don’t appear to be undertaking properly accountable trials with new technologies and recording and documenting trial methods, how they cope with and reduce over time the weed seed banks, and making this information public. We know non-toxic alternatives and management regimes can never neatly replace toxic chemical use. Shift away from addiction requires a change in mindset and operations.

We also understand that councils struggle to adopt the precautionary principle. This would help deal with uncertainty (which is always present). Councils may not be comfortable weighing the risk to families, and particularly babies and children, with the risk of complaints from irate rate-payers or staff worried about the stress on physical assets. These are value-based decisions, and are an important part of making any decision to protect health or the environment.

Kiwis exposed to health risks from weedkiller

/in ,

The Soil & Health Association has welcomed Bayer’s announcement of US$10 billion in payouts to tens of thousands of claimants in the US who allege exposure to Roundup herbicide caused their cancer.

“But here in New Zealand, we have an untenable situation where glyphosate-based herbicides are sprayed broadly in urban environments, and on human food and animal feed crops,” said Soil & Health Association spokesperson Jodie Bruning.

In 2018 Soil & Health applauded Christchurch City Council for its decision to stop glyphosate use in public spaces, but now the Association is concerned that the Council is considering a possible reversal of that decision for budgetary reasons, and may choose to rely on the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for a glyphosate safety tick.

However, an Official Information Act request revealed that the EPA has never conducted a risk assessment of glyphosate, nor the more toxic formulations used in New Zealand.

“For the most commonly used herbicide in New Zealand, this is really quite astonishing. We have no idea how it persists in our own environment. As a result, much of the scientific data cited by the public in presentations to councils has simply never been considered by our hazardous chemicals regulator,” Jodie Bruning said.

Soil & Health is concerned with uncontrollable public exposure and the risk farmers, council applicators and contractors face.

“The public cannot avoid urban sprays. We don’t know how long glyphosate lasts, because there is no testing in the streets where our kids walk to school.

“The lack of EPA stewardship leaves regional and local councils divided. On one hand, they defer to the EPA’s claim that glyphosate is ‘considered safe’ when managed appropriately. On the other hand, they are hearing from a well-informed public about all the data the EPA has never considered, because it continues to rely on reauthorisations containing data selected and supplied by the chemical industry.

“It’s time this biased approach to chemical regulation was put to bed, and the EPA realised that weak regulations only serve the industry that they’re supposed to be regulating.

While calling for the use of glyphosate to be banned from public places, Soil & Health acknowledges the difficulty for farmers shifting away from using glyphosate to prepare paddocks prior to planting.

“Certified organic farmers successfully farm without glyphosate, and Soil & Health calls for more funding into research, education and farmer extension to expand the use of safe, herbicide-free organic methods of farming,” said Bruning.

Pesticides

/in ,

Conventional agriculture relies on pesticides to protect crops from pests and diseases – including synthetic herbicides to control weeds and synthetic

fertilisers to promote crop growth. Over time this heavy use of synthetic chemicals reduces the soil biota and the productive capacity of the soil, and creates increased resistance by pests to the chemicals used, as well as the resurgence of secondary pests.

There are various long-term effects associated with particular pesticides that are found in our food, including endocrine or hormonal disruption, cancer, immune system effects, nervous system damage, genetic damage, infertility and birth defects.  These chemicals are also dispersed in the environment, polluting waterways and damaging ecosystems.

Numerous studies on the adverse impacts of pesticides and chemical fertilisers have raised awareness about the use of synthetic chemicals in agriculture, including how effective they actually are in treating pests and diseases, and the impact they are having on human health as well as the wider environment. People are turning to more natural forms of pest and disease control that are more effective, sustainable and healthier in the long term.

Organic agriculture has a holistic approach to pest and disease management that avoids the need for pesticides by instead focusing on building healthy fertile soil with abundant microbial life, fostering natural predators and using natural remedies. Truly well-nourished plants do not attract pests or provide a suitable situation for pests and diseases to develop. Farmers and producers try to create healthy soil so that plants and animals can be healthy, and build up good natural defences against pests and diseases. The long-term health of the soil is taken into consideration, rather than trying to deal with the immediate problem with synthetic sprays. Biological controls may be used.

The Soil & Health Association is opposed to the use of harmful pesticides in Aotearoa New Zealand. We advocate for farmers and producers to adopt natural, non-harmful methods of pest and disease management.

We believe that:

The most toxic harmful pesticides such as glyphosate should be phased out immediately.

Use of glyphosate in public places, home gardens and for pre-harvest desiccation should cease immediately as these are the routes that expose most people to glyphosate. Other uses should be restricted and phased out as soon as possible. Researchers and farmers should be encouraged to develop and implement nonchemical alternatives to glyphosate that foster soil microbial life instead of destroying it.

Pesticide spray drift across a landowner’s boundaries without the neighbours’ consent should be made illegal.

There is a need for stricter enforcement with higher penalties for any harm from pesticides caused to human or animal health and/or pollution of waterways, groundwater, air and soil.

When pesticides are used the ‘polluter pays’ principle should apply, so that pesticide users should be held financially liable for any adverse effects that might occur from spray drift or chemical trespass.

More resources are needed for the monitoring of farm spraying activities and their effects on the health of the environment and people.

Aerial spraying of pesticides should be a prohibited activity.

 

                                            Photo credit: Nick Holmes