Plant & Food Research needs to drop GE

/in , , ,

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 will be required if intentionally false information about risky science continues 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 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.

NGOs visit GE field trial site today

/in , ,

Soil & Health and GE Free NZ are calling for the closure of all Plant & Food Research* genetically engineered (GE) field trials.

The crown research institute Plant and Food Research’s GE brassica trial site in Lincoln, Canterbury, has been shown to be in breach of controls imposed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) by allowing a GE plant to flower and release pollen in the open field. Soil & Health and GE Free NZ representatives will be visiting the site today to ensure removal of illegal GE plants.

“The ten year field trial has been shown to be sloppy and environmentally dangerous following its first year of operation, just as submitters opposed to the trial had been fearful of,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning, who discovered the flowering GE plant during a surprise private monitoring visit ahead of Christmas.

“The trial planted ahead of GE Free NZ’s High Court appeal against the ERMA decision, has failed to monitor volunteer plants leaving a GE debris filled site open to the elements and a direct threat to our environment,” said Claire Bleakley, president of GE Free NZ in Food and Environment, who located the ‘secret’ trial spot with Mr Browning in August last year.

Former Crop & Food scientist Dr Elvira Dommisse added her concern with the discovery. “Yet again, conditions of a GE field trial have been breached. GE brassica pollen is likely to have been released in the Lincoln area. If the Crop & Food (Plant & Food) staff responsible can’t manage their field trials without serious breaches of conditions, then the field trials should be stopped.”

In 2006 ERMA approved a trial – GMF 06001- to genetically modify four species of Brassica –cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and kale with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticidal genes.

“These dangerous, irresponsible GE field trials must not be allowed to contaminate our horticulture land and further endanger farmer livelihood. The researcher’s cavalier attitudes, shoddy research, secret locations and poor adherence to controls mean that ERMA must immediately call a halt to all trials,” Ms Bleakley said.

At the December visit the ‘secret’ site was overgrown with weeds and littered with stalk residue from the GE kale. Plants had been cut off above ground level and not dug out as required in the controls. The re-growth from cut stalks of the buffer rows were flowering and setting seed.

Many GE brassica stalks had also re-grown with at least one kale having bolted producing a flowering stem and seed pod. The plant’s label confirmed that it was a GE plant that had sprouted from the GE stem left in the soil. The seed pod is evident in the attached photograph.

There is a possibility that the buffer plants have been pollinated by the GE pollen. The GE pollen may also have been carried several kilometres by either insects or wind.

“The site is within two km of Lincoln University’s organic Biological Husbandry Unit and Heinz-Wattie’s certified organic Kowhai farm,” said Ms Bleakley. “Neighbouring properties are privately owned farming, horticulture and lifestyle blocks, and are likely to have brassica plants. This event is not science for the benefit of New Zealanders, but is endangering New Zealand’s GE Free brand and international trading reputation.”

When Plant and Food Research was rung and told of the breach the GE brassica trial, Soil & Health were told that the trial’s managing scientist Mary Christey was on holiday and fellow scientist Dr Tony Conner fielded the call. When Mr Browning went down to the site a second time he found that the offending GE flower stalk and seed pod had been removed but many plants with re-growth remained.

“The level of misinformation by Plant and Food Research and auditor MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand’s communications staff is very concerning,” said Mr Browning. “Saying they were twisting the truth would be being kind to them. These people seem to be prepared to say anything and only admitted to a GE flowering stem when The Press presented my photograph to them.”

“Still denying open flowers defies belief and a science institution presented with a fertilised seed pod appears to need a lesson about the birds and the bees. And for GE field trial auditor MAF-Biosecurity to say no breach had occurred when re-growth volunteer plants remained is disappointing and flies in the face of the trial’s ‘strict’ conditions.”

“Last year started with major monitoring compliance breaches by another crown research institute, Scion at the GE pine tree field trial site at Rotorua. This led to similar denials and misrepresentation from Scion, MAF- Biosecurity NZ and ERMA, although later led to the closure of the site and felling of all the GE trees.”

“If the ERMA and Biosecurity New Zealand fail to take action to punish the culprits they will once again have proved themselves to be nothing more than facilitators for the cheap tricks turned by the rogue scientists at Plant and Food Research rather than regulators working in the national interest. The trial must be shut down immediately and brassica seed and honey within the Lincoln area tested for adventitious GE contamination,” said Mrs Bleakley.

“GE field trials in New Zealand are becoming a real threat to the farmer and the clean green brand. Today we will revisit the site to ensure New Zealand’s GE free status is protected,” said Bleakley and Browning.

Soil & Health shares a GE free vision with GE Free NZ in food and environment, and has a vision of an Organic 2020.

Ends:

*formerly Crop and Food.

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.

Crop and Food confidential Annual Report No 2210, for GMF06001 July 2008http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/no/compliance/2008%20GMF06001%20Annual%20Repor…

Kiwi poll rejects GE animals

/in , ,

Most New Zealanders are strongly opposed to the genetic engineering of animals in New Zealand, with farmers as ardently opposed as the rest of the community, a new survey shows.

A Colmar Brunton Omnijet survey of over 1000 people, commissioned by the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand and the national animal advocacy organisation SAFE, found that only 27 per cent of New Zealanders, and just 28 per cent of farmers, support genetic engineering (GE) of animals. However six out of ten farmers (61%) who stated an opinion in the survey said they do not support GE of animals, and almost a third of all farmers surveyed (28%) stated they ‘don’t know.’

The two organisations that commissioned the poll, along with GE Free NZ and the Green Party, mounted nationwide campaigns last month to vehemently oppose four applications submitted by AgResearch to conduct broad-ranging genetic research and the commercialisation of GE animals.
The groups warn the applications threaten New Zealand’s clean green image and could result in potentially catastrophic environmental disasters in addition to animal suffering.

“Twice as many New Zealanders oppose GE than support it,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “These AgResearch applications effectively threaten our entire nation by proposing commercial production, and go much further than just small-scale, contained research.”

SAFE campaign director Hans Kriek said today: “The majority of New Zealanders are opposed to GE animals (55%) and almost one in five (18%) want more information about what is being planned, the risks involved, the effect on the animals and who will really benefit. New Zealanders have an inherent distain for the genetic engineering of animals. When you consider the foetal abnormalities, deformities and congenital health defects of cloned GE animals, kiwis have very valid reasons to oppose GE.”

The survey shows two thirds (67%) of people who expressed an opinion are opposed. Opposition is equally strong across different ethnicities: among those with Maori descent who expressed an opinion nine out of ten (86%) are opposed.

 

INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS FROM SURVEY

“The public and potential consumers need more information about the actual ‘modifications’ that will be undertaken. The potential to damage the already tarnished ‘green’ image of New Zealand is vast. The prospect of discovering some vague benefit ‘by accident’ is probably outweighed 100-1 by the chance of causing some unexpected harm ‘by accident’.”

“Many historical agricultural moves have been proven to work only for the company that developed them and have not necessarily increased production or profits for farmers”.

“These are the same type of people who said making beef feed from scrapie-infected lamb poses no risk, yet this is where BSE came from.”

“It is part of our ‘clean green’ image overseas to avoid the GE package and with a little-known economy like ours a reputation (even if it’s not true) goes a long way to identifying us.”

“In theory it sounds fantastic to be able to progress with potential medical advancements, however the risks of cross-contamination are unknown and that is why my view is ‘on the fence’.

“I would like more information on what they are doing and how safe it is so that if things go wrong we are protected. I would just want more information to be available as to the exact things they are going to do, not just a general overview. It could be worthwhile but it just doesn’t sound right towards animals.”

“It’s a waste of time and money; just cancel the plan.”

“It is short sighted, our focus should be protecting our clean green and unmodified image.”

“Let the international companies who are backing this research do it in their own countries.”

“It is not time to do this in New Zealand yet. Give it another ten years and try again.”

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The survey of 1007 people was conducted between the 23rd and 28th of September 2008 through Colmar Brunton’s Omnijet and is a representative sample of the New Zealand online population.

The question asked:
“Do you support the genetic modification of animals in New Zealand?”

The following statement introduced the question:
Government research institute AgResearch has applied to develop Genetically Modified (GM)* animals at sites around New Zealand, including Waikato, Canterbury, and Southland.

AgResearch are seeking approval for an unlimited period of time, to genetically modify cows, goats, sheep, pigs, deer, llama, horses, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, chickens and cell-lines from humans and monkeys.

The intention is to recombine genes from the different species for research, as well as for commercial production of pharmaceuticals and milks with potential medical effects. The GM animals will be kept indoors or behind secure fencing outdoors. Food products developed from the GM animals will have official approval to be sold.

Concerns raised about the applications include the impact on New Zealand’s clean green reputation, animal suffering in the experiments, potential for new diseases or contamination of soil, and liability of the public for costs of clean-up if something unexpected goes wrong.

AgResearch believes it can be at the cutting edge of genetic modification of ‘transgenic’ animals and become a world leader. It has investment from overseas biotechnology companies which are interested in the cost efficiency of producing pharmaceuticals in New Zealand animals. AgResearch says other benefits may also be found by accident through the experiments.

*Sometimes called Genetically Engineered (GE) organisms.

GE protest in Wellington against the end of A GE Free NZ

/in , ,

Today’s 9am ERMA GE hearing in Wellington will begin with a 8-30am protest outside the Terrace Conference Centre, St Johns House, 114 The Terrace.

Today’s hearing is in response to the New Zealand Racing Board’s attempt to gain approval to import for release genetically modified vaccines (Proteqflu and Proteqflu Te) to protect horses against Equine Influenza.

“This application could mark the end of New Zealand’s GE Free status, as the use of the living GE vaccine would be a release throughout the environment where ever horses live,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “A horse race to hell, using avian flu genetic constructs. What is that meant to do to New Zealand’s clean green trading image.”

“Applications by AgResearch for a range of GE animals and experiments will also be the subject of today’s protest. Those applications open for submissions until October 31, effectively amount to a genetically engineered zoo that includes the use of human genes and unacceptable animal welfare practices.”

“The protest will include members of the Soil & Health Association, GE Free NZ, SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation), and the Green Party, in an expression of disappointment in recent applications to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).”

“Fundamental safeguards for the environment, and for New Zealand’s economic and public health are not in place, yet ERMA still accepts and processes applications for GE release.”

ERMA is yet to decide against an application, despite large opposition including expert technical evidence. GE field test auditing and compliance enforcement by MAF Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) has also been proven to be poor as shown by the now discontinued Scion GE tree field test.

“When things go wrong, liability will still rest with a community that still does not want GE.”

“In recognition of the level of community concern, all Northland’s District Councils plus Rodney and Waitakere have agreed on collaborative GE community consultation as the first step in local authorities from Auckland north investigating some type of local regulation (or prohibition) of GMO land use,” said Mr Browning. “Yet these applications could override the responsible approach of those communities.”

“Today’s protest is also under the shadow of an ERMA decision due on Crop & Food’s earlier application for a GE onion family (alium) field trial for a secret Canterbury location. The Environment Canterbury’s (ECAN) CEO was recently very clear that he did not consider GE experiments or crops a regional responsibility. However in the absence of sound law or decisions at a national level, regional and district councils need to act soon.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 and is opposed to GE in food and environment.

Scion’s GE Tree Field Trial Research Result Claims Unsubstantiated

/in , ,

Crown Research Institute Scion’s claim that its research shows that GE trees are environmentally safe is seriously misleading, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

Soil & Health also believes that aspects of the GE pine tree field trial at Rotorua were continuously in breach of consent conditions and international obligations, for the trial’s entire life.

Scion has issued a media report stating that its research based on its field trial shows no gene transference into insects and micro-organisms by GE trees and consequently genetically engineered trees are safe.

“Scion’s prematurely terminated research is incomplete in design, unfinished, and unpublished in a peer reviewed journal,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “Without good design and an appropriate research period, followed by publication in a peer reviewed journal, how can a CRI make credible claims?”

In respect of concerns that modified genes could be inadvertently transferred from transgenic plants, into the wider environment, Scion chief executive Dr Tom Richardson had said, “In the case of this trial, our results show that this did not occur. The trial has been monitored for nearly five years and there is no evidence of gene transfer into other organisms, or negative impact in the soil environment or insect population in and around the trial site.”

Monitoring at the site is intended for another two years following removal of the trees in the next few weeks, aimed at detecting any potential gene transfer.

“For Scion to say that there was no horizontal gene transfer (HGT) following a primitive and short term study of only 5 years so far, is naïve or even duplicitous, certainly misleading” said Mr Browning.

Canterbury University School of Biological Sciences Professor Jack Heinemann (1), has asked, “Given that it would take all 6 billion people on earth, working in parallel, 30 thousand years to properly demonstrate no transgene transfer from those trees to just soil bacteria (much less all the other organisms in the environment) how did this independent research achieve a previously impossible detection capacity?”

“Scion’s attempts to vindicate incomplete research is more likely a ploy to satisfy its giant US dominated GE forest partner ArborGen’s multi-million dollar investment in Scion, and to urgently satisfy Government concerns about key recommendations by the Royal Commission into Genetic Modification not being met,” said Mr Browning. “Other claims made by Scion also lack credibility

A recent report by think-tank Sustainable Future, analysing key recommendations by the Royal Commission into Genetic Modification, found that some recommendations accepted by government yet not implemented, and requiring significant policy work, included

6.12 That the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) requires research on environmental impacts on soil and ecosystems before release of genetically modified crops is approved.

and

7.4 That, in connection with any proposal to develop genetically modified forest trees, an ecological assessment be required to determine the effects of the modification on the soil and environmental ecology, including effects on soil micro-organisms, weediness, insect and animal life, and biodiversity.

The authors of the Sustainable Future review also think that New Zealand may be in breach of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity: that is, the research currently undertaken by Scion is using GM sterility traits (often referred to as terminator technology or more technically as Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs)).

New Zealand had undertaken to have the UN position changed but following worldwide condemnation of GURTs in 2006, then Environment Minister David Benson-Pope said that New Zealand fully supported the consensus agreement reached by the international Working Group on genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) and supports further research on the impacts of GURTs.

“If Scion’s short term research is portrayed as also saying GURTs in trees are safe in the environment, then New Zealand will be open to worldwide riducule,” said Mr Browning.

“Soil & Health has raised critical non-compliance issues at Scion in December 2007, with MAF Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) the compliance auditors potentially allowing GE pollen release. The trees were never trimmed to the 2m hedge, making pollen detection all the more difficult.”

The Environmental Risk Management Authority in its pre-hearing assessment (2) had stated, “ERMA New Zealand considers that it is likely that some pollen may be inadvertently shed during the trials due to reproductive structures not being removed (either by being missed or not being recognised) prior to maturity.,” and in its approval of the Scion field trial had stipulated, “To facilitate detection and removal of reproductive structures, all genetically modified trees shall be trimmed to maintain a 2m lower “hedge” with a single leader growing to a maximum height of 5m.”

Scion chief executive Dr Tom Richardson stated,” The results from this research trial support the argument that genetically modified trees are low-risk and can be safely introduced into the environment, without having a negative effect on other organisms.”

“However a very few years of trial is grossly inadequate to make such a sweeping statement of environmental safety.” said Mr Bowning, “It would seem commercial imperatives are the stronger in Scion’s objectives. Dr Richardson would do well to remember that his role is on a New Zealand Crown Research Institute and the New Zealand environment must come before investment partner ArborGen’s dreams of global forestry and biofuel domination.”

“New Zealand forestry company Rubicon as a third share holder in ArborGen is also implicated in the mad rush to plant large scale GE eucalypt plantations in the USA and Brazil. These commercial imperatives are blocking good science and precaution and New Zealand must take a stand against the risk of global ecological disaster.”

“Poor science with a New Zealand label also has the potential to ruin the clean green reputation that New Zealand’s primary production and tourism currently enjoys.”

“Considering overwhelming opposition to genetic engineering in New Zealand, field trials should be treated as a privilege and run to the highest level of precaution.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 and is opposed to GE in food and environment.

————————————

(1) Heinemann, J.A., and T. Traavik. 2004. Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 22:1105-1109.

(2) The length of the field trial

The proposed field trials will last for up to 20 years, although individual trees will only be grown in the trial site for between three and ten years. The genetically modified trees will not be grown for the normal duration that can be expected in a commercial plantation. Consequently, the proposed field trials will not provide an opportunity for complete evaluation of the genetically modified trees over their expected life span.

Pollen escape
The most important risks with this application are those associated with the possible escape of pollen. Unless very strict containment is maintained, it would be prudent to assume that there are significant risks from cross pollination with trees outside of the trial. The risk is compounded from two factors. The first is the long duration of the trial (20 years) with the increased number of opportunities this represents for the inadvertent development and release of pollen. ERMA New Zealand considers that it is likely that some pollen may be inadvertently shed during the trials due to reproductive structures not being removed
(either by being missed or not being recognised) prior to maturity. The second is uncertainty about the viability and spread of the pollen once released, as little information is available on this. Other consequences of pollen release will depend on whether the genetically modified pollen has increased toxicity or allergenicity. Testing will be required to determine this.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) to soil microorganisms
Given current knowledge about HGT, it is considered likely that some horizontal gene transfer to soil microorganisms may occur. HGT, if it occurs is unlikely to just involve the genetically modified material so that this issue needs to be considered in a broader context. The key issue in relation to HGT is the consequence of the gene transfer which depends on the function of the material transferred. There is considerable scientific uncertainty about the effects of such transfer and the proposed trial offers opportunities for further research in this area.

Unanticipated host-gene expression
It is possible that some unanticipated effects may result from the genetic modifications due to the method of introducing the foreign genetic material. The magnitude of such alterations are uncertain, although some may be detected during the laboratory phase, and some can be specifically tested for. Such unanticipated changes need to be considered in the context of the potential for natural variation in gene expression in plants due to the plant propagation techniques.

Review shows that NZ is not ready for GE production – time for Organics to lead the way

/in , , ,

The Review of the Forty-Nine Recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification released today by Sustainable Future, reinforces the deep concerns recently expressed by the Soil & Health Association of NZ about GE decision making and field tests.

Sustainable Future Ltd is a sustainable research and think tank organisation that has undertaken an extensive review of the 2001 Royal Commission on Genetic Modification’s warrant and recommendations, and the government level of acceptance and implementation of the recommendations.

“Particularly significant is the Reviews finding that although recommended by the Royal Commission in 2001, investigation into potential adverse effects of GE in the environment has been at a low to zero level, and protection for beekeepers and co-existence systems between GE and non GE producers has not been devised,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“The poor implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations means that once again a crisis of direction for Aotearoa New Zealand’s future with genetic engineering has emerged.”

“The new knowledge of major shortcomings in GE production, coupled with huge increases in demand for organic and non-GE food and fibre, allows New Zealand to use this opportunity to stop GE in its tracks and maximise a GE Free, clean green and 100% Pure brand in the world.”

The Sustainable Future review noted that the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification in 2001 had taken a middle path of neither totally accepting GE, nor totally precluding GE, but took a position called ‘preserving opportunities’ and formulated 49 recommendations that included allowing for non-GE producers to be able to maintain production, organic or otherwise, without fear of GE contamination.

“Lack of implementation of the Commission’s recommendations means that cannot happen unless GE development stops,” says Mr Browning. “The Royal Commission failed to consider the GE Free option fully and Sustainable Future have shown today that that opportunity is once again here.”

“The Sustainable Future report findings, that only 41% of the Royal Commission’s recommendations have been fully implemented and none of the ‘Crops and other field uses’ recommendations were implemented, shows government disregard for the 70% of New Zealanders who do not want GE food production here.”

“The decision making process by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has meant granting of GE field trials without the prior research anticipated by the Royal Commission, and the current application by Crop & Food that would allow flowering of onion crops and no soil studies ahead of the trial, is so likely to be granted that making submissions against it is a likely waste of time.”

Soil & Health has repeated concerns about the legislative gaps and submission and decision making process directly to senior ERMA officials, just three weeks ago.

Two examples of the 29 recommendations by the Royal Commission not implemented are (1) that GE crops need to be excluded from regions where their presence would be a significant threat to an established non-GE crop and (2) that MAF provide a strategy to ensure that honey is not contaminated with GE pollen.

“If the proposed GE field trials on onion, garlic, leeks, shallots and spring onions go ahead, these plants will go to flower and seed. Even if the flowers are covered, it is possible that bees may get access to them and that honey be contaminated. This could potentially spell the end of New Zealand’s reputation as a producer of excellent quality, GE-free honey,” says Soil & Health Councillor and former Crop & Food GE scientist Elvira Dommisse.

“As the Sustainable Future team have found that with a lack of preparedness for full release of GE organisms, due to insufficient Royal Commission recommendations being implemented, there is also the possibility of New Zealand pursuing GE Free food production,” says Mr Browning.

“ What is now required is a government commitment that recognised the unique GE Free branding opportunities that our country could enjoy, with organics poised to maximise that economic benefit.”

Soil & Health is opposed to genetic engineering in food and environment and has a vision of an Organic 2020.

Euthanase GE animals, don’t create more!

/in , ,

An application by AgResearch to trial many different genetically engineered animal types in its laboratories and farms is an ugly step in the wrong direction for brand New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure image, according to the Soil & Health Association.

“Kiwis don’t want GE. Our export markets don’t want GE. The GE trials we have already are being mismanaged. It is time to euthanase AgResearch’s current GE cattle, not add a macabre zoo to their unnatural and unwanted experiment,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

AgResearch is preparing an application to undertake genetic engineering research and development on a wide range of species including cattle, sheep, goats, deer, zebu, buffalo, horses, chickens and rabbits, and use genetic material from a wide range of donor species including human (synthetic) proteins.

The application is also to include a scaling up of current research and to undertake normal farm-scale activities so that sufficient numbers of animals can be maintained to enable pharmaceutical and nutraceutical production.

“The broad range of animals and recombinations envisaged by AgResearch comes when previous and existing experiments have still not been adequately managed and very real risks have still not been properly investigated,” says Mr Browning.

“On a site inspection at AgResearch’s Ruakura GE facility, Soil & Health saw non GE sheep and cattle grazing on land subject to drainage from the GE facility. There is a poor level of care and concern about the environment within and beyond this and previous GE experimental facility boundaries.”

“GE constructs and derivatives including antibiotic resistant genes have been located in the soil at current GE facilities yet further research and clean up has been minimal, and one retired GE sheep experimental property at Whakamaru is once again for sale with conventional animals grazing there without any follow up residues research.”

“AgResearch appears to act as a law unto itself, and in one example AgResearch breached conditions of its GE cattle consent by inserting a GE embryo into a GE cow. Its penalty was remonstrating with itself by a review of its procedures. The original consent had expressly disallowed such a procedure, and it is very difficult to imagine a science technician not being well aware of their actions.”

“Every ERMA approved field trial, whether plant or animal, has fallen down on its conditions and for AgResearch to be applying for a veritable zoo to play with, is both risky, unethical and goes against New Zealand’s point of difference in the world, clean green, 100% Pure and essentially GE Free.”

“Euthanasia of AgResearch’s current GE herd and elimination of all GE field tests will be better for New Zealand’s environmental and economic future,” says Mr Browning.

Soil & Health promotes an Organic 2020 with food and environment free from GE.

New GE onions trial a waste of resources

/in , ,

Crop & Food’s application for a new, riskier field trial of genetically engineered (GE) onions, plus shallots, spring onions, garlic and leeks is a waste of resources and expertise and will receive widespread public opposition, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

“Rather than continuing down the GE path, which is unwanted by consumers and export markets, Soil and Health would rather see research and trials into organic growing methods,” said spokesman Steffan Browning.

“The need of keeping the new GE trial’s site secret is understandable, considering the level of anger in the community at GE field trials and at the poor compliance of consent conditions.”

Crown research institute Crop & Food is applying for a 2.5 ha GE field trial in Canterbury using a wide range of genetic constructs in allium plants (onion, garlic leek). It intends operating in much less than international accepted standards for buffer zones of 1000 metres from possible non-GE onion growers. Crop & Food has previously trialled GE onions in a 400 sq metre plot with some difficulty.

Crop and Food Research now wants to plant onion seed directly in the ground and allow some onion plants to flower in the field in order to produce seed. The flowering onions would be caged in an attempt to prevent insects carrying pollen to non-GM onions outside the site.

“This field trial is too risky and must not go ahead. GE field trial operators have consistently failed to meet consent conditions, and the likelihood of human failure combined with climate and animal interference means that caged or otherwise, letting GE plants flower in the New Zealand environment is too risky. The community is unlikely to allow the trial to proceed,” said Mr Browning.

“The Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) negligence to insist on testing for adverse effects at field trials means that possible full commercial release might happen in the future without those tests having occurred. The submission process is a sham making submissions by the community practically pointless.”

“GE field test auditing and compliance enforcement by MAF Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) has also been proven to be poor as shown by the Scion GE tree field test. Scion GE trees still remain unpruned correctly risking GE pollen release.”

“Unless drastically improved, these gaps in care and enforcement are likely to be filled by the community.”

“There have not been adequate studies of known and potential adverse effects at the last Crop & Food GE onion field test site. This new trial has even more risks including cross contamination to other growers by proposing that some GE plants can set flowers for seed. Sowing small GE seeds directly in the ground also adds further risk of contamination.”

“Organic and conventional non-GE growers and gardeners must be able to have confidence in government agencies ability to protect them from GE contamination. Applications such as this and AgResearch’s intended menagerie of GE animals application makes a mockery of New Zealand’s clean green GE Free 100% Pure market branding, and threatens consumer confidence for the future.

“CRIs Crop & Food, AgResearch and Scion all make significant and valuable non-GE research and developments, but their GE portfolios bring them into disrepute.”

“Soil & Health suggests that CRIs join the drive to genuine sustainability and focus on clean progressive research and development. Stop wasting taxpayers’ money and give clean producers their best opportunities.”

Soil & Health is opposed to all GE field tests and has a vision of an Organic 2020.

NOTE: Photographs of successful GE Free onion seed crops available.

Rotorua GE Tree Trial remains an environmental threat

/in , ,

The GE tree field trial at Rotorua, run by Crown research institute Scion, has an increasing risk of spreading GE pollen according to the Soil & Health Association.

“Scion, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ), and ERMA are continuing to allow GE pine trees to grow in a way that makes GE pollen dispersal all the more likely,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

According to research from Duke University’s Center on Global Change, which has studied pollen from GE conifer trees, the pollen from transgenic pines can spread more than a thousand miles, leading to as they put it, “substantial … subsequent colonization.”

Following the Soil & Health alert of Scion’s not meeting the conditions of ERMA’s consent, and following a breach by protestors of the GE field trial’s security fence and the cutting down of 19 experimental trees, Scion has taken some corrective actions, but it has left trees unpruned to approximately 4.5 metres.

The ERMA consent requires that the pinus radiata experimental trees are ‘hedged’ at two metres with the central leader allowed to grow to 5 metres. This was to allow detection of male pollen producing structures and the larger female seed bearing cones.

“At two metres most growing tips (where male pollen producing structures occur) would be visible by a Scion researcher or the MAFBNZ auditor. However with the trees now bushy and more than 4.5 metre tall, observation by use of a ladder is quite different from at standing level and makes pollen release just a matter of time.”

“ERMA regards the issue as one to be worked through by Scion and MAFBNZ, but we urge ERMA to ensure the consent requirements are being met. Not hedging at two metres is a clear and very risky breach of consent conditions.”

MAFBNZ have the audit function over GE trials and carried out the investigation of the cutting down of GE trees and of Soil & Health’s concerns.

Soil & Health had reported poor management and auditing of the field trial, of rabbits freely entering the trial, of tractor mowing of GE prunings with no equipment clean down, and of trees not being correctly pruned.

“The MAFBNZ investigation report showed complicity between the decision making agency ERMA, the audit agency MAFBNZ, and the researcher Scion. On the positive side, they have now dealt with the rabbit issues and have erected a fenced area to contain prunings and dead trees ahead of incineration, however what is probably the riskiest aspect, that of potential pollen dispersal, has not been addressed.”

“It must be asked, what is to happen when ERMA and MAFBNZ allow a GE researcher such as Scion to consistently breach the conditions of what must be regarded as a very privileged permission, to field test GE organisms in New Zealand? ”

Soil & Health is opposed to all GE field trials in New Zealand and has a vision of an Organic 2020.

GE brassica planting possibly illegal

/in , ,

Soil & Health is alarmed that Crop & Food has planted genetically engineered brassicas ahead of the March 31 Wellington High Court appeal against the ERMA decision granting permission last year.

The appeal by GE Free NZ was joined by Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ), BioGro, and the Biodynamic Association, and questions potential errors of process by decision maker ERMA.

The possibly flawed decision granted Crop & Food permission to field trial brassicas (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage and forage kale) genetically engineered with a toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis(Bt). However that decision was appealed by GE Free NZ within the allowable timeframe.

“Good process and natural justice should not allow an applicant to proceed with planting a GE field trial when the very basis of that decision is under appeal,” says Soil & Health Association spokesperson Steffan Browning. “Appropriately, if it was the RMA, not a sod would be turned until any appeals against decisions were resolved, as many appeals are upheld. What makes the HSNO Act any different?”

“This latest GE planting shows a cavalier attitude on behalf of Crop & Food’s GE team, as well as from the decision maker ERMA, and compliance agency MAF Biosecurity NZ.”

ERMA have confirmed that the Brassica trial was planted last December, although the High Court appeal is not to be heard until March 31.

Soil & Health’s submission at the ERMA hearing included concerns of GE contamination risks to organic and non-GE growers, resistance to the organic pesticide Bt, horizontal gene transfer, and the threat to New Zealand’s clean green image.

Soil & Health is committed to a GE free environment and food supply and has a vision of an Organic 2020.