MAF Biosecurity choking on the truth

/in , ,

Soil & Health is alarmed at the collusion between government agencies that is being displayed in their damage control efforts, following serious breaches of the trial of genetically engineered pine trees near Rotorua.

MAF Biosecurity NZ (MAFBNZ) has just released a report, “MAFBNZ Investigation of Compliance and Monitoring of the Scion GM Field Test,” following the security breach and GE tree cutting at the Rotorua site in early January, and the earlier release of information by Soil & Health in its Organic NZ magazine showing Scion’s non-compliance with the trial’s controls.

“The suggestion that rabbit holes at the Scion GE trees field trial were possibly human-made for publicity purposes goes against the evidence that is available to MAFBNZ or Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) auditing staff,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “They should stop pretending that Scion are compliant.”

“Soil & Health has produced clear photographic evidence to both authorities, of well-aged rabbit holes, droppings and all, going under the GE pine trees field trial security and vermin-proof fence (photos attached). The photographs also show the mismanagement of the trees. Because everyone from the Minister down through ERMA and MAFBNZ choose to be complicit with the GE trees experimenter in defending poor compliance, further civil disobedience is predictable as those opposed to genetic engineering have nowhere to turn.”

“The report is consistently misleading and blind to Scion’s shortcomings. It uses innuendo to shoot the messenger and is effectively deceitful. MAFBNZ originally tried covering up Scion’s sloppy management by telling me that Scion had an ERMA amendment to dispose of prunings on site, allowing mulching. Now they suggest that we made an inaccurate claim,” said Mr Browning.

“We had already pointed out the lack of amendment, and now the inspector says that there was no mulching, although acknowledges the prunings had been mown.”

The report says: ‘MAFBNZ issued a minor non-compliance to Scion following notification of this incident, and recommended that a separate area on site be designated for the drying of tree prunings to prevent future mower access. MAFBNZ graded this as a minor incident, because no serious biosecurity risk/threat has resulted, prunings have not been “disposed” of by mulching and incineration is still the intended final disposal method, and staff had taken measures to remedy the situation and ensure it would not occur again.’

“Scion staff had apparently raked up the remaining prunings the day after the security breach was observed, and following Soil & Health’s media release showing Scion’s mismanagement. Retrospectively there is now an ‘agreement’ between complicit ERMA, MAFBNZ and Scion that will allow incineration on site,” said Mr Browning, “Our understanding is that this agreement is illegal. MAF has no jurisdiction: it is the auditor. ERMA is the decision-maker and any change must be a formalised amendment, and to be meaningful should be notified as the community has concerns on how such incineration should take place.”

“The report fails to recommend a wash down facility for equipment for the tractor, mower and other equipment used in the trial. Ironic considering the ‘bath’ (photo attached) that vehicles entering the rest of the (non-GE) Scion facility must drive through. The arrogance that has ERMA, MAFBNZ and Scion assuming that no heritable material can be taken out by rabbits, tractors, footwear etc, perpetuates poor compliance.”

According to the GE trial rules, the pine trees must be hedged at a height of 2 metres, although they are allowed to have a central leader growing up to 5 metres. This is to enable monitoring to stop the release of genetically engineered pollen escaping to the environment and pines of the Rotorua region.

“The inspector has failed to spot the obvious even though Soil & Health have reported that the trees are not being pruned according to the consent. The inspector has chosen to overlook the lack of required hedging at 2 metres high, when reporting that the trees had grown potentially 300 mm in the 3 months ahead of inspection and were apparently no more than 4.8 metres tall. Is there another convenient non-notified ‘agreement’ between the complicit agencies to remove the precaution of hedging at 2 metres?”

“Now a tree that is approaching 6 metres is described as a non-GE ‘filler’ and the report states ‘could mistakenly be concluded to be part of the GM trial itself.’ There are 5 non-GE controls in the trial, but we have never heard of these ‘fillers’ before. In the ramshackle excuse for a shade-house in the trial plot (photo attached), according to Scion’s December 7 report to ERMA, there are apparently 46 cuttings. No cuttings were visible in Soil & Health’s visits, so it must be asked where in the Rotorua environment are these cuttings also reported to have a propensity for producing pollen? Considering the doubts raised by poor compliance, it will be appropriate for Soil & Health to have a copy of the Scion management plan,” says Browning.

“The inspector has gone on to suggest that the rabbit holes we earlier reported were contrived: ‘MAF is still investigating the cause of these holes, and has not ruled out the possibility these were man-made for publicity purposes.’”

“I had supplied the inspector several photos that clearly show the reality of the holes and had a 50 minute interview with her in which I suggested the rabbit burrows could well have been enlarged on the outside of the fence by dogs that are often walked in the area. But the photos clearly show rabbit burrows beyond any enlarged entrances. What is the inspector’s explanation for the sizeable rabbit holes on the inside of the fence at that point, droppings and all, or the rabbits and cat seen within the so-called vermin-proof fence?”

“The MAFBNZ report also states that the outer wire netting fence extends 2 metres below ground. Scion’s reports to ERMA consistently state 1.5 metres although in a report for tangata whenua, Scion have said 2 metres. With rabbits and even a cat, and now protestors having entered the compound, a check of the trial plot’s construction depth is warranted.”

“Honesty in monitoring, reporting and a genuine and full precautionary approach as required by the Royal Commission is imperative in order to minimise the risk of GE contamination of the environment, and may also preclude further civil disobedience.”

Soil & Health is committed to a GE Free future and has a goal of an Organic 2020.

Ends.

Photographs available from Steffan Browning:

* DSCF3680 (2).JPG Vehicle tyre ‘bath’ at Scion compound adjacent to GE trial area that has no equipment wash down facility.
* DSCF3686 (2).JPG 1-11-07 GE trees in centre block. Note tall tree to the right within the block and also ‘shade house’, cuttings not apparent. Prunings lying to front left of GE trees.
* DSCF3689 (2).JPG 1-11-07 Note trees apparently pruned to 4.5 metres 2 weeks before, but no hedging at 2 metres, minimising effectiveness of weekly pollen monitoring.
* DSCF3695 (2).JPG 1-11-07 Note trees as reported by Scion to ERMA 07 December 07 as healthy and growing normally.
* DSCF3696 (2).JPG 1-11-07 Saplings reported to have been cut down in security breach. Reported 07-12-07 as healthy.
* DSCF3707 (2).JPG 1-11-07 Rabbit hole outside perimeter fence possibly enlarged by dogs. Deeper than arms length.
* DSCF3710 (2).JPG 1-11-07 Rabbit hole inside fence adjacent to others outside. Note size, activity level and droppings top right.
* DSCF3713 (2).JPG 1-11-07 Steffan Browning at holes. Right hand indicating hole from photo #10. Two main entrances on both sides of fence.

Failure in GE tree reporting may bring tears to Crop & Food’s onion trial

/in , , ,

State-owned GE tree researcher Scion has been negligent in its reporting, as has GE trial auditor MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, and the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) may have been complicit in this, the Soil & Health Association has discovered.

Scion’s annual report to ERMA has been presented online recently*, but although all previous annual reports record that rabbits have been present and destroyed, the December 2007 report has no mention of rabbits, and for the first time reporting began is now presented as (Public Version).

“Soil & Health is keen to see the genuine unsanitised version, as presented to ERMA ahead of the recent Rotorua GE tree field trial breach. ERMA insist the report is unchanged, but a ‘Public Version’ on the heels of public criticism must be treated with scepticism,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Every preceding year, Scion has reported rabbit problems and stated that ‘in any event they could not get out as the fence was buried 1.5metres. Soil & Health in its last Organic NZ magazine, ran a report with photos of the rabbit problem and has also questioned other aspects of compliance.”

“Scion had not pruned all trees according to consent conditions and is now mulching prunings on site, then without a washdown facility is removing GE plant material on mowing equipment to other research and forest areas, and the wider environment.”

“MAF Biosecurity New Zealand had suggested that ERMA had granted an amendment to Scion to allow disposal on site, but such an amendment has not occurred and Scion are in clear breach of conditions by mulch mowing prunings, and MAF had failed again by not addressing the issue.”

Scion Acting chief executive Elspeth MacRae recently said that genes involved with the research would not pose a danger to the outside environment, as the genes were sourced from naturally occurring New Zealand organisms.

However Soil & Health National Councillor and ex Crop & Food GE researcher, Dr Elvira Dommisse said, “That does not mean that the same gene which has been genetically engineered into another species in an artificial gene construction will be harmless. This is the sort of misleading comment we get from some GE scientists. It is in part true, but we cannot conclude from this that all is well.”

“In its genetically engineered form, the gene is no longer under the control of its own DNA. It is jammed into a complicated construct made up of bits of DNA from a number of different organisms. This means the gene is always switched on and is engineered to produce large amounts of a protein that pine trees don’t make. The cellular machinery of a pine tree may produce a protein that is different from the original bacterial protein. Such an altered protein could be harmful.”

“This has already happened in genetically engineered peas, when a harmless bean protein became a toxin when engineered into the closely related pea,” said Dr Dommisse.

“Scions December report also states that all of the trees in one tree experiment are healthy and growing normally. Photographs available to Soil & Health show that is not necessarily the case with some trees having significant die-back,” said Mr Browning.

“Soil & Health would like to see a site plan showing controls and GE trees. The other tree experiment reported does not claim normal growth and photographs show abnormal growth.”

“MAF have also overlooked ERMA’s control condition of limiting the Scion trees to be hedged at 2 metres with just a central leader reaching 5 metres. However the trees are hedged nearer 5 metres with a few taller limbs. Pruning controls are to reduce the chance of GE pollen escape and with these tall bushy trees will be difficult to ensure no flowering occurs.”

“Consistent failures of auditing by MAF show reason to also be concerned at the hundreds of GE experiments in New Zealand universities, crown research institutes and laboratory containment.”

“Crop & Food GE onion researcher Colin Eady was crowing about developing a tearless onion, but with poor performance by all agencies involved with genetic engineering, and the public disdain at risky GE foods, Mr Eady will be wise to listen to farmer calls for New Zealand to be GE Free,” said Mr Browning.

“Crop & Food has already broken consent conditions to its GE onion trial and with MAF and ERMA consistently failing in their GE overview. Any tolerance for the GE trials of onions, brassicas, cows and trees is running out.”

“Producers and consumers share the desire for an economy based on the clean green environment that New Zealand’s discerning markets are looking to. Mr Eady will have no tears if Crop & Food’s research focuses on natural breeding techniques and extends its valuable organic research.”

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

Note *Scion Annual Report to ERMA, 2007 Annual Report GMF99001 & GMF99005 (PUBLIC VERSION)

GE Tree trial breach shows institutional contradictions

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association hopes that Biosecurity NZ’s investigation of last weekend’s security fence breach and cutting down of genetically engineered (GE) trees at Rotorua, will lead to far more rigorous controls and compliance checks at the Scion GE tree field trial.

“Biosecurity NZ will investigate today whether action is required under the HSNO Act due to possible removal of GE plant material, and has indicated it will investigate Soil & Health’s concerns with the field trial,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

Soil & Health has previously reported compliance breaches by Scion of the consent conditions for the field trial, and yesterday’s news had raised concerns of GE plant material being removed from the secured area.

“The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) have said that there appeared not to have been material removed by those involved in the cutting down of GE trial trees, however rabbits appear to have been risking that ever since the trial started, with having both caused damage and repeatedly infesting the trial plot and surrounds.”

“Ironically, Scion’s own activities will be the greater risk with material being removed on mower equipment following mulching of GE tree prunings. Scion have been granted an ERMA amendment to their consent, which previously required autoclaving or incineration of cuttings or plant material. The mulching of prunings allows even more GE material to remain in the environment, and with no clean down facility on site, means GE plant material being removed to other adjacent non-GE trial sites and forestry areas.”

“Amendments such as these, further show ERMA’s lack of precaution and bias towards field trials. Agresearch, Crop & Food, and Scion, the operators of the only New Zealand GE field trials, have all used the amendment process with ERMA allowing changes that the public have not had opportunity to adequately scrutinize.”

“Civil disobedience is not surprising, when precaution and transparency are disregarded,” said Mr Browning. “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.”

NZFSA A2 spin just tip of iceberg

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association of NZ wants to see dramatic changes to New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s (NZFSA) focus, following the further evidence of its communications spin supporting large food industry interests.

NZFSA was found to have manipulated the release of Professor Boyd Swinburn’s report querying A1/A2 milk safety and spun it saying that ‘there was no evidence of a food safety issue.’

“Soil & Health is also concerned about the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), because of their business-based economic priorities when making risk analysis decisions,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Their risk management systems feel rotten when decision after decision is stacked in the interest of short-term economic imperatives, and community and environmental health is placed behind business.”

“Evidence showing that NZFSA manipulated scientific opinion surrounding the possible health implications of New Zealand’s dominant milk supply comes as no surprise to Soil & Health.”

“It appears Treasury, followed by Ministerial directives to NZFSA, is thwarting a precautionary approach to food safety, and with a change of policy directive NZFSA could instead rapidly focus on the best health interests of the community.”

“Soil & Health has campaigned vigorously on issues of food safety and toxins, including pesticide residues and food additives, to NZFSA, FSANZ and ERMA, and has found that responses are the same as those generated by big business. The level of PR spin is inappropriate from agencies mandated to protect the community and environment.”

“The media spin around sugar replacement Aspartame (phenylalanine, 965, NutraSweet, Equal) is a prime example of NZFSA and FSANZ supporting companies such as:- Coca Cola and Wrigley, rather than addressing the genuine health concerns of New Zealanders. The media material used by NZFSA matches that of the manufacturers of this neurotoxic, carcinogenic food additive.”

“The Coca Cola Company and Ajinomoto, an aspartame manufacturer, are in turn using NZFSA’s industry-led spin as a recommendation in glossy public advertising. Coca Cola’s full page advertisement ‘It’s Time To Air Some Truth About Sweeteners’ in a paper’s liftout last weekend, uses both NZFSA and FSANZ positions to announce ‘Low-kilojoule sweeteners are safe.’

“This is self-perpetuating spin and it is time for NZFSA to break the cycle,” said Mr Browning.

“The current attempt by NZFSA to exempt genetically modified microbes from having maximum residue limits in food is another risky move that has no benefit for anyone except companies like Monsanto. The mooted increase in some acceptable pesticide levels in food is also about big producer convenience and adds nothing to the health of New Zealanders.”

“ERMA’s reassessment of most chemicals also has an outcome that is very predictable. Unless banned or extremely restricted by our trading partners, reassessment decisions offer no real interruption to the status quo, meaning ongoing heavy use of toxins in our environment and food chain. Recent examples are Hydrogen Cyanimide (Hi-Cane) as used in the kiwifruit industry, where safe management alternatives submitted by Soil & Health were ignored, and the 1080 decision, which gave no real incentives for alternatives.”

“ERMA’s decisions supporting field trials of genetically engineered crops also favour its friends in crown research institutes and business, and lack genuine consideration of community concerns. ERMA’s touted independence of government and business is a sham when its decisions are examined.”

“Soil & Health calls for the urgent implementation of a precautionary approach that puts health and the environment well out in front of economic imperatives,” said Mr Browning.

Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and promotes a diet free from synthetic additives.

GE brassica decision lacks justification

/in , , ,

Today’s Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) decision approving a Crop and Food application to field trial brassicas (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage and forage kale) genetically engineered with a toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis(Bt), lacks justification in New Zealand’s new era of sustainability, and is full of contradictions, according to Soil & Health’s spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“ERMA has yet to decline an application for a GE field trial, and appears to look for a way to approve, regardless of how shonky the application is. This shows that ERMA is biased towards genetic engineering in clean green New Zealand, regardless of the community’s opposition,” said Mr Browning, adding, “that not running food safety feeding trials ahead of field trials of GE crops is a nonsense.”

“Why grow a crop that is potentially toxic to humans and animals for ten years without first establishing if it is even potentially edible?”

The ERMA Committee states that “GM brassicas will be prevented from entering the human food chain and a further application to the Authority for a release approval would be necessary before effects on food safety and food choice would arise. Therefore, the Committee did not consider the effects on food safety and food choices further for this application.”

“That the GE Bt brassica’s are ultimately intended for commercial release, yet have not undergone feeding studies to ensure food safety, makes this trial a serious potential waste of tax payers money, said Mr Browning, ” Animals are sick and dying in India from eating cotton also modified with Bt toxins and cotton workers have health issues. Feed studies also show health risks from other Bt engineered crops.”

“The ERMA decision appears to be predicated heavily on upskilling of scientists and increasing experience in working with gene technology in the field. The decision expects marginal public benefit however, and ERMA states, “This beneficial effect will accrue to the applicant and the staff involved in this field test and is considered to be of minimal value. A public benefit accruing to the wider scientific community when papers are published describing the research and its results (particularly in the area of impacts on the soil biota of GM plants) would be of minor value. However, this may be very unlikely to be realised.”

“Despite ERMA receiving 941submissions of objection, many advocating an organic alternative for New Zealand and the overwhelming desire for a clean green country, the ERMA decision merely states, “Given the contained nature of this field test, the Committee did not identify any significant adverse effects on society and community.”

“New Zealand’s markets are already concerned with food miles, and will not like the signals that clean green NZ is intending commercial production of GE vegetables sometime”, said Mr Browning.

ERMA’s decision in considering alternatives, states, “The Committee considers that the primary goals of this field test are to assess the agronomic performance of these GM plants under natural environmental conditions, the resistance of GM brassicas to insect pests, and to assess the environmental impacts of these GM brassicas.”,

and after suggesting the field test, “provides a valuable opportunity for experimental work to assess the impacts of GM brassica plants on the soil biota, non-target organisms, and the persistence of DNA sequences and Cry proteins in the soil.”,

then states, “The Committee notes that there is some uncertainty regarding the potential for meaningful information on the environmental impacts of growing GM brassicas to be obtained given the limitations of scale inherent in this field test.”

Soil & Health points out however funding was uncertain for the limited work that ERMA notes as valuable, that other Crown Research Agencies would be required to assist in, and spokesperson Steffan Browning, adds that, “it would be wasting resources considering public opposition and the unlikely commercialisation of the brassicas, if the current level of security required to protect GE trial crops was to be continued.”

In considering the potentially significant adverse effects on the market economy, ERMA states, “that since this application is for a small-scale contained field test with a fixed time period after which all plants will be removed, the potentially significant adverse and beneficial effects associated with this application are not economic in nature.”

However New Zealand farmers, the community and customers of the riches of a clean green land may see it differently according to Mr Browning and the ramifications of field tests trialling GE food crops, although at risk of sabotage, will send messages contrary to that of Prime Minister Helen Clark’s desire for New Zealand to be the worlds first truly sustainable country, and National’s John Key a week ago, “New Zealand’s clean green environment is vital to the Kiwi way of life and vital to the image New Zealand sells to the world,” both messages that Soil & Health agrees with.

Soil & Health will be discussing with other groups, potential further action against the field trial, as it is committed to true sustainability and a GE Free future.

Brassica trial crazy

/in , , ,

Crop & Food’s intended GE Brassica field trial is even crazier than their existing GE onion trial, according to Soil & Health, and move in the opposite direction to the Prime Ministers sustainability vision.

Potential key drawbacks are:

1. Early resistance by pests
2. Fast spread of GE brassicas and interbreeding contamination
3. Contamination of GMO free crops
4. Loss of markets through contamination
5. Loss of markets through NZ’s Clean Green image loss
6. Human and animal health risks

The use of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in genetically engineered crops has shown an early build of resistance in pest insects, resulting in the loss of a safe and important tool for many farmers.

Organic producers are able to use Bt and careful use has maintained its benefit without pest resistance. Organic and GMO free producers markets demand products free of GMO contamination.

The current use of Bt poses little risk to humans or stock as the toxin only occurs in the pest caterpillar’s gut.

GMO Bt poses risks as the toxin is in every cell of the GM crop including that eaten by consumers and also the pollen and roots.

Brassica pollen travels large distances, the seeds are small and brassicas cross easily, with hundreds of variants in existence. GMO brassicas will be one of the riskiest and dirtiest GMO crops possible.

The use of GMO crops flies in the face of Prime Minister Helen Clark’s vision of New Zealand being in the vanguard of sustainability, with New Zealand being the first truly sustainable nation, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

A truly sustainable nation will have no part in GM crops or stock.

Crop & Food’s is a State Owned Enterprise whose persistence with experimenting with many vegetable and flower crops that are creeping into field trial applications is contrary to New Zealand’s Clean Green image.

Crop & Food are experimenting with a number of brassicas and also tomatoes, cucurbits, onions, asparagus, orchids, cyclamen, snapdragons, pelargoniums, violas and others in their laboratories. A lot more than most are aware of, according to Browning.

“It is time to stop these experiments if there is no serious expectation to grow in New Zealand. New Zealanders have clearly stated that GM crops are not wanted.”