The Gene Tech Bill Tightrope

/in , , , , , ,

What New Zealand’s Proposed Genetic Engineering Rules Could Mean for Organics 

By Charles Hyland, chair of the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand 

When the Government released the Gene Technology Bill in late 2024, it advanced a proposal that could reshape how Aotearoa New Zealand manages genetic technologies for many years to come. We have a short and critical window of opportunity to influence this for the benefit of the organic and wider farming community, the New Zealand public and the environment.  

For decades, the organic movement has maintained an unambiguous position on genetic engineering: it has no place in organic systems.

This position is not solely about the safety or otherwise of specific technologies. It is about protecting ecological integrity, sustaining consumer trust in food systems, and safeguarding the right of communities, growers, and consumers to choose farming systems that remain free from genetic contamination.

Above: Charles Hyland

The Gene Technology Bill represents the most significant attempt to rewrite Aotearoa’s genetic rules since the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 was passed nearly thirty years ago. It therefore represents a critical juncture in the country’s relationship with biotechnology, food, agriculture, and the environment. 

A legislative reset 

The original version of the bill, introduced in late 2024, was designed to remove gene technology regulation from the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) framework and place it into a dedicated new system. This new framework would create a single Gene Technology Regulator supported by advisory committees and a risk-tiered approval system. Government ministers and officials presented the change as a necessary modernisation. They argued that HSNO was an outdated and overly cumbersome regime that treated all genetic technologies in a single, inflexible way. Some researchers and industry groups had long complained that HSNO imposed slow and costly approval processes, making it difficult to work with techniques such as CRISPR and other forms of gene editing. The stated goal of the reform was to reduce regulatory lag, streamline decision-making, and encourage domestic research and innovation. 

To the organic community, however, this proposal triggered deep concern. The original draft of the bill allowed entire categories of genetic techniques to be declared “not regulated,” which would have created the possibility of genetically engineered organisms entering our food, farming systems and outdoor environment without any public notification, without labelling, and without clear liability mechanisms if contamination occurred. To Soil & Health, the promise of streamlining looked less like efficiency and more like a structural blind spot. 

One of the most consequential elements of the original proposal is the potential redefinition of what legally counts as a “GMO” in New Zealand. By excluding certain forms of gene editing from the GMO umbrella altogether, these technologies could be treated as though they are no different from conventional breeding. This shift would not just simplify regulation; it would fundamentally alter the scope of what falls under genetic oversight, enabling some gene-edited organisms to bypass the regulatory system entirely. For the organic sector, this raises profound concerns about transparency, traceability, and market trust. 

What changed in the Health Committee’s version 

The Health Select Committee, which considered the draft Bill, received a large volume of submissions from environmental organisations, Māori representatives, organic producers, consumer groups, scientists, legal experts, the biotech industry, and concerned members of the public. Its revised text introduces several significant changes intended to address some of the concerns raised. 

One of the most important shifts is that the committee recommends restricting exemptions to specific organisms, not to entire classes of genetic techniques. Exemptions can now only be applied on an organism-by-organism basis, and only if those organisms cannot be distinguished from conventional breeding outcomes. Under the committee’s recommendations, this determination would be made by the Gene Technology Regulator, with advice from the Technical Advisory Committee and the Māori Advisory Committee. Applicants can claim indistinguishability, but the regulator must assess and verify those claims before an exemption is granted. While this represents a shift away from industry self-declaration back to the current case-by-case regulatory decision, concerns remain about how rigorously such claims will be tested in practice and who will bear the cost of verification. 

Another change is the introduction of a public schedule (a register) known as Schedule 3A. This schedule would list organisms that are not regulated GMOs and technologies that are not considered ‘gene technologies’ under the new framework. Exemptions and registration requirements sit alongside, but are separate from, this schedule. These organisms may still be genetically modified or gene edited, or the products thereof, but if they are deemed indistinguishable from conventional breeding, they will not go through the full regulatory process. While inclusion in the schedule does not trigger full oversight, it at least ensures that their status is on the public record, addressing some of the concerns from organic and environmental advocates about a lack of transparency around gene editing decisions. 

The revised bill also attempts to bolster trust by clarifying the scope of ministerial powers and embedding a broader advisory system. While the Regulator would still be accountable to the Minister, the committee’s recommendations clarify and limit how ministerial directions can be issued, including ensuring these powers cannot be delegated. The Regulator would also be required to produce annual reports on its activities.

The advisory structure has been expanded to include environmental scientists, mātauranga Māori experts, and public interest voices, aiming to reduce the risk of decisions being made within a narrow technical circle. However, several submitters have questioned why a new regulatory office is needed at all, suggesting that strengthening the existing Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) might achieve similar outcomes with fewer concerns about accountability and duplication. 

The parliamentary process: not law yet 

The Gene Technology Bill remains at the parliamentary stage. There was not wide consultation during drafting of the Bill, and no economic impact information sought. After a first reading in December 2024, the Bill was referred to the Health Select Committee, which gave a short public submission period of only two months over the summer holiday period. The Committee received about 14,500 written submissions and approximately 1,500 requests to present oral submissions. Of those, only around 400 were granted, with presenters given just 5–10 minutes each. The Committee produced its revised draft, released on 10 October 2025. The revised Bill will return to the House for its second reading. If the bill is supported at that stage, it will go through the Committee of the Whole House, where MPs debate it line by line and propose further amendments. If it passes a third reading, it will receive Royal assent and become law. 

This timeline is important because it means the content of the legislation is not yet fixed. The coming months will determine whether additional protections for the organic sector, primary producers more generally, Māori communities, and consumers are introduced, whether the bill is enacted largely in its current form, or whether it stalls for lack of sufficient support.  

Regulation and public trust 

New Zealand’s current HSNO regime is intentionally conservative, and many consumers see that conservatism as part of the country’s clean and trusted agricultural identity. Trust is not automatically guaranteed by legislation. It is built when the public can see what decisions are made, understand the reasoning behind them, and believe that independent oversight is in place. 

The revised bill attempts to build trust through structural mechanisms, including increased transparency and clear reporting requirements for the Regulator. Yet public trust is fragile. It takes years to build and can be lost in a single regulatory failure.

A single example could be a gene-edited crop or grass variety spreading beyond its intended trial site, contaminating nearby organic farms and compromising their certification, income, market access, and reputation, an outcome that has occurred overseas when containment measures have failed. Organic producers, Māori communities, and environmentally minded consumers are wary not because they misunderstand gene technologies, but because they have seen how weak oversight has led to adverse irreversible consequences elsewhere. 

Consultation versus shared power 

The Health Committee has strengthened expectations for consultation at various stages of the regulatory process, and it requires a post-implementation review. These steps reflect recognition that gene technology decisions require more than narrow technical consideration. They have cultural, social, and economic implications. 

However, advisory input is not the same thing as actual decision-making power. Māori submitters made clear that gene technology touches whakapapa, mauri, and tino rangatiratanga, and therefore raises issues of sovereignty and responsibility toward taonga species. For many Māori, being consulted after the fact is not sufficient. They are asking for meaningful influence over decisions, not just an advisory seat on the sidelines. 

The organic sector’s concerns have some differences from those of Māori in content but are similar in how they play out. For Māori, gene technology interferes with core cultural values, and the bill does not comply with te Tiriti o Waitangi, which guarantees governance over taiao – the environment. For the organic sector, it is about protecting GMO-free production systems, certification, and market access. In both cases, meaningful safeguards rather than consultation alone are essential. If the regulatory system listens but fails to act, both groups risk having their concerns effectively ignored. 

Monitoring and enforcement: from paper to practice 

The revised bill grants the Regulator broader powers to monitor and enforce compliance. Inspectors would be able to visit both current and former sites of regulated activity. Public registers would provide visibility into what is being approved and where. Licenses could be varied urgently if new risks emerged. Penalties for violations have been streamlined and clarified. 

In practice, its value depends on whether the Regulator is adequately resourced to use these powers effectively. A well-designed legal framework cannot protect the environment or organic farmers if it is not backed by funding, staffing, and operational capacity. Many organic producers have seen this dynamic play out in other regulatory domains, where strong rules are undermined by weak enforcement. 

National control versus local autonomy 

Another contentious element of the bill involves local government. The Government has signalled an intention to move toward a nationally consistent framework, which may limit the ability of local councils to impose their own restrictions on gene technology activities at the behest of their communities. The Government has presented this as a matter of consistency and efficiency. Industry groups argue that a single national standard will reduce duplication and confusion. 

For communities, however, this represents the removal of an important tool. Several regions have precautionary and/or prohibitive plans and policies. Under the new framework, these preferences would carry little or no legal weight. This is not merely a procedural question. It touches on democratic control, regional autonomy, and the ability of communities to shape the future of their land. 

For the organic movement, both globally and in Aotearoa, this is especially significant. Around the world, local or regional authorities have often acted as protective backstops when national governments have moved toward more permissive gene technology regulation. New Zealand has followed this pattern, with councils such as Hawke’s Bay, Auckland, and councils into Northland declaring GE-free, precautionary or prohibitive positions. Centralisation would mean that if the national regulator approves the release of a genetically engineered crop, animal, insect, or microbe, local communities would have limited ability to maintain GE-free landscapes. 

International alignment and trade realities 

The bill brings New Zealand procedurally closer to international frameworks by establishing information-sharing arrangements with overseas regulators and aligning regulatory processes with international practices. The alignment is largely administrative and trade-oriented, aimed at avoiding regulatory isolation and supporting the Government’s broader strategy to position New Zealand as “science-friendly” and “innovation-ready.” 

But trade alignment is a double-edged sword. New Zealand’s competitive advantage in many export markets depends on its reputation for clean, non-GMO production. European markets, in particular, remain sensitive to genetic engineering. Many buyers in Asia also favour products that are certified organic and/or verified as non-GMO. If the new framework enables genetically engineered products to enter the food system quickly and without mandatory labelling, that premium reputation could erode. This would not only be an environmental concern but also a commercial one, and potentially a concern for health. 

Labelling: the silent gap 

One of the most striking aspects of the Gene Technology Bill is what it does not address. It is a regulatory framework for approvals, not a consumer labelling law. The bill creates no requirement for mandatory labelling of gene-edited or genetically modified products. Definitions and labelling of food is determined by the trans-Tasman body Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). This body has now exempted some new gene editing techniques from GMO labelling requirements. As a result, products using these technologies could enter the food chain without consumers’ knowledge. 

For organic – and indeed all – consumers, this represents an erosion of informed choice. For any producers who want to remain GE-free, it creates an uneven playing field in which they must continue to bear the cost of proving their products are non-GMO, while those using gene technology face no corresponding requirement to disclose. It also has implications for New Zealand’s export reputation. If overseas buyers cannot reliably distinguish between GE and non-GE products, they may simply choose to source from other countries with stricter standards. 

Contamination and liability 

Another unresolved issue is liability for contamination. If gene-edited pollen or seed drifts into an organic field, the question of who pays for the resulting damage remains unanswered. The Gene Technology Bill contains no liability framework for such events. The only liability provisions relate to protecting the Regulator from legal claims when acting in good faith.

There are no mechanisms assigning responsibility or financial liability to developers, users, or other parties in cases where genetically engineered material contaminates non-GMO or organic crops or ecosystems. This is a major gap compared with more precautionary regimes overseas. Contamination incidents in other countries have been common and costly, with organic farmers losing certification, income, market access, and consumer trust through no fault of their own.

Without a fair liability system, the risk is likely to fall on organic and GE-free farmers themselves, creating a moral hazard where those who use gene technology externalise the costs onto those who do not. For the organic sector, this is not a marginal issue but a central question of survival. 

A well-documented example of such a failure occurred in the United States, where genetically engineered creeping bentgrass escaped containment during field trials and spread across irrigation canals and wildlands, triggering years of expensive and incomplete eradication efforts. Similar issues arose with GM canola in Canada, where widespread contamination effectively eliminated the possibility of growing organic canola in many regions. These incidents illustrate how quickly contamination can spread beyond its intended boundaries, leaving farmers and communities to deal with long-term consequences and costs they did not create. 

Te Tiriti o Waitangi and governance 

The revised bill makes more explicit reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by embedding consultation requirements and the inclusion of mātauranga Māori in advisory processes. However, the Māori Advisory Committee remains advisory only, and its role does not carry decision-making authority. This procedural strengthening falls short of genuine co-governance, which is why many Māori submitters have expressed concern.

Gene technology intersects with whakapapa and mauri in profound ways, so decisions in this area are not purely technical. They touch on cultural identity, spiritual responsibility, and sovereignty. For the bill to gain legitimacy with Māori communities, it must demonstrate that these concerns influence real outcomes, not just process. Otherwise, mistrust is likely to deepen. 

Speed and precaution 

The Government has presented speed as one of the central goals of the new regulatory framework. Faster approvals are seen as a way to boost innovation and make New Zealand more competitive internationally. But speed in genetic regulation is not necessarily a good thing. Genetic material cannot be recalled once released into the environment. Drift and escape are well-documented phenomena and, unlike chemical pollutants, genetic material can replicate and spread. 

A faster system without strong monitoring, labelling, and liability provisions creates obvious risks for non-GMO and organic producers, for home gardeners, and for natural ecosystems. It also creates significant risks for conventional farms, which may face unintentional contamination, disrupted or even banned market access, and loss of buyer confidence if their products can no longer be reliably distinguished from gene-edited varieties. 

Lessons from abroad 

The experience of other countries provides sobering lessons. In Canada, the widespread planting of herbicide-tolerant GE canola in the late 1990s led to rapid contamination of non-GMO and organic canola fields. Within a few years, growing organic canola became practically impossible in large regions of the Canadian Prairies. In the United States, similar contamination occurred with alfalfa (lucerne). Even strict buffer zones and best-practice guidelines proved insufficient. In contrast, the European Union’s precautionary approach has preserved a clearer market separation and sustained consumer trust. 

A permissive, fast-moving system carries both environmental and economic risks. A precautionary system may be slower, but it preserves options for farmers and consumers who want to remain GE-free. 

Unresolved questions 

Many critical issues remain unresolved in the Bill, and some issues would only be considered later, during the drafting of regulation that sits under the Bill. Among these are the practical mechanisms for ensuring transparency, the nature of liability protections for organic and GE-free producers, the absence of a clear labelling regime, the scope of local authority powers, the resourcing of the Regulator, and the role of Māori in actual decision-making rather than purely advisory capacities. These are not minor details to be filled in later. They will determine whether the system is trusted and workable. 

A moment of choice 

The Health Committee’s revisions are improvements on the original bill. They increase transparency, tighten exemption criteria, and enhance the independence of the Regulator. But they do not change the overall orientation of the policy, which is designed to facilitate and manage the use of gene technology in New Zealand, rather than putting the health and safety of people and the environment first. Whether that future supports or undermines organics will depend on how these remaining gaps are addressed. One of the most critical of these gaps is the complete absence of a liability framework, leaving farmers and communities exposed to the costs and consequences of contamination events they did not cause. 

For organic producers and consumers, this is a moment of decision. New Zealand’s organic exports command a premium price in part because of the country’s reputation as GMO-cautious and environmentally responsible. That reputation can be eroded far more quickly than it can be rebuilt. The coming months will determine whether the organic and wider GE-free movement can help shape a regulatory framework that protects its interests, or whether it will be forced to adapt to a more permissive environment. 

Looking ahead 

The parliamentary stages that lie ahead provide opportunities for change. Amendments can still be introduced to address the labelling gap, clarify liability rules, secure adequate resourcing for enforcement, and ensure meaningful co-governance with Māori. These issues are not optional extras. They are the core conditions that will shape public trust and determine how different sectors experience the new regime, if indeed it is introduced. 

New Zealand now faces a strategic choice. One path leads toward a regulatory framework that balances innovation with precaution, transparency, and respect for community values. The other path risks weakening trust, undermining organic markets, and eroding local control. For organic growers, consumers, and communities, this is a time to pay close attention, engage constructively, and insist on a system that protects ecological integrity and informed choice. 

The tightrope has been strung high. How we walk it will shape the future of farming, food systems, and public trust for decades to come. 

FURTHER INFORMATION:

TOP IMAGE: iStock/heebyj

Gene Tech Bill threatens Aotearoa’s GE-free status, warns Soil & Health

/in , , , , , , ,

MEDIA RELEASE

13 OCTOBER 2025

Aotearoa New Zealand – The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand is calling for the Government to halt the Gene Technology Bill, warning that the proposed law would open the door to genetically engineered organisms in Aotearoa’s environment, food system and farms.

The latest draft of the Bill, which has just been released by the Health Select Committee, has only minor changes from the initial draft.

“New Zealanders have a right to know what we’re growing and eating – and to choose food that aligns with their values,” says Charles Hyland, chair of the Soil & Health Association.

“This Bill would still allow GE into our farms, gardens and food, risking contamination, loss of organic certification, lawsuits and Aotearoa’s GE-free status. Anyone who doesn’t want GE could face difficulties avoiding it.”

“In addition to the risks to food and agriculture, there are also risks to tikanga Māori, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, biodiversity, conservation and natural ecosystems, economics, trade, liability and insurance, animal welfare, ethics and more.”

“Local authorities would have no jurisdiction over GE in their territories.”

“One positive change we have identified is the inclusion of a register of all genetically modified organisms.”

“We’re urging Parliament to pause this Bill and take the time needed to address the wide-ranging environmental, cultural and economic risks,” says Hyland. “This legislation is too important to rush – it must be shaped with meaningful public consultation.”

ENDS

FURTHER INFORMATION: Soil & Health’s submission on the Gene Technology Bill

Media contacts:

Charles Hyland, Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 707 0747

Philippa Jamieson, Organic NZ editor, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 547 3929

Email: editor@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.soilandhealth.org.nz

TOP IMAGE: Organic apples at Commonsense Organics, Wellington

Soil & Health welcomes end to GE animal trials after 25 years of suffering

/in , , , , , ,

MEDIA RELEASE

6 OCTOBER 2025

Aotearoa New Zealand – The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand welcomes the end of animal genetic engineering trials that have taken place at AgResearch’s Ruakura facility for more than two decades.

“These experiments caused immense animal suffering and should never have been allowed to happen,” said Charles Hyland, chair of Soil & Health.

The Association applauds GE Free NZ for exposing the scale of the harm. Their report, based on AgResearch’s own annual statements, documents spontaneous abortions, cancers, deformities and other adverse effects on cattle, sheep and goats.

“After 25 years and tens of thousands of dollars of public money, these experiments have delivered no benefits,” Hyland said. “We are deeply concerned they could resume if the proposed Gene Technology Bill is passed. Animals must not be subjected to such cruelty again.”

“New Zealanders – and our overseas markets – expect high animal welfare standards and food that is healthy, ethical and safe. The future lies in organic and sustainable food and farming.” 

ENDS

FURTHER INFORMATION: Genetically Engineered Animals in New Zealand 2010 – 2025: Part 2 – The second fifteen years (GE Free NZ)

Media contacts:

Charles Hyland, Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 707 0747
Philippa Jamieson, Organic NZ editor, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 547 3929 

Email: editor@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.soilandhealth.org.nz

TOP IMAGE: Genetically engineered cows at AgResearch’s Ruakura facility in 2011 (Photo: Steffan Browning)

Soil & Health submission on GE purple tomatoes in food

/in , ,

10 September 2025

To Food Standards Australia New Zealand

Submission to Food Standards Australia New Zealand

A1333 – Food derived from purple tomato lines containing event Del/Ros1-N 

Preamble

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand is an incorporated society founded in 1941. Its primary purpose is to promote and advocate the production and consumption of organic food. Our motto is ‘Healthy soil – healthy food – healthy people: Oranga nuku – oranga kai – oranga tāngata’. 

We represent approximately 17,000 members and supporters around Aotearoa New Zealand, including consumers, home gardeners, farmers, horticulturists, business people, chefs and more. 

Our members and supporters are health conscious and highly concerned about their food: how it’s produced, what’s in it, and what effects it has. They want food that is natural and unadulterated, free from harmful chemicals and toxins, and produced in ways that enhance our soils, environments, health and communities. 

We represent people who have many reasons for wanting to avoid GE food – such as health, environmental, ethical, cultural, philosophical, climate change and more.  

The Soil & Health Association (hereafter Soil & Health) welcomes the opportunity to submit on this application.

Submission

  1. Soil & Health categorically opposes the application for the Purple Tomato for the following reasons.  

No justification

  1. Norfolk Healthy Produce’s justification for their application is that the genetically engineered Purple Tomato contains high levels of anthocyanins, which are beneficial compounds.  
  2. However, simply containing high levels of anthocyanins is no justification for allowing this genetically engineered tomato into the food supply of New Zealand and Australia.  
  3. This application is for an unnecessary food and is primarily for the purpose of patenting.  
  4. There are already numerous plant foods that contain anthocyanins, such as blueberries, blackcurrants, blackberries, elderberries, cherries, purple grapes, eggplants, purple cabbage, purple cauliflower, purple carrots, blue corn, red onions, oranges, raspberries, red wine, pink grapefruit, red radishes, purple asparagus, black beans, red broad beans, and many more.  
  5. There are already several heirloom varieties of tomato with blue and purple hues that contain anthocyanins.  
  6. The applicant’s claim (as part of its justification for the application) that the Purple Tomato is visually striking and ‘delights consumers’ is subjective and a flimsy justification for the application.  

Human health effects are unknown 

  1. A pilot study on mice was conducted in 2008 and showed and found some benefits of consuming the Purple Tomato in terms of longer life span (Butelli et al, 2008 – referred to in the application).  
  2. However this was a limited, small-scale study on just 20 mice, and further tests of a more extensive scope are required to provide evidence of beneficial and/or adverse health effects.  
  3. The health effects (positive and negative) of humans consuming these tomatoes are unknown. To our knowledge there have been no trials involving humans.  
  4. As the UK’s National Health Service said: ‘until the tomato is tested in humans we cannot be sure that it will offer the same benefits, or that there will not be any unexpected harms’.  

Potential adverse health effects 

  1. Soil & Health notes that while anthocyanins are generally beneficial for health, they are not essential nutrients. 
  2. When anthocyanins are taken in pill form, safe levels may be exceeded, and they may have adverse health effects including the potential to limit iron absorption.  
  3. The levels of anthocyanins in the Purple Tomato are much higher than occur in other foods and in supplement form, but there is limited research on the overconsumption of anthocyanins except when taken as supplements.  
  4. Before approving the introduction of the Purple Tomato to our diet, independent research must first be undertaken into the health effects of consuming it, to investigate any potential adverse effects.  
  5. We don’t know the safe upper limits of anthocyanin consumption. A Harvard University mini review states there is a ‘need for increased regulation and guidelines for polyphenol consumption and supplementation in order to ensure consumers remain safe and informed about polyphenols.’ (Anthocyanins are polyphenols.) 
  6. One of the risks of genetically engineering foods is that allergens, toxins and novel proteins can be created.  
  7. The applicant says the Purple Tomato does not contain anything matching or similar to any known allergens or toxins. However this does not rule out containing allergens or toxins yet unknown.  
  8. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you’re not looking for something, you won’t find it.  

Safety and equivalence

  1. The claim that foods produced using GE are equivalent to their non-GE counterparts cannot be made with any certainty – in fact significant differences have been discovered. 
  2. Existing non-GE tomatoes have a history of safe use over hundreds and thousands of years. The Purple Tomato does not have a history of safe use. 
  3. There is no long-term independent research on the Purple Tomato. 
  4. The Purple Tomato contains genetic material from not only the purple snapdragon but also bacterial and viral material.  
  5. We are increasingly discovering unexpected (‘off-target’) changes resulting from genetic engineering. For example, gene-edited cattle were found to have unintended alterations to the DNA, with bacterial DNA conferring antibiotic resistance, despite the developer having claimed the cattle contained no additional genetic material.  
  6. If these tomatoes were released into the food supply, any adverse effects on humans would be unable to be measured or monitored.  
  7. Therefore FSANZ must apply the precautionary principle and reject this application, to fulfill its regulatory function of upholding and safeguarding public health. 

Māori concerns, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi 

  1. Many Māori – including Māori members and supporters of Soil & Health – strongly object to any form of genetic engineering, as it disturbs whakapapa (kinship with the natural world), mana (dignity), mauri (life force or essence), wairua (spirit) and tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty). 
  2. In Aotearoa New Zealand there is at least one claim before the Waitangi Tribunal that involves genetic engineering – Claim WAI262. 
  3. Until or unless this is settled to the satisfaction of Māori, no genetically engineered organisms or foods should be approved in Aotearoa New Zealand. 

Consumer rejection 

  1. The applicant’s claim that consumers would seek out this novel food is speculative and no evidence is given to back it up.  
  2. Many surveys in many countries have shown consumers to be wary about, if not opposed to, consuming genetically engineered foods.  
  3. Soil & Health members and supporters have been giving us feedback that they would be horrified to see the Purple Tomato on sale in Aotearoa New Zealand, and would actively seek to avoid buying or consuming it.  
  4. While it may not be too difficult for consumers to avoid buying the Purple Tomato as fresh produce, it may be harder to avoid it if it’s included as an ingredient.  
  5. New Zealand’s GE labelling laws are already inadequate for consumers to make informed choices about avoiding GE food ingredients.  
  6. For example, GE ingredients do not have to be labelled in restaurants and other food service outlets, so if the Purple Tomato is served fresh or as an ingredient in a processed product or meal it would not need to be labelled, making it harder for consumers to try to avoid.   

Trade impacts

  1. The application says there would be no trade impacts to Australia, with no mention of New Zealand.  
  2. While we are aware application A1333 is about food derived from the Purple Tomato, clearly those tomatoes have to be grown somewhere, and we note that an application has been filed with the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to grow the Purple Tomato in Australia.  
  3. The only country New Zealand currently imports fresh tomatoes from is Australia. Based on the many consumer surveys over the years, we anticipate low consumer demand in New Zealand for any Australian-grown Purple Tomatoes.  
  4. New Zealand exports about 902 tonnes of tomatoes annually (2023 figures), mainly to Asia, the Pacific and Pacific Rim countries.  
  5. If in future they are grown in Aotearoa New Zealand for export that could negatively affect our clean green export brand and image in international markets. 

Summary

  1. In summary, Soil & Health strongly rejects the application. 
  2. Accepting this application would mean exposing the public of New Zealand and Australia to potential risks that would not be able to be measured and monitored.  
  3. We support FSANZ to take a precautionary approach to the Purple Tomato and indeed all GE foods, in order to uphold public health and safety. 
  4. We urge FSANZ to reject this application as there is insufficient evidence of the safety of the Purple Tomato.
Woman browsing in supermarket aisle

Unlabelled GE food leaves consumers in the dark

/in , , , , ,

MEDIA RELEASE

3 AUGUST 2025

Aotearoa New Zealand – Consumers have just lost a fundamental right to informed choice about the food they’re eating, says the Soil & Health Association.

New Zealand Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard and his eight Australian state counterparts have approved a decision to allow genetically engineered food ingredients enter unlabelled into the food chain of both countries.

“This is an alarming and unscientific move that removes our right to know what’s in our food,” says Charles Hyland, chair of the Soil & Health Association.

“New Zealanders want to know what they’re eating, and be able to avoid things they don’t want.”

“Allowing unlabelled GE ingredients that have no novel DNA ignores the fact that changes can and do occur as a result of all types of genetic engineering – whether it introduces novel DNA or not.”

Gene edited cattle in the USA were heralded as a success and claimed to have no novel DNA. However it was then found that bacterial DNA had been introduced, conferring antibiotic resistance, and the cattle were withdrawn from the market.

Similar situations could happen with food that supposedly has no novel DNA.

Our knowledge of the risks to health from GE foods is still very limited, and there is very little long-term independent research to draw from.

“What happens if there is a health issue from GE food? How could we pinpoint it to that GE food? If it’s unlabelled, authorities won’t be able to trace it or issue a food recall.”

The onus will now be on consumers to ask retailers and food companies whether there are any GE ingredients in their food.

“The best ways to avoid GE food ingredients are to eat organic food, grow your own, favour whole foods and avoid ultra-processed foods.”

ENDS

FURTHER INFORMATION: Soil & Health’s submission to Food Standards Australia New Zealand, 10 September 2024


Contact:

Charles Hyland, Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 707 0747
Philippa Jamieson, Organic NZ editor, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 547 3929 

Email: editor@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.soilandhealth.org.nz

Soil & Health submission on the proposal to increase glyphosate maximum residue levels

/in , ,

16 May 2025

To New Zealand Food Safety

Submission to New Zealand Food Safety on Proposed Amendments to Glyphosate Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs)

Introduction

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand unequivocally opposes the proposed amendments to the Food Notice: Maximum Residue Levels for Agricultural Compounds, which would significantly raise allowable glyphosate residues in staple crops. Specifically, the proposed increases from the current default MRL of 0.1 mg/kg to:

  • 10 mg/kg in wheat, barley, and oat grain
  • 6 mg/kg in dried field peas

These changes contradict the principles of precautionary public health protection, environmental stewardship, and sustainable agriculture that underpin New Zealand’s food system. They also pose substantial risks to our international trade relationships and the integrity of our agricultural exports.

Public Health Concerns

Glyphosate has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A). This classification is based on evidence linking glyphosate exposure to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers. While some regulatory bodies have disputed this classification, the IARC’s assessment is grounded in peer-reviewed studies and reflects a precautionary approach to public health.

Increasing the allowable MRLs for glyphosate could lead to higher dietary exposure among consumers, including vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women. The long-term health effects of chronic low-level exposure to glyphosate are not fully understood, and raising MRLs without comprehensive risk assessments undermines public confidence in food safety.

Recent biomonitoring studies have found glyphosate residues in human urine in multiple countries, indicating widespread population exposure. A 2022 CDC report in the United States found detectable levels of glyphosate in 80% of urine samples tested, including from children. While these findings do not directly demonstrate harm, they highlight the need for stricter—not more lenient—residue controls to protect population health.

Emerging research also raises concerns about glyphosate’s potential endocrine-disrupting effects and its role in gut microbiome disruption, which are not accounted for in current MRL risk models.

Environmental and Soil Health Impacts

Glyphosate’s widespread use has been associated with adverse effects on soil health and biodiversity. Studies have shown that glyphosate can disrupt soil microbial communities, reduce earthworm populations, and negatively impact soil fertility. These effects compromise the resilience of agricultural ecosystems and can lead to increased reliance on chemical inputs.

A 2021 meta-analysis published in Science of the Total Environment found that glyphosate significantly alters soil microbial diversity, reducing populations of beneficial fungi and bacteria essential for nutrient cycling and plant resilience. This undermines long-term soil fertility and increases the need for synthetic inputs—counterproductive to climate and sustainability goals.

Furthermore, glyphosate’s degradation product, AMPA, is more persistent in the environment and has been shown to accumulate in both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The New Zealand Pesticide Residues Committee has documented increasing AMPA detections in soil and water over the past decade, with insufficient understanding of its long-term ecotoxicity.

Trade and Market Access Risks

New Zealand’s reputation for producing clean, green, and safe food is a cornerstone of our export economy. Raising glyphosate MRLs could jeopardize access to key international markets that have stricter residue limits. For example, Japan has rejected New Zealand honey shipments due to glyphosate residues exceeding their permissible levels.

As of 2024, more than a dozen EU countries—including Austria, France, Germany, and Luxembourg—have announced partial or full bans on glyphosate use. The European Commission has approved glyphosate for only a temporary 10-year extension, amid growing pressure for a full phase-out. This creates a volatile regulatory climate in Europe where elevated MRLs could soon be interpreted as non-compliance.

In the Asia-Pacific region, Taiwan and South Korea have tightened import controls for glyphosate residues in cereals, and consumer groups in Japan have lobbied successfully for lower glyphosate thresholds in food imports. These dynamics place New Zealand exporters at risk of rejection and reputational damage if glyphosate levels are increased domestically

Policy Coherence and Future Agricultural Practices

The proposed MRL increases appear to facilitate the adoption of genetically engineered glyphosate-tolerant crops, which are associated with increased herbicide use. This shift contradicts New Zealand’s commitments to sustainable agriculture and environmental protection.

The timing of this MRL proposal, alongside the Gene Technology Bill currently before Parliament, raises concerns about alignment. Increasing glyphosate residue limits could be perceived as regulatory paving for the eventual introduction of herbicide-tolerant genetically engineered crops—an issue not openly debated with the public or iwi.

In addition, lifting MRLs for glyphosate contradicts New Zealand’s commitments under the APEC Food Security Roadmap and the Global Biodiversity Framework, both of which prioritize reductions in agrichemical inputs and the promotion of agroecological practices.

Recommendations

In light of the concerns outlined above, the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand recommends the following actions:

  1. Reject the proposed glyphosate MRL increases for wheat, oats, barley, and peas.
  2. Maintain the current default MRL of 0.1 mg/kg, adhering to the precautionary principle in food safety regulation.
  3. Conduct comprehensive, independent reviews of glyphosate’s health and environmental impacts, incorporating the latest scientific evidence.
  4. Enhance monitoring and transparency regarding glyphosate residues in food products, ensuring public access to residue data.
  5. Promote and support alternative weed management practices, including organic and regenerative agriculture methods that reduce reliance on chemical herbicides.

Conclusion

The proposed increase in glyphosate MRLs poses significant risks to public health, environmental sustainability, and New Zealand’s international trade relationships. Upholding our nation’s commitment to safe, sustainable, and high-quality food production requires adherence to precautionary principles and robust regulatory standards.

We urge New Zealand Food Safety to reconsider the proposed amendments and to engage in a comprehensive review process that prioritizes the health of our people, the integrity of our environment, and the resilience of our agricultural economy.

References

  1. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). (2015). IARC Monographs Volume 112: Evaluation of Five Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides. Lyon, France: World Health Organization. https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/MonographVolume112-1.pdf
  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2022). Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals: Updated Tables, Volume One. Glyphosate and AMPA in urine. https://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/
  3. Mesnage, R., & Antoniou, M. N. (2017). Facts and fallacies in the debate on glyphosate toxicity. Frontiers in Public Health, 5, 316. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00316
  4. Ding, J., Shen, Y., & Du, H. (2021). Effects of glyphosate on soil microbial communities and greenhouse gas emissions: A meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 753, 142651.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142651
  5. Soil Association UK. (2016). Glyphosate and Soil Health: A Summary of Research.
    https://www.soilassociation.org/media/7202/glyphosate-and-soil-health.pdf
  6. The Detox Project. (2023). Japan Warns It Will Block New Zealand Honey Shipments If Glyphosate Limits Breached.
    https://detoxproject.org/japan-warns-it-will-block-new-zealand-honey-shipments-if-glyphosate-limits-breached
  7. European Commission. (2023). Renewal Report for the Active Substance Glyphosate – Peer Review of the Risk Assessment by EFSA and ECHA. https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/pesticides/approval-active-
    substances/renewal-glyphosate_en
  8. APEC Policy Support Unit. (2021). APEC Food Security Roadmap Towards 2030: Implementation Plan.
    https://www.apec.org/docs/default-source/Publications/2021/4/APEC-Food-
    Security-Roadmap-Towards-2030-Implementation-Plan.pdf
  9. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2022). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
    https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-final-text-kunming-montreal-gbf-221222
  10. New Zealand Pesticide Residues Committee. (2023). Annual Report on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment. Ministry for Primary Industries.

Submitted by:

Charles Hyland
Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
16 May 2025
Email: charles.hyland@soilandhealth.org.nz

See also our Glyphosate Campaign Page here.

Whenua Warrior

/in , , ,

Moko Morris talks with Kelly Francis, a Kai Oranga graduate and the catalyst for over 250 food gardens that have been planted since last spring.

This article was originally published in Organic NZ in 2018.

Motivated by attending a Kai Oranga course at Papatūānuku Marae, Kelly Francis (Ngāti Wharara, Ngāti Korokoro and Ngāpuhi) created a charitable trust and social enterprise movement called Whenua Warrior. Her vision is to have a harvestable garden available to every person in the country and her mission is to feed, teach and empower communities through māra kai (food gardens).

Providing solutions and connection

The idea came to Kelly from understanding communities that she had been in, the challenges they face and the solutions she had learnt to share. It solves multiple issues including knowledge- and time- poor whānau, provides financial stability through not having to purchase vegetables, and offers a connection to Papatūānuku (Mother Earth) and what she provides us with.

“The most important thing I learnt on the Kai Oranga course was Hua Parakore – the six principles of the Hua Parakore verification system,” says Kelly.

“It also came from knowing the mana you can get from providing kai to your whānau, the need to understand the whakapapa of your kai and the advantages of connecting your wairua with mahi māra kai. I wanted to find a way to help our communities with these indigenous techniques and tried to imagine the entire country understanding their food in this depth… and then find a way to give that koha to them.”

So Whenua Warrior was born.

How it works

Involving others comes naturally for Kelly; they usually find her. It’s the story, passion or mahi behind each project that attracts people to her kaupapa. Finding people is very important to her – but whoever is there on the day are the people that were meant to be. Her approach to gardening projects is to ensure that community and their needs are met first and foremost. What Whenua Warrior build and who they build it with needs to be sustainable and beneficial for years to come. Anyone can put a box of dirt in your backyard, but not everyone can teach how to get that box of dirt to benefit you, your family, hapū and iwi.

Once a māra kai is established, there must be buy-in from families so that there is a foundation of people that work together to ensure the benefits are felt wide and far.

‘Build day’ is about the community and its people, not the garden. Post-build is about supporting the people to support the garden.

There are two different arms to the Whenua Warrior approach

1. 100% community-based, with no money involved. The community identifies what they need and Whenua Warrior supports them to source seedlings, soil and materials, then helps to facilitate the build and works out ways it can be managed.

2. 100% community-based, backed by funding. A call-out is made to the community as above, then funding is accessed if required.

This approach has been successful and over 250 māra kai have been built so far, in South Auckland, Mount Wellington and Whangārei. Whenua Warrior is now in its eleventh month, and has started on more of the larger-sized gardens rather than focus on the number. In September this year, 50 gardens will be built in the back of 50 homes in Kawakawa. The process from initial contact to actual build varies from place to place but is usually done in under six weeks.

Hua Parakore principles

Kelly explains the principles of Hua Parakore (clean, pure, kai atua) in the following way:

“When contemplating a project, I look at the dates of the maramataka (moon planting calendar) that I can plan on to benefit the build day, hui days, decision days. It is an important aspect in all parts of the project for the wellness of people and for the timeline structure for the project.

“I consider te ao tūroa [the natural world] when we are on the whenua and trying to discover what Papatūānuku already has and what can be built to benefit the tangata whenua. Knowing your surroundings and your options for build is something our tohunga would be responsible for before the land was confirmed to build māra on.

“At this stage whakapapa is considered as well. What happened here? How was this whenua used? What is the whakapapa of the area, people, whenua? Kōrero on the land will potentially allow us to discover the best possible places to plant A versus B.

“We then have the holistic connections that are in our principles: wairua, or spirit. I ask to make sure that I am allowed on the land to do the mahi – ask tangata whenua directly but also karakia to ask our tupuna to ensure our holistic safety. We connect everything physical to spiritual and must acknowledge everyone at every time.”

Wairua can also be a verb – ‘acting with wairua, doing with wairua’, says Kelly. “All actions taken in the build day must have everyone’s wairua in mind. I think that the wrong wairua can mean an empty plate. Everyone must be in tune with each other… and share the mauri.

Mauri is what you are passing on from you to kai, and from kai back to you. This is most important when planting – and the atmosphere for planting needs to be completely serene and positive. What you plant is what you eat, and I consider it a hugely important part of build day to get the community mauri at its highest to allow the passing from them to their kai, and eventually from the kai to them.

Mana – this is felt mainly when all of the above has been completed. The principle that can only be reported to yourself. Mana is not something you earn – it is something within you. Only you can choose how much mana you apply to each decision you make. It is your spiritual pat on the back – and I normally feel this when I am back home and contemplating the completion of each project.

Whānau and kai more important than money

Kelly says the most fun part is meeting the communities and teaching and learning at the same time together. She shares the matauranga (knowledge) in a way that benefits Papatūānuku, focusing on knowing that people are better off and proving her strong view that money shouldn’t be the main focus of life: family and kai is.

“I built this idea out of hope, because I truly care about what your kids will be able to access when they are responsible to provide food for their tables. We should be thinking of what we can do NOW to benefit them then,” says Kelly.

“I strongly encourage all families in New Zealand to plant fruit trees and vegetables in every household. There are no negatives to growing your own food.”

Moko Morris is a former a Soil & Health National Councillor who lives in Ōtaki. She has also been the national coordinator of Te Waka Kai Ora, the National Māori Organics Authority of Aotearoa.

Where’s our food from? Better labelling a step forward

/in , , ,

Media release 29 November 2018

The blindfold will finally be lifted when it comes to buying food, but the Soil & Health Association says consumers need even greater transparency.

Soil & Health welcomes the passing into law of the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill. The Bill, which requires food to carry country of origin labelling, passed with near unanimous support last night in Parliament. While footwear and clothing must be identified where they’re from, until now country of origin of food labelling has only been voluntary in New Zealand.

The Bill was a first introduced in 2016 by former MP, and now Soil & Health National Council member, Steffan Browning, as a Green Party Member’s bill.

“Transparent food labelling is fundamental in allowing people to make informed choices. Mandatory country of origin labelling is a step towards allowing consumers to do this,” says Steffan Browning.

The Bill however only applies to single ingredient foods such as fresh fruit, meat, fish and vegetables and Soil & Health says foods of multiple origins should be labelled too. This requirement could be brought in later through the setting of Fair Trading Act regulations.

“The Bill is a building block to more comprehensive food labelling requirements,” says Browning.

Soil & Health is also concerned that several single origin foods have been excluded from the Bill, including flour, oils, nuts and seeds.

“We particularly want flours and grains included, as most of the soy and maize products from the US are genetically modified. It’s absolutely necessary we have GE food labelling, but in that absence of enforcement we should at the very least be able to choose what country maize and soy products are from,” says Browning.

There has been widespread support for country of origin labelling. A survey conducted last year by Consumer NZ and Horticulture NZ found that 71% of Kiwis want mandatory country of origin labelling and 65% said they looked for country of origin labelling when they were shopping.

“There are many reasons why consumers want to know which country their food comes from. Some want to avoid GE food, food with pesticide residues, or food coming from countries with poor labour conditions or environmental and animal welfare standards,” says Browning.

Soil & Health has been campaigning for mandatory country of origin labelling for over a decade, since the government opted out of joining Australia in mandating country of origin labelling under the Food Standards Code on the grounds it would be an impediment to trade.

The ‘dirty dozen’ – latest update

/in
Organic NZ Magazine: January/February 2014
Section: Health and Food
Author: Alison White

  • Grapes are amongst the foods with the highest pesticide residues

  • Which foods in New Zealand are more likely to have pesticide residues?

  • What’s wrong with pesticide residues in food?

  • How can pesticide residues in food be reduced?

  • Alison White answered these questions in Organic NZ May/June 2010. Here she revisits them and gives us an update:

    • Which foods have the most pesticide residues? Grapes, celery, a range of fruit, pak or bok choi, spring onions, cucumber, and bread are all ranked in the top dozen of foods available in New Zealand which are more likely to contain pesticide residues. Close contenders behind this ‘dirty dozen’ are apples, spinach, olive oil, muesli and tomatoes.

    Changes over the past four years

    Compared to the last dirty dozen in 2009, there are a number of foods included which have not been analysed before, and a number excluded simply because we rely on data produced by the Ministry of Primary Industries.1 Lemons, olive oil, pak choi, spring onions, tamarillos and walnuts are among foods that have not been analysed before. Plums, mandarins, raspberries and lettuce were in the last dirty dozen, but because they have not been analysed since before 2009, we just don’t know what the residues are like now. Generally we can say that fruit is more likely to contain pesticide residues along with salad vegetables and bread.

    Should we be concerned about pesticide residues?

    Every mouthful of non-organic food we eat is also a cocktail of pesticides. Many of these pesticides have not been adequately tested to see what effects they may produce, particularly long-term ones. The little testing that is carried out does not reflect actual human exposure to a multitude of chemicals, nor does it usually test the most vulnerable – the foetus and young child.

    We do not know enough about the effects of these chemicals in our food. However, there are various serious long-term effects associated with particular pesticides that are found in our food, including endocrine or hormonal disruption, cancer, immune system suppression, nervous system damage, genetic damage and birth defects. We also know that various pesticides used to grow food have damaging effects on wildlife and the ecosystem.

    The dirty dozen

    Food in New Zealand more likely to contain pesticide residues ranked according to number of pesticides detected in total samples and percentage with pesticides.

    Food % with residues No. of pesticides Sample Size
    1. Grapes 98.2 35 56
    2. Celery 100 19 51
    3. Bok/Pak Choi 95.7 21 47
    4. Nectarines 100 15 36
    5. Oranges 98.2 16 56
    6. Strawberries 100 14 8
    7. Spring Onion 97.9 15 48
    8. Lemons 92 20 50
    9. Wheat 87.3 23 150
    10. Cucumber 82.1 27 56
    11. Pears 100 9 8
    12. Broccoli 92.9 10 57

     

    Reduce pesticide load: eat organic

    If you buy organic food – at least the foods listed here – then you will be significantly reducing the pesticide load on your body. This is particularly so for infants and children, as they take in more food in proportion to their body weight than adults do, and they also tend to eat more of the types of food that are more heavily sprayed, such as fruit. Indeed, an American study has found that if children eat mostly organic food, then the average amount of organophosphate residues as measured in their urine is nine times lower than those children eating conventional food.2 Other studies have since reasserted the finding that dietary intake of pesticides represents the major source of organophosphate exposure in children.3

    Protecting our babies and children

    In 2007 more than 200 scientists from five continents called for a precautionary4 approach to toxic chemicals, to protect foetuses and children from chemical exposures that may cause serious disease later in life, and which may also afflict their children and grandchildren.5 The present policy of many governments of assuming a chemical is safe until overwhelming evidence of harm is proved, favours manufacturers and users more than children with their unique vulnerability. Exposure may result in an array of health problems, including diabetes, attention deficit disorders, prostate cancer, fertility problems, thyroid disorders and even obesity. If the foetus is exposed to even a minute amount of an endocrine disruptor at a particular time, then growth of critical organs and functions can be skewed, and it can set the child up for chronic illnesses, such as cancer, later in life. Reducing the exposure of the foetus to organophosphate pesticides, in particular, could reduce the risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

    Chlorpyrifos: a persistent insecticide

    The organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos is a potent developmental neurotoxin at low levels of exposure, linked in several studies with reduced IQ and delayed cognitive and psychomotor development, as well as being an endocrine disruptor with anti-androgenic and estrogenic qualities, causing breast cancer cells to grow. Children exposed in the womb to this pesticide have been found to have cognitive impairment at least 11 years after birth, according to a study published in 2012.6This insecticide is very persistent in the environment and has been found in Arctic ice, fog, air, seawater, fish and vegetation, as well as placental blood and breastmilk.7 Chlorpyrifos is used on a range of fruit and vegetables and grain in New Zealand and has been found especially in bread and other wheat products, processed foods such as muesli, and grapes, raisins, sultanas and olive oil among others.

    Would you like fungicide with that?

    Also of particular concern is a group of fungicides called dithiocarbamates, of which mancozeb is common. These are used on a wide range of fruit and vegetables, and have been found in grapes, celery, pears, strawberries, apples, avocadoes, tomatoes, brassica, potatoes and even in infant foods. The 2009 Total Diet Survey (TDS) remarks that the estimated exposure to these fungicides has more than doubled since the previous TDS in 2003/2004. The fungicides have a metabolite or breakdown product, ethylene thiourea, which is known to cause cancer, endocrine disruption, thyroid damage and birth defects. This metabolite unfortunately increases on exposure to heat and in storage.

    Organic: healthy for people and the environment

    Usually, washing, peeling and cooking reduce the amount of pesticide residues, however some persist. If you think organic food is too expensive, remember that non-organic food does not include the cost of biodiversity loss and other environmental degradation. With organic food you pay the real cost for real food, and you give the grower a fairer return. By having organic food you support a system which better protects our children and the environment.

    By Alison White, Safe Food Campaign, www.safefood.org.nz

    References

    1.     Data obtained from New Zealand government surveys: 2009 New Zealand Total Diet Survey, NZ Food Residue Surveillance Programmes 2009–2012, all available at www.nzfsa.govt.nz.Results from several years were combined to produce sample sizes that were more robust for analysis. Note that wheat samples included bread, biscuits, bran flake cereal, cake, noodles, fish fingers, battered fish, meat pies, muffins, pasta, pizza, sausages, cereal wheat biscuits.

    2.     Curl, CL, Fenske RA, Elgethun K (2003), ‘Organophosphorus pesticide exposure of urban and suburban pre-school children with organic and conventional diets’, Environ Health Perspect, March 2003.

    3.     Lu C, Barr DB, Pearson MA, Waller LA (2008), ‘Dietary intake and its contribution to longitudinal organophosphorus pesticide exposure in urban/suburban children’, Environ Health Perspect, 2008, 116(4): 537-42.

    4.     www.precaution.org/lib/pp_def.htm

    5.     Grandjean P et al. (2007), ‘The Faroes Statement: Human Health Effects of Developmental Exposure to Chemicals in Our Environment’, Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 102, 73–75.

    6.     Rauh VA, Perera FP, et al., (2012), ‘Brain anomalies in children exposed prenatally to a common organophosphate pesticide’, PNAS 109(20): 7871-6.

    7.     Watts, M (2013), PAN AP Monograph on chlorpyrifos, www.panap.net/sites/default/files/monograph-chlorpyrifos.pdf

Safe food

/in ,

There are increasing levels of diet-related health issues in Aotearoa New Zealand. Many illnesses have been linked to food including diabetes, attention deficit disorder, fertility problems, thyroid disorders, obesity, Alzheimer’s and cancer. Aotearoa New Zealand has the third highest adult obesity rate in the OECD and one in ten children are obese. The majority of people in the developed world eats excessive quantities of highly processed pre-packaged foods and have no idea about the number of harmful chemicals they are exposed to every day through the food they eat. Many pesticides have been consistently linked to cancers and other long-term illnesses.

Micronutrients are essential for good health but are commonly lacking or diminished in industrially produced food. This has led to a demand for safe, organic food free of harmful chemicals. There is a growing awareness of food and how it determines health. People are now becoming more aware of what is in our food and demanding to know how it is grown.

The Soil & Health Association believes that everyone has a right to safe food, which covers the right to have food free from:

Microbial contamination, harmful organisms, pesticide, harmful chemical, and heavy metal contaminants, harmful additives, irradiation, and genetic engineering.

Soil & Health believes that government intervention and regulation are required to ensure that everyone has access to a healthy, balanced diet, and the knowledge and means with which to make the best food choices.

Soil & Health supports:

Healthy food being available in all public institutions such as early childhood centres, schools, hospitals, retirement homes and prisons.

Education in schools about healthy diets and nutrition.

A greater emphasis on primary and preventive health care.

Photo credit: Nick Holmes