Picton’s toxic gas use lacks consent

/in , ,

Methyl bromide fumigation at ports around New Zealand needs urgent reassessment, according to the Soil & Health Association, following the Marlborough District Council’s refusal to require their Port Company to apply for resource consent to discharge the toxic gas to the Picton environment.

“Port Marlborough has no idea where the gas is going after fumigation covers are pulled off the export log stacks’, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“The ozone depleting neuro-toxin methyl bromide gas is under contention as it is implicated in 6 Port Nelson workers deaths by motor neuron disease, yet Picton has far less controls than Nelson. Low temperature inversion layers in calm winter time conditions may be particularly dangerous, considering the findings in District Health Board reports for neighbouring Port Nelson gas dispersal modelling.”

“With no Picton air movement modelling to predict the contamination area of the highly toxic, odourless and tasteless gas, workers and tourists in the Port and ferry terminal area, and the greater Picton community may be at risk during every log shipment.”

“The Code of Practice in Picton has not been available to the media and on my inspection showed lack of substance and no community input. The Code of Practice has not been peer reviewed by the Labour Department or Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).”

“Conflicts of interest between councils with RMA regulatory functions, their council owned dividend generating port companies and the responsibilities of staff need scrutiny, especially Unitary Authorities as in the Nelson Marlborough region, which does not have a regional council”, said Browning.

“The problem however extends nationwide with capture and destruction of methyl bromide fumigant not used with export logs anywhere in New Zealand, and little truly independent monitoring .”

“Responsible methyl bromide fumigators internationally are capturing the gas rather than participating in ozone depletion and risking the health of communities. Log exporters in clean green New Zealand need to lift their game. Methyl bromide is 50 times more damaging to the ozone layer than banned CFC refrigerants.”

“Soil & Health want to see an urgent reassessment by ERMA of methyl bromide use nationally, and immediate precautions on discharge at Picton and other ports.”

“Clean alternatives to neurotoxin ozone depleting gases must be implemented in keeping with Brand New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure image, and Soil & Health’s vision of an Organic 2020.”

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

/in , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Organic Means Certified Organic

/in , , ,

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

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

The FSANZ Review states;

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

Approach:

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soil & Health had submitted to the FSANZ Issues Paper;

“Soil & Health has some degree of concern that foods labelled ‘natural’ may not be exempt, however unless those foods are reasonably certain to be pesticide and additive residue free, as expected with organic foods, the ‘natural’ claim may be spurious.

Foods labelled ‘natural’, are without the benefit of standards and certification processes as in the organic sector, however should a food supplier be able to provide evidence of the ‘naturalness’ of its product, for example wild harvested and organic ingredients with no synthetic additives, Soil & Health would expect that it should also be exempt.”

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

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

Food tests before field tests

/in , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes to Organic Exemption from Mandatory Folic Acid Fortification

/in , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breast cancer pesticide to be reassessed this year

/in , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban Breast Cancer Pesticide

/in , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

An organic exemption from folic? Could be.

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association is thrilled that there is to be a review of the decision to mandatorily fortify bread with folic acid.

The review allows further opportunity for an exemption from the fortification proposal for organic breads to be considered.

“Soil & Health is grateful that New Zealand Food Safety Minister Annette King has allowed this further opportunity”, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

Soil & Health and other organic organisations on both sides of the Tasman have called for their Food Standards Ministers to allow consumer choice through an organic exemption.

“Such an exemption would allow for organic bread to be as organic consumers expect,” said Mr Browning, “that is, bread without any artificial additives.”

The Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council meeting held in Sydney, where NZ’s Food Safety Minister met with 9 Australian ministers yesterday, reinforced its commitment to mandatory fortification, with the review over 6 months.

The Ministers’ joint communiqué included,

“Food Standards Australia New Zealand have been asked to review the proposed standard due to technical considerations with the implementation of the standard, and compliance issues, within six months.”

Soil & Health is aware of many letters to NZ Minister Annette King from organic consumers. Australian organic consumers and organisations recently also called on Australian Ministers to consider an exemption.

Members of Parliament from a range of parties also supported the Soil & Health position, as did New Zealand Consumers Institute, with Organics Aotearoa New Zealand leading an organic sector delegation to a recent meeting with Annette King.

“An organic exemption from mandatory fortification with folic acid would show acknowledgement of the rights of organic consumers to continue selecting their food according to their needs, and for organic millers and bakers to remain in business”, said Mr Browning.

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