Changing the definition of GE in food would leave consumers in the dark

/in ,

Soil & Health Association stands firm against redefinition of gene technology in food standards

MEDIA RELEASE

For immediate release 6 September 2024

Aotearoa New Zealand – The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand has officially submitted its comprehensive response to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), rejecting Proposal P1055, which seeks to change the definition of genetic engineering technologies used in food production. The association also urges FSANZ to extend the consultation period by at least a month to allow for sufficient time to make submissions.

Charles Hyland, soil scientist and co-chair of the Soil & Health Association, says: “Redefining gene technology to exclude new breeding techniques (like gene editing) without proper labels and safety checks threatens our ability to choose what we eat. We stand for transparency and informed choices in food consumption, not ambiguity.”

Echoing this sentiment, Jenny Lux, organic producer and co-chair of Soil & Health, highlighted the potential impacts on the organic sector. “Introducing gene-edited products into our food system without clear labels could inadvertently lead organic foods to contain genetically engineered ingredients. This is unacceptable and undermines the trust consumers place in organic labels.”

“People are concerned not just about what’s in their food, but also about how it’s been produced. The  global market for non-GMO foods is growing.”

Philippa Jamieson, Soil & Health spokesperson on GE issues, emphasised the need for rigorous safety assessments. “Gene editing and NBTs bring significant risks and uncertainties. Any food product derived from these technologies must undergo stringent safety evaluations and be clearly labelled to ensure public health is not compromised.”

The Association also acknowledges the deep cultural, ethical, intellectual property and spiritual concerns associated with gene technology expressed by Te Ao Māori. Soil & Health aligns with the perspectives of our Treaty partner organisation, Te Waka Kai Ora, that the proposal does not support their cultural expressions and rights as guaranteed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The public is urged to participate actively in the consultation process by making individual submissions to FSANZ. The deadline for these submissions is the 10th of September 2024, at 8 PM New Zealand time. Submissions can be made via email or through the FSANZ consultation hub. The association encourages individuals to also communicate their concerns directly to MPs and through media channels to amplify their voice.

For further guidance on making submissions, or to read the full Soil & Health Association submission, please visit the Soil & Health Association website.

Contact:
Rebecka Keeling, Communications Specialist, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand  

Email: editor@organicnz.org.nz

Phone: 021 202 7664  
Website: www.soilandhealth.org.nz

Philippa Jamieson, Editor Organic NZ

Organic regenerative farming needed, not GE

/in

Our genetic engineering regulations are robust, protective, and must not be loosened, says the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand. 

“We need significant investment in organic, regenerative agriculture, rather than risky genetic technologies in the outdoor environment,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Philippa Jamieson. 

Genetic engineering techno-fixes – such as GE ryegrass – are not the solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture. 

“It’s already been demonstrated that diverse, mixed species pastures reduce ruminant methane emissions, and are more resilient in the face of climate extremes,” says Philippa Jamieson. “Organic regenerative farming methods are free for all farmers to adopt, and they’re not under any patents.”

“By being GE-free, we’re far from ‘missing out’. Being GE-free gives us a point of difference in the world market.”

“Who is this GE product for? If customers and consumers are told the product is GE, none want it. Not even the rats in the warehouse. It adds no commercial brand value to growers or distributors. GE inclusion is hidden or secret for products to be sellable,” says David McNeill, Soil & Health National Council member. 

“We already have an advantage in being an island nation in the South Pacific, and need to be really careful about any uncontrolled releases of GMOs into the outdoors. Our products are attractive to overseas buyers because they’re seen as clean, safe, natural and uncontaminated. Once we release GMOs there’s no containing them. We need to continue to safeguard our environment and our brand,” says Philippa Jamieson.  
 
“Organic regenerative farming and growing practices result in lower greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner waterways, reduced soil erosion, increased biodiversity and more resilient ecosystems.”

Soil & Health urges all political parties not to loosen regulations on GE in Aotearoa New Zealand, and instead to direct energy and funding towards expanding organic farming methods here. 

Organic regenerative farming sequesters more carbon in the soil, and uses fewer costly inputs, empowering farmers. We need research centres dedicated to organic, regenerative agriculture and farmer extension programmes to build that knowledge in rural communities.

Jenny Lux Soil and Health Assn

Organic regenerative farming needed to reduce climate change, not GE

/in , ,

New Zealand doesn’t need a loosening of GE regulation to combat climate change, it needs significant investment in organic, regenerative agriculture, says the Soil & Health Association.

Parliament recently passed the Organic Products and Production Act, with cross-party support. This should be a springboard to revolutionise our farming and exports, but making it easier to release GMOs into the environment will jeopardise that.

“By being GE-free, we’re far from ‘missing out.’ Being GE-free gives us a point of difference in the world market,” says Jenny Lux, Chair of Soil & Health.

“We already have an advantage in being an island nation in the South Pacific, and need to be really careful about any uncontrolled releases of GMOs into the outdoors. Our products are attractive to overseas buyers because they’re seen as clean, safe, natural and uncontaminated. Once we release GMOs there’s no containing them. We need to continue to safeguard our environment and our brand.”

Obvious agricultural solutions to lower greenhouse gas emissions, such as reducing or eliminating synthetic nitrogen fertilisers, have not been implemented at scale. Now there’s a renewed focus on gene technologies, which are attractive to corporates and researchers because they can be patented and commercialised.

But GE has not yet lived up to the hope or the hype. The $25 million dollar New Zealand GE ryegrass trials have not yet yielded more dry matter than traditionally bred rye grasses. These would be grown in monocultures, or with only one or two other species, which is not good for long term soil health.

“It’s already been demonstrated that diverse, mixed species pastures reduce ruminant methane emissions, and are more resilient to climate extremes,” says Jenny Lux.  “Organic regenerative farming methods are free for all farmers to adopt, and unsurprisingly, they’re not under any patents.”

Soil & Health urges all NZ political parties not to loosen regulations on GE in NZ, and instead to direct attention and funding towards expanding organic farming here. Organic regenerative farming sequesters more carbon in the soil, and uses fewer costly inputs, empowering farmers. “We need research centres dedicated to organic, regenerative agriculture and farmer extension programmes to build that knowledge in rural communities,” says Jenny Lux.

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

/in , , ,

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

Jodie Bruning, national councillor for the Soil & Health Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

Notes

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

Soil & Health joins call for immediate action on farming emissions

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association is joining other environmental groups calling for immediate action to tackle farming emissions. 

Consultation on the government’s draft Emissions Reduction Plan closes today and environmental groups are united in calling for stronger action.

“It’s unacceptable that agriculture, our largest emitting sector, is the least developed and most poorly explained aspect of the Emissions Reduction Plan,” says Jenny Lux, organic farmer and deputy chair of the Soil & Health Association. 

“Too much emphasis is put on finding new technologies. Let’s use the tools we already have. More can be done, and sooner, by supporting a faster transition to regenerative organic farming.

“The Emissions Reduction Plan needs to identify a pathway to transform agriculture, with clear direction and support for immediately available solutions like organics.

“Pricing farm emissions is the key government policy right now, and for this reason agriculture must enter the Emissions Trading Scheme from 2022.

“Limits on synthetic nitrogen and imported feed are also needed as signals that we need to change our farming systems.

“Ultimately the New Zealand Government must adopt a target for increasing regenerative organic production. 

“Organics have global recognition as a low-emission and environmentally friendly farming system. International markets are moving quickly to increase organic production to reduce emissions and because global consumers are voting with their wallets.”

Our submission on the Emissions Reduction Plan is available to read here:
https://soilandhealth.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Emissions-Reduction-Plan-submission-Soil-and-Health-November-2021.pdf

Glyphosate risk assessment urgently needed

/in ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENDS

Bayer Fails to Overturn European Ban on Bee-Harming Pesticides

/in , , ,

The European Union’s highest court has rejected Bayer’s bid to overturn a European law which heavily restricted the use of bee-harming pesticides. In 2013 the European Union banned neonicotinoid, or ‘neonic’ use on bee-attractive crops. In 2018 the ban was extended to use on all outdoor crops, including annual arable crops, cereals and horticultural crops.

The General Court decision, released Thursday, is welcomed by the Soil & Health Association. This decision follows a prior bid by Bayer and Syngenta which had also failed to overturn the law.

The regulation relates to the ‘neonic’ insecticides clothianidin, thiamethoxam or imidacloprid; and applies to foliar sprays, soil treatments or seed treatments traditionally used in the growing period following winter.

Bayer’s appeal primarily argued that the European Union had not applied the precautionary principle properly and should have instead, engaged in a comprehensive risk assessment.

The precautionary principle is used when science has identified that an activity produces potentially dangerous effects, but where uncertainty remains about the extent of the risk.

The General Court of the European Union rejected Bayer’s argument, stating that an ‘exhaustive risk assessment cannot be required in a situation where the precautionary principle is applied, which equates to a situation in which there is scientific uncertainty’.

The Soil and Health spokesperson for pesticides, Jodie Bruning stated ‘This is an important finding. When we have technologies such as pesticides, interacting with environmental or human health, the decisions we take must very often be precautionary. Harm that results in death, or the dying out of a species often occurs as a result of multiple indirect effects. For honeybees, pesticides and environmental stressors interact. Over time this harm adds up to reduce resilience, causing honeybee deaths. 

‘The precautionary principle is important, because there is very rarely a single ‘smoking gun’ which can be traced and then blamed, for bee die-offs or colony collapse. We know that these insecticides last a long time in soil and water. We know they harm baby bee development, and impair flight as well as navigation. We can see that neonics reduce the capacity for bees to protect themselves from pathogenic viruses and the varroa mite.’

‘Recent testing shows we have concerningly high levels of neonics in New Zealand soils. We don’t have scientists paid long-term to research the health effects of neonics, so we don’t have scientists who can inform policy. Our farmers are buying unlabelled seeds, even for flowering clover. Farmers and orchardists do not know that the treatments they use are banned for outdoor use in the European Union.’

‘Because our scientists lack a mandate to research both human and environmental health effects, and the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority relies on industry data to make safety claims, we have no authoritative expertise here. We are completely out of touch with best European practice.’

‘While the precautionary principle is only weakly applied in New Zealand, yet it has become a very important tool used by the European Union to protect environmental and human health.’

Japanese glyphosate scare highlights lack of regulation in New Zealand

/in , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerns remain on improved Organic Products Bill 

/in , , ,

Concerns for the future of New Zealand’s domestic organic industry have dampened enthusiasm for the Organic Products Bill which returned from Select Committee with some significant and useful changes, says the Soil & Health Association.

“We represent the thousands of people buying, growing and selling organic products,” says Soil & Health’s general manager Pete Huggins.

“This bill will be a huge step forward for organics in New Zealand and it’s vital we get it right. Consumers, producers and retailers all want a robust system of organic verification that drives confidence and growth in organics.

“We don’t think the verification regime being imposed by MPI is the correct one. This was not the scheme we were consulted on and isn’t our preferred option. It poses risks around cost increases that the domestic industry will struggle to bear. We think MPI have misunderstood what is required here, and are failing to listen to feedback.

“We know the whole organic sector is committed to working with the government to make this Bill the best it can be. At the moment our main concern is to nurture and enhance the domestic industry under this new regime. It would be a tragedy if the incoming regulation hampered efforts to grow food more sustainably.

“Organics is booming internationally, and our export sector should thrive under this new system. But we need to see assurances that the domestic industry will be supported and not undermined through increased cost and bureaucracy.

“The Select Commitee has already improved the bill significantly and we look forward to engaging with the government further.”

Climate advice means government should support transition to organic, regenerative farming

/in , , , ,

Today’s Climate Commission advice shows we need a transition from synthetic fertilisers and other harmful practices towards organic and regenerative agriculture, said Soil & Health Association spokesperson Jenny Lux today.

“Organic regenerative farming is a huge opportunity for New Zealand, both economically and environmentally. Early movers have shown that we can make that shift rapidly. With government help the transition to producing high quality, high value food within planetary limits is achievable for most NZ farms.

“We’d like to see funding and other support for farmers to start shifting to lower emissions agriculture now.

“The Climate Commission says we can tackle agricultural emissions with the technology we already have. This includes organic and regenerative practices like phasing out synthetic fertilisers, reducing tillage, and intensifying cover cropping to build soil health and promote biodiversity.

“Healthy agricultural soils sequester carbon. The government could drive this change with a policy to support farmers with technical knowledge and the costs of transition.

“Money in this year’s budget would be good.”