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

/in , , ,

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.

This media release was originally created in 2018.

Gene Bill would let the genie out of the bottle

/in , , ,

MEDIA RELEASE

17 December 2024

Aotearoa New Zealand –  Genetically engineered organisms of all kinds must be prevented from being let loose in the environment with no controls, monitoring or public knowledge, says the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

The Gene Technology Bill, which is scheduled to have its first reading in Parliament today, would rule a lot of genetic engineering techniques out of scope of regulation. This would mean many GE plants, seeds, microorganisms and animals could be released without any oversight.

“Changing the legal definition of GE doesn’t make these techniques any safer,” said Charles Hyland, chair of the Soil & Health Association. “Gene editing, rather than being precise, has been shown to result in numerous unexpected changes to DNA.”

“Therefore we need a precautionary approach to gene technologies in the outdoor environment, in our food, and for those technologies that involve heritable traits in any species.”

The Bill could mean that GE ryegrass or clover seed, for example, could be sold and sown without the knowledge of farmers, gardeners and their neighbours. It would be almost impossible to prevent the spread of GE plants, which can be spread via wind, insects and other vectors.

“We don’t need GE in food or farming – we already have nature-based solutions to our problems,” said Philippa Jamieson, Organic NZ editor.

“Organic regenerative farming and growing practices result in lower greenhouse gas emissions, cleaner waterways, reduced soil erosion, increased biodiversity and more resilient ecosystems – there’s no need to risk using GE,” she said.

“Our genetic engineering regulations are robust, protective, and must not be loosened.”

ENDS


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

UPDATE: The Health Select Committee is receiving submissions on this Bill. They are due by 17 FEBRUARY 2025.

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.