AgResearch misinformation corrected by independent scientists

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association was disturbed yesterday when meeting with MAF-Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) to find an official supporting the misinformation that AgResearch had stated in a Radio NZ Rural Report program. Soil & Health and GE Free NZ met with officials from MAF-BNZ to discuss the possible leakage of genetically engineered (GE)organisms from the AgResearch Ruakura GE animal facility.

AgResearch and MAF-BNZ  have suggested that micro-organisms in the AgResearch offal pits could not be subject to gene transfer from the genetically engineered cattle disposed there, and had stopped ensuring that studies used samples from within the soil surrounding the decomposing GE cattle, as expected by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).

The Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) has issued a media statement correcting AgResearch’s factually incorrect statement.  (1)

A report by INBI evaluating horizontal gene transfer experiments at AgResearch’s facility had been published in the Journal of Organic Systems last week. (2)

“Soil & Health is concerned that independent studies designed to test for gene transfer are not being carried out at AgResearch’s Ruakura GE animal field trial facility. This allows for possible contamination of the wider environment and risks to human safety, and in the absence of appropriate gene transfer research, the AgResearch GE animal research must be discontinued,” said Soil & Health Association spokeperson Steffan Browning.(3,4)

 

References

(1) Media Release 10 May 2011 of Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety

Setting the record straight on monitoring gene transfer from GM animals

The spokesperson for AgResearch made factually incorrect statements to Radio New Zealand’s “Rural Report” on 9 May 2011. He was challenging the peer-reviewed and published results from the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) which found fundamental flaws in the monitoring of horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified animals disposed of in offal pits. Of concern to us was this statement:
“…soil bacteria are normally only found in the top soil layer which is several centimetres in depth which actually contains oxygen and biological matter so we focussed our sampling at a depth to which soil bacteria are actually found and were there any transfer it would take place in that zone where the bacteria were.”

Our response:

1. Soil bacteria and other microorganisms can be found many metres below the soil surface. Microorganisms have been detected in oil reservoirs 3000 metres deep, with metabolically active bacteria found well over 1000 metres deep (Mason et al., 2010). Notably the statement above is contradicted by AgResearch’s own research. In 2004 AgResearch detected over a million aerobic and culturable bacteria per gram of soil at its single deepest sample of 5.5 metres.

2. While the numbers of cellular microbes does decrease with depth, microbes are not absent but are still found in substantial numbers. The number of microbes in topsoil near the surface reaches an estimated 2 billion per gram of soil (Heinemann et al., 2011, Heinemann and Traavik, 2004). At depth, the population reduces by as much as 2/3rds (Fierer et al., 2003) but remains just under 1 billion per gram of soil. Indeed, an estimated 35% of the microbial biomass in the top 2 metres of soil resides below 25 centimetres (Fierer et al., 2003), and thus it is especially poignant that AgResearch mainly sampled at only 15 and 30 cm, thus ignoring a significant proportion of the potential recombinant population.

3. Microbes on and inside the discarded carcasses would have seeded populations of bacteria and other microbes at depth, at numbers that potentially exceed those at surface. These microbes would have been of the highest priority to sample because they would have been in longest contact with the animals.

4. The kind of microbes at depth may differ in proportion from those near the surface. It is again noteworthy that AgResearch restricted their survey to only bacteria, only bacteria that can be cultured, only bacteria that can be cultured in an oxygenated environment, and only those in the top soil layers not in contact with the animals, and thus AgResearch actively excluded from consideration an estimated 99-99.9% of all other kinds of bacteria and 100% of all other kinds of microbes.

5. There is no evidence to support the contention that transfer would be restricted to the top soil layers. It is in fact probably impossible for transfer to take place in the top 30 cm when the genes being monitored were at least 1.7 vertical metres lower. This equates to approximately 1.7 million bacterial body lengths away. With the exception of one self-described “preliminary experiment” in 2004, AgResearch sampled for gene transfer in soil that essentially could not contain the target genes.

Prof. Jack A. Heinemann
Dr. Brigitta Kurenbach
Ms. Nikki Bleyendaal
Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety
University of Canterbury
Fierer, N., Schimel, J. P. and Holden, P. A. (2003). Variations in microbial community composition through two soil depth profiles. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 167-176.
Heinemann, J. A., Kurenbach, B. and Bleyendaal, N. (2011). Evaluation of horizontal gene transfer monitoring experiments conducted in New Zealand between 2004 and 2009. J. Org. Sys. 6, 3-19.
Heinemann, J. A. and Traavik, T. (2004). Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 22, 1105-1109.
Mason, O. U., Nakagawa, T., Rosner, M., Van N., J. D., Zhou, J., Maruyama, A., Fisk, M. R. and Giovannoni, S. J. (2010). First investigation of the microbiology of the deepest layer of ocean crust. PLoS Biology 5, e15399.

(2) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/pdf/6(1)-Heinemann-pp3-19.pdf

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/index.html

EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER MONITORING EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN NEW ZEALAND BETWEEN 2004 AND 2009. Jack A. Heinemann1,2*, Brigitta Kurenbach1,2 and Nikki Bleyendaal1  1Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety and the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch New Zealand  2GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway.  Corresponding author. Phone +64 3 364 2500 email jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz  03 3642926   021 0239 7321

(3) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/1261/should-agresearch-be-charged-with-fraud/

(4) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/1260/erma-swallowed-genetic-bull-from-agresearch/

 

 

CONTACT:

The Soil & Health Association of NZ – Organic NZ
Spokesperson
Steffan Browning
021 725655
campaign@organicnz.org

Should AgResearch be charged with fraud?

/in , , ,

Government must cancel all genetic engineering (GE) field trials by the government funded Crown Research Institute’s, AgResearch, Scion and Plant & Food Research, now that AgResearch has been shown to intentionally avoid critical safety research required of it, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.(1)

Soil & Health also believes charges relating to false pretences or fraud should be considered in relation to AgResearch’s activities.

“Concerns about the risk of new viral and prion diseases, and the potential loss of antibiotic effectiveness, from AgResearch’s GE cattle activities, led to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) 2002 approval including limits on the genetic material to be used in the GE cattle experiments, and requiring all reasonable efforts to monitor for adverse effects,” said Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning. (2)

“However AgResearch has followed a dishonest path of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) research sampling, reporting and media responses’ that has put the public and environment at risk. Scion and Plant & Food Research have previously also misled the government and public about their field trials environmental effects and monitoring practices.”

“AgResearch has more seriously exceeded even Plant & Food’s blatant misreporting of its GE brassica field trial in 2008. The Plant & Food Research GE trial was closed down following Soil & Health and GE Free NZ’s identifying risky approval breaches including illegal flowering of the GE brassicas.” (3)

AgResearch’s genetically engineered (GE) animal field trial site was approved by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) with a control requiring research to try and find evidence of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), transgenes or genetic material from GE cattle carcasses transferring to micro-organisms, at the Ruakura offal pit site.

ERMA in 2002 considered the GE cattle research would have “significant uncertainty as to the magnitude and likelihood of the adverse effect arising,” and “If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted.”

“As soon as AgResearch saw any hint of HGT in 2004 from samples near the buried GE carcasses, they modified their subsequent sampling to avoid that possibility, and annually reported over at several years to ERMA that there was no evidence that HGT was occurring,” said Mr Browning. (4)

“It must be asked, that if by intentionally avoiding detection of HGT from their offal pit, should AgResearch be charged with fraud.”

The Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) at the University of Canterbury has reviewed AgResearch’s reports of its monitoring efforts, as released to GE Free New Zealand (in Food and Environment) under the Official Information Act. (5)

The INBI report published in the Journal of Organic Systems states, “By design of experiments, AgResearch ignored up to an estimated 99.9% of bacteria and all other kinds of microbes.”

“Not only was the sample selection incredibly small but sampling was nearly always taken a considerable distance away from where HGT would be best sampled,” said Mr Browning.

“ERMA required carcasses be buried to a depth of at least 2 metres yet samples were mostly taken at a depth of just 30cm, and as the peer reviewed INBI Report states, “and were so far away on the scale of microorganisms as to have been equivalent to sampling in an arbitrary location hundreds of kilometers from the pits.”

“Further, when considering the AgResearch monitoring reports to ERMA, the INBI Report states, “By repeating the claim that there was no relationship between resistance and depth in multiple years, AgResearch potentially creates the false impression that the 2004 results were replicated when there is no indication that they were.”

Graphics from the Journal of Organic Systems published INBI Report showing annual sample depths relativity to genetically engineered cattle carcasses.

(A) AgResearch sampled soil from offal pits (cylinders in figure) at varying distances from the surface (depth, in metres). The reports did not specify the how close the carcasses came to the surface in the actual pits sampled. The carcasses may have been between 5.8 and 2 m from the surface (they had to be a minimum of 2 m deep to comply with ERMANZ control 1.4). There was no indication of whether any soil sampled was in contact with the carcasses, but it is possible that it was for samples taken in 2004. Depth and year at which samples were taken are shown as black bars.

(B) Soil (grey) subsidence in the pits over time was compensated through the addition of fresh soil (dark grey). The reports made no mention of whether soil was added to pits prior to sampling. Since subsistence takes time, samples taken before the addition of fresh soil to the pits were in most years both likely to have been well above the interface with carcasses (which were about a minimum of 1.7 m lower than sample depth) and to have provided too little time for the appearance of a target population of detectable size. Samples taken after the pits were topped up would have been in fresh soil never in contact with the carcasses.  AgResearch reports a variety of sampling depths. But only in the 2004 report was sampling beyond 30 cm, and in the 2009a report, sampling was to the depth of only 15 cm (Figure 2A).

“All GE field trials in recent years have been involved with major non-compliance of approval conditions, and with AgResearch involved with them all and extremely misleading in its representation of HGT research, safety of GE field trials is in complete doubt and should be stopped immediately,” said Mr Browning.

“AgResearch is now also misleading the media as to its knowledge of the INBI Report and its contents, and an AgResearch spokesman told Country 99TV that AgResearch had only just received the report and could not yet comment.”

“We’ve only just got it ourselves so we’re still putting a response together,” the AgResearch spokesman said.

However, the Journal of Organic Systems – INBI report says AgResearch was provided with a draft copy of the final report nearly 7 months ago on 23 November 2010. (6,7)

“AgResearch has also undertaken HGT research at the Plant & Food Research and Scion GE field trials, with resultant claims of no environmental effects. However that research has also been heavily criticised by independent scientists, and it is time for the government to stop pouring tens of millions of dollars into these risky field trials until the risks are independently studied,” said Mr Browning.(8)

Environment Waikato should reassess its RMA consent to AgResearch to discharge up to 16 cubic metres per day of dairy shed waste water and milk to land from a transgenic cattle containment facility, and any subsequent discharges to air until 20th March 2039. Environment Waikato needs to consider the surface water, leaching and drainage to neighbouring property and Waikato waterways from the AgResearch GE facility, especially now that horizontal gene transfer research has been shown to be effectively non-existent and unknown risks persist. (9)

Soil & Health has a vision of a GE Free Organic 2020, with no risk of novel GE disease organisms or cruel animal experiments, and with government research targeting genuinely sustainable organic systems.
References

(1) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/pdf/6(1)-Heinemann-pp3-19.pdf

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/index.html

EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER MONITORING EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN NEW ZEALAND BETWEEN 2004 AND 2009. Jack A. Heinemann1,2*, Brigitta Kurenbach1,2 and Nikki Bleyendaal1  1Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety and the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch New Zealand  2GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway.  Corresponding author. Phone +64 3 364 2500 email jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz  03 3642926   021 0239 7321

(2)    http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/Documents/GMD02028-decision.pdf  “There are potentially non-negligible risks to the environment that are not related to the ability of the cattle to escape. These risks include unintended insertion of viral cell receptors and creation of new viral reservoirs, and adverse effects arising as a result of HGT” (p. 47 ERMANZ, 2002,). …

“significant uncertainty as to the magnitude and likelihood of the adverse effect arising” (p. 21 ERMANZ 2002).  …

“The Committee’s view is that every reasonable opportunity should be taken to monitor developments such as this for the occurrence of adverse effects and for information on the significance of pathways such as HGT” (p. 21 ERMANZ, 2002).

“Micro-organisms shall be tested for the presence of the introduced genetic modifications at the disposal sites. If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted” (p. 58 ERMANZ, 2002, Bold added). …

(3) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/1097/plant-and-food-research-needs-to-drop-ge/

(4)    Journal of Organic Systems – INBI Report page 7 as in (1).

(5)    GE Free New Zealand (in Food and Environment) Claire Bleakley 06-3089842 / 027 348 6731  Jon Carapiet 021 0507681

(6) http://www.country99tv.co.nz/news/latest-news/2011/5/6/canterbury-scientists-slam-agresearch-ge-testing

(7)    Journal of Organic Systems – INBI Report page 5.  As part of our public service and specifically our formation mission, INBI accepted this task pro bono. Work was initiated in April 2010. On 20 April 2010, INBI submitted supplementary questions to AgResearch (Supplementary Material) with a promise to provide AgResearch with an advanced draft of our final report, to allow AgResearch to register with us any errors of fact before the report was released. AgResearch accepted and released answers to our supplementary questions under the Official Information Act. A draft of this report was then provided to AgResearch on 23 November 2010.

(8)    Heinemann, J.A., and T. Traavik. 2004. Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 22:1105-1109.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0805/S00015.htm

(9)    Copy of Resource Consent Certificate No: 110731 Discharge Consent to discharge up to 16 cubic metres per day of dairy shed waste water and milk to land from a transgenic cattle containment facility, and any subsequent discharges to air.   Expiry 20th March 2039.

ERMA swallowed genetic bull from AgResearch

/in , , ,

ERMA has swallowed a lot of genetic bull from AgResearch. GE Trials Must Stop Immediately!

A Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) report published yesterday shows that AgResearch may have intentionally misled the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and allowed risky genetic contamination in the Waikato Region, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. (1)

Because of the biosafety risk of significant adverse effects to people or the environment, AgResearch was required by ERMA to monitor soil microorganisms for the uptake of transgenes by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) at the offal pits where genetically engineered (GE) cattle were disposed. (2)

“If AgResearch detected HGT, an immediate stop to genetic engineering and the disposal of cattle was required, but AgResearch has sampled in such a way as to avoid any real likelihood of that happening,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.(3)

The INBI report (page 4) states, “The Authority allowed AgResearch to design, conduct and supervise the monitoring of HGT, and this latitude created a potential conflict of interest for AgResearch when set against its funding criteria and overall goal of delivering commercially applicable research results from the development of GM bovine.”

“By using research in such a way to avoid finding the result that they were required to, AgResearch have cheated ERMA and New Zealand, and their genetically engineered (GE) animal trials should be halted immediately,” said Mr Browning.

“ERMA has aggravated the situation by failing to analyse or even sight some AgResearch reports, and accepted AgResearch statements of safety, and then determining that new approvals would not need HGT monitoring.”

“We have consistently called for independence of risk analysis and research monitoring. This situation shows yet again that GE field trial environmental safety monitoring in New Zealand is corrupted.”

Five years of AgResearch monitoring reports, released to GE Free New Zealand under the Official Information Act, have been reviewed by the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) at the University of Canterbury. Following peer review by international experts the INBI report has been published in the Journal of Organic Systems.

“AgResearch has not only breached its approval conditions by not testing as required, but continues to spread  effluent including milk, blood and foetal tissue from GE animals onto its pastures, which are frequently flooded and drain through adjacent farmland, waterways and under Hamilton to the Waikato River.” (4)

“Is the Waikato to be the next site of a new environmental disaster?”

“The INBI Report states that HGT includes the movements of gene vectors such as plasmids, viruses and transposable elements that are observed in both prokaryotes (e.g. bacteria) and eukaryotes (e.g., animals, plants and fungi), however AgResearch has effectively avoided any chance of finding this potentially risky movement and ERMA has allowed it,” said Mr Browning.

“The INBI report states, “By design of experiments, AgResearch ignored up to an estimated 99.9% of bacteria and all other kinds of microbes.””

“Not only was the sample selection incredibly small but sampling was nearly always taken a considerable distance away from where HGT would be best sampled. The INBI report (page 13) graphically portrays the avoidance of sampling where HGT may occur.”(5,6)

“The HGT science undertaken by AgResearch, a leading Crown Research Agency, is a national disgrace and follows breaches at all other CRI GE field tests in recent years.”

“This field trial must stop immediately. The risks of new genetic material leaking into the wider environment is too high and because AgResearch have lapsed professionally to such a degree, while cruelly experimenting with animals unnecessarily, and using considerable amounts of tax-payers money to try and produce pharmaceutical products that are already being produced in a much safer manner.”

Soil & Health – Organic NZ is grateful for the diligence of GE Free NZ in identifying the breach and applying to ERMA for a reassessment of the AgResearch approval, and commends Professor Jack Heinemann and the INBI team in producing such a robust report, and for the Journal of Organic Systems for its publication of independent research of this calibre.

References and diagrams.

(1)    http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/pdf/6(1)-Heinemann-pp3-19..pdf

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/index.html

EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER MONITORING EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN NEW ZEALAND BETWEEN 2004 AND 2009. Jack A. Heinemann1,2*, Brigitta Kurenbach1,2 and Nikki Bleyendaal1  1Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety and the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch New Zealand  2GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway.  Corresponding author. Phone +64 3 364 2500 email jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz  03 3642926   021 0239 7321

(2)    http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/Documents/GMD02028-decision.pdf  “There are potentially non-negligible risks to the environment that are not related to the ability of the cattle to escape. These risks include unintended insertion of viral cell receptors and creation of new viral reservoirs, and adverse effects arising as a result of HGT” (p. 47 ERMANZ, 2002, emphasis added). …

“significant uncertainty as to the magnitude and likelihood of the adverse effect arising” (p. 21 ERMANZ 2002).  …

“Micro-organisms shall be tested for the presence of the introduced genetic modifications at the disposal sites. If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted” (p. 58 ERMANZ, 2002). …

INBI Report -Journal of Organic Systems page 4 ; The Authority concluded that “[w]ith these controls in place, the combined non-negligible risks referred to above are considered to be low, even after taking account of uncertainty” (p. 48 ERMANZ, 2002). The Authority directly tied monitoring of soil microorganisms to its risk assessment, and encouraged monitoring to be “as extensive as possible” (p. 21 ERMANZ, 2002), saying of many additional controls that “[i]n general, these restrictions are aimed at removing classes of risk associated with HGT, viral and prion diseases, and antibiotic resistance” (p. 46 ERMANZ, 2002).

(3)    2. “Micro-organisms shall be tested for the presence of the introduced genetic modifications at the disposal sites. If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted” (p. 58 ERMANZ, 2002).

(4)    Attached photographs of offal pits, flooding, drains and drainage sump. All photographs available at a higher resolution. Photographs of GE cattle and goats also available.

(5)    From the INBI Report – Journal of Organic Systems page 13. Therefore, for all but one sampling exercise, the soil was a minimum of 1.7 m from contact with the microbes that would have been in contact with carcasses (Table 1). Because of compensation for subsidence and because AgResearch may have buried the carcasses much deeper, the samples could have been up to 5.8 m from the soil layer in first contact with carcasses11. If the average soil bacterium is about 1 µm (1 one millionth of a metre) in diameter, within the time between filling the pit and sampling, a recombinant bacterium would have to migrate a minimum distance 1.7 million times its size in a dry pit, or the gene would have to transfer a minimum of 1.7 million times, against gravity directly toward the surface in order to have the potential to be detected.

(6)    From the IMBI Report – Journal of Organic Systems Figure 2. Sampling depth and effect on experimental findings.

(A) AgResearch sampled soil from offal pits (cylinders in figure) at varying distances from the surface (depth, in metres). The reports did not specify the how close the carcasses came to the surface in the actual pits sampled. The carcasses may have been between 5.8 and 2 m from the surface (they had to be a minimum of 2 m deep to comply with ERMANZ control 1.4). There was no indication of whether any soil sampled was in contact with the carcasses, but it is possible that it was for samples taken in 2004. Depth and year at which samples were taken are shown as black bars.

(B) Soil (grey) subsidence in the pits over time was compensated through the addition of fresh soil (dark grey). The reports made no mention of whether soil was added to pits prior to sampling. Since subsistence takes time, samples taken before the addition of fresh soil to the pits were in most years both likely to have been well above the interface with carcasses (which were about a minimum of 1.7 m lower than sample depth) and to have provided too little time for the appearance of a target population of detectable size. Samples taken after the pits were topped up would have been in fresh soil never in contact with the carcasses.  AgResearch reports a variety of sampling depths. But only in the 2004 report was sampling beyond 30 cm, and in the 2009a report, sampling was to the depth of only 15 cm
(Figure 2A).

Celebration as killer pesticide Endosulfan ban goes global

/in , ,

Environmental and food safety organisations internationally are celebrating the global phase out of the DDT-like organochlorine pesticide, endosulfan. New Zealand NGOs, Soil & Health Association, Pesticide Action Network – Aotearoa New Zealand, and Safe Food Campaign along with the Green Party had for many years called for the banning of endosulfan, and a reassessment by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) in 2008 finished the legal use of endosulfan in New Zealand two years ago.

“New Zealand anti-pesticide campaigner Dr Meriel Watts’ part in the international action that has had endosulfan added to the Stockholm Convention’s list of banned substances, deserves recognition,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Dr Watts has put significant work in nationally and internationally to reduce exposure of humanity and the environment to these unnecessary pesticides, and will have improved the lives of very many people in the process.”

“Pesticide use in New Zealand continues unabated however, and for every neurotoxic, carcinogenic, and endocrine disrupting pesticide like endosulfan that is banned, New Zealand regulatory authorities such as ERMA, New Zealand Food Safety Authority, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Regional and District Councils, with the support of the Ministers of Health, Food Safety, Environment, Conservation and Agriculture, continue to allow other new and old pesticides to soak our lands, waterways and food stuffs.”

“It took decades of advocacy, and threats to New Zealand export access, to have endosulfan removed from use, but resistance by commercial and regulatory agencies, with theoretical economic imperatives leading over precaution and safety warnings, will have damaged the lives of many. The same culture persists.”

“Where is Aotearoa New Zealand’s pesticide reduction policy? Where is Government support, for the NGO’s and advocates for a greener, safer environment and food chain? This year, Prime Minister John Key’s ‘Tourism Of New Zealand’ dropped its 100% Pure New Zealand strap-line, this needs to be revisited. Continual pesticide reduction should be part of a nuclear free, GE free, clean green 100% Pure Aotearoa New Zealand vision.”

Soil & Health – Organic NZ continues to advocate for a radical reduction in pesticide use in a clean green 100% Pure Aotearoa New Zealand in an Organic 2020.

KILLER PESTICIDE ENDOSULFAN TO BE PHASED OUT GLOBALLY

GENEVA: The nations of the world, gathered in Geneva this week, agreed to add endosulfan, an antiquated persistent insecticide, to the Stockholm Convention’s list of banned substances. Environmental health and justice organizations from around the world who have been working towards a ban welcomed the decision.

The use of endosulfan has severely impacted the people of Kerala, India, where its use on cashew plantations has left thousands suffering from birth defects, mental retardation, and cancer. “This is the moment we have been dreaming of,” says Jayan Chelaton from Thanal, a public interest research group based in Kerala. “The tears of the mothers of the endosulfan victims cannot be remedied, but it will be a relief to them that there will not be any more people exposed to this toxic insecticide. It is a good feeling for them. We are happy to note that this is also victory for poor farmers, as this proves people united from all over the world can get what they demand.”

Because of its persistence, bioaccumulation, and mobility, endosulfan, like DDT, travels on wind and ocean currents. It has travelled as far as the Arctic where it has contaminated the environment and the traditional foods of the people there. “We are pleased with the decision of the global community today to phase out this dangerous chemical that has contaminated our traditional foods in the Arctic. Our people are some of the most contaminated on the planet.” said Vi Waghiyi, a Yupik woman from St. Lawrence Island (Alaska) and the Environmental Health and Justice Program Director with Alaska Community Action on Toxics. “But until all manufacturing and uses of endosulfan are eliminated, this pesticide will continue to harm our peoples, so we urge all countries to rapidly implement safer alternatives and eliminate their last few uses of endosulfan.”

For most uses the ban will take effect in a year, but use on a short list of crop-pest combinations will be phased out over a six-year period. “With a plethora of alternatives already available, we’d have preferred to see no exemptions included in the decision.  But we were successful in restricting exemptions to specific combinations of crops and pests. This means that during the phase-out it can only be used in very specific situations,” said Karl Tupper, a staff scientist from Pesticide Action Network North America who attended the deliberations.

Endosulfan, a DDT-era pesticide, is one of the most toxic pesticides still in use today. Each year, it took the lives of dozens of African cotton farmers until recently being banned by most countries on the continent. Hundreds of farmers in the developing world still use it to commit suicide each year.

“The health of Indigenous Peoples around the world, including our Yaqui communities in Mexico, are directly and adversely impacted when these kinds of toxic chemicals are applied, usually without their knowledge or informed consent. This phase out is an important step forward for Indigenous Peoples adversely affected both at the source of application and in the Arctic where these toxics ultimately end up,” said Andrea Carmen, Executive Director of International Indian Treaty Council and coordinator of the Indigenous Peoples Global Caucus at the meeting.

According to Javier Souza, Coordinator of Pesticide Action Network Latin America, “This phase out of endosulfan provides an excellent opportunity for countries to implement non-chemical alternatives to pesticides and to strengthen and expand agroecological practices. National phase out efforts should be open to the participation of experts from academia, farmer organizations, and environmental groups with experience.”

Momentum for a global ban has been building for many years. “Endosulfan was first proposed for addition in the Convention in 2007. At that time about 50 countries had already banned it; today, more than 80 countries have banned it or announced phase-outs. NGOs have worked very hard to make this happen,” says Meriel Watts, senior science advisor, from Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. “But today’s decision is really a tribute to all those farmers, communities, and activists across the planet who have suffered from endosulfan and fought for this day. It is especially a tribute to the thousands in the state of Kerala, India, whose health has suffered so terribly from endosulfan, to the inspirational leadership of Kerala Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan, and to the many other people there who have all fought for their rights and for a global ban on endosulfan.”

“We are delighted with this decision as it means agricultural workers, Indigenous Peoples and communities across the globe will finally be protected from this poisonous pollutant,” says Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, CoChair of IPEN – International POP (Persistent Organic Phosphates) Elimination Network. “The UN’s own scientific body had clearly shown that endosulfan is a POP, despite the recent vocal claims by some. Endosulfan contaminates the Arctic food chain and Antarctic krill, poisons our farmers, and pollutes our breastmilk. It was clearly time for endosulfan to go and it now joins the same fate as old POP pesticides like dieldrin and heptachlor, banned once and for all. It is essential that all POP should be eliminated and this global ban will provide the much needed legal protection.”

Available for Interviews:

· Karl Tupper, Pesticide Action Network North America, karl@panna.org, +1 415-981-1771 (USA)

· Dr. Mariann Lloyd-Smith, International POPS Elimination Network, biomap@oztoxics.org; +61 41-362-1557 (Australia)

· Dr. Meriel Watts, Pesticide Action Network North America Asia and the Pacific, merielwatts@xtra.co.nz; +64 21-1807830. (New Zealand)

· Vi Waghiyi, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, vi@akaction.net, +1 907-222-7714 (USA)

· Jayakumar Chelaton, Thanal, jayakumar.c@gmail.com

· Andrea Carmen, International Indian Treaties Council, andrea@treatycouncil.org

Javier Souza, Red de Acción en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas para América Latina, javierrapal@yahoo.com.ar

Can Ngai Tahu Change Agria- New Hope- PGG Wrightsons Genetic Engineering Direction?

/in , ,

A Ngai Tahu Holdings influence into Agria-New Hope- PGG Wrightson marks the opportunity for a change in direction from PGG Wrightson’s intent on being a global leader in genetically engineered pasture seed, according to Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

Ngai Tahu Holdings is quoted as “working on the development of an environmentally sustainable rural business model that reflects the values of the Ngai Tahu culture operating under the strictest of environmental practices and philosophies”.(1)

“Genetic engineering  (GE) field trials are considered tapu by Maori near some field trial sites, so the question must be;  What will be the status of the vast hectares of New Zealand pasture, should PGG Wrightson and Fonterra have their GE way?” asked Steffan Browning, Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.(2)

“A description of Ngai Tahu Holdings as having “entrepreneurial courage” in the new venture will be shown if they can influence the PGG Wrightson Board, to drop its intent on introducing GE rye grass to Aotearoa New Zealand’s pastures. (3)

“Agria’s interest in PGG Wrightson lies in the lucrative seed division which has its sights on global dominance in GE pastures through the intellectual property it has control of, for high sugar  and low lignin GE pasture grasses.”(4)

PGG Wrightson GE rye grass seed now in overseas field trials, is intended to be released globally within 2 years, and is in part behind the continual lobbying by the United States Embassy and its pro-GE advocates such as Pamela Ronald and Terri Dunahay, coming to New Zealand, some funded by Pastoral Genomics and AGMARDT, both of whom are closely involved with Wrightson and Fonterra. (5)

The Chief Scientist of ViaLactia, part of biotech consortium Pastoral Genomics, and a fully owned subsidiary of Fonterra, has said his goal is to have the GE rye grass that he is developing throughout New Zealand pastures.

AGMARDT also funded the heavily criticised report by Otago University’s John Knight that suggested tourists would not be significantly deterred from visiting New Zealand if nuclear power, GE forages and more intensive farming was introduced. (6)

“Following Fukushima, just how untrue could that be? Corrupt polling does not make GE desirable. Consumers worldwide are increasingly treating genetic engineered food with similar disdain to nuclear power, as evidence of harm to health, the environment and rural communities increases,” said Mr Browning.

“The USA interest is the breaking of the New Zealand public’s resistance to GE, so that their own Monsanto and Pioneer GE seeds will have entry for the New Zealand corn-maize markets.”

“PGG Wrightson owned South American seed distribution companies will already be familiar with the GE strains, and PGG Wrightson has  seen the  “Seeds opportunity in Brazil represents a strategic growth opportunity”  in part  because of Brazil’s “ Positive attitude towards GM crops”.”(4)

“Agria, New Hope and PGG Wrightson are all involved with GE crops already, so the challenge to Ngai Tahu, if it wants to pursue entrepreneurial development with multinational pro-GE companies with major global GE crop proposals, is, how does it keep its rohe clean and “operating an environmentally sustainable rural business model that reflects the values of the Ngai Tahu culture operating under the strictest of environmental practices and philosophies”.””

“Kia kaha Ngai Tahu, as communities and farmers are finding throughout the world, there is no such thing as co-existence between GE and non-GE crops, and GE crops are not sustainable under any measure. The high sugar GE grass is unnecessary, and  there exists an equivalent developed without GE.” (7)

“New Zealand has much more opportunity staying GE Free and restoring its 100% Pure Aotearoa New Zealand vision rather than going down a multinational owned genetically engineered agricultural path. We will resist.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 which it would like to share with Ngai Tahu to build resilience, self reliance and a healthy, nutritious and secure food supply for Aotearoa New Zealand.

NOTES:

(1)  http://news.tangatawhenua.com/archives/11411

(2)  P17 Ngati Tuteata in the ERMA hearing for Scion’s GE pine trees, stated that the land would be tapu until something would be worked out to bring a state of noa, free from tapu, at the end of the field trials.  How could a tapu of horizontal gene transfer become noa? Only through acceptance of the change, but Ngati Tuteata have agreed with tapu without knowledge of the technology.  http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/Documents/ERMA200479-decision.pdf

(3)  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10720227

(4)  www.pggwrightson.co.nz/…/Seeds%20Presentation_Overview%20of%20AgriTech…

(5)  http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1012/S00171/wikileak-das-reed-engages-on-tpp-un-env-fiji-apec.htm 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops
(SBU) When asked what the top local impediments will be to concluding an agreement, Sinclair noted a number of areas sensitive to New Zealand. It is “no secret” that Monsanto does not like New Zealand’s genetically modified organism (GMO) regulations, Sinclair said.

(6)  http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/1253/dirty-tricks-campaign-to-get-genetic-engineering-into-the-new-zealand-landscape/

(7)  http://www.germinalseeds.co.nz/news.aspx

(8)  Agria expects to sell GE seed in China P 13, http://www.littleurl.net/229dfd

Scion smoke signals warn of imminent GE tree planting

/in , ,

Clouds of smoke from a poorly maintained tractor at Crown Research Agency Scion’s genetically engineered (GE) tree field test site last week signals the imminent planting of government supported, but environmentally and economically risky, GE pine trees at Rotorua, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. (1)

Green Drinks Rotorua is hosting a public meeting in Rotorua on April 28 that will provide opportunity for Dr Elvira Dommisse, Soil & Health, GE Free Northland, and GE Free NZ, to provide information on the risks of Scion and its United States partner ArborGen’s involvement in GE trees. Scion has been involved with numerous pro-GE trees public relations exercises in the past. The public meeting is the opportunity for the independent scientific and environmentalist viewpoint to be expressed in Rotorua. (2)

“The effective fumigation of the site with diesel fumes, while preparing the soil for further GE contamination, is exactly what other communities are saying they don’t want,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

Whangarei District Councillors voted unanimously on April 13, to reject the outdoor use of genetically engineered (GE) crops and animals in the Whangarei District, and will now actively seek to undertake a collaborative plan change with all Northland councils and Auckland Council to keep GMOs out of the wider region. (3)

“Whangarei has clearly said they do not want risky technology. Public submissions to Rotorua’s Environment Bay of Plenty’s Regional Policy Statement include similar preferences.”

A new approval by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) in December 2010 for the planting of thousands of GE pine trees in batches at Rotorua over 25 years by Scion has allowed the enlarging of a previous GE pine tree test site to 4 ha. (4)

“Scion’s impending planting cannot be trusted, to not contaminate the Rotorua district with GE pine pollen in future years, if past management and duplicitous public relations communications from Scion, combined with ERMA’s failure to assess risk independently, is anything to go by,” said Mr Browning.

In January 2008 Soil & Health brought public attention to consent breaches by Scion. Following an investigation into the cutting down of 19 experimental GE trees by protestors, and Scion’s management failures, Scion removed the remaining 50 GE trees in June 2010, just  5 years into a potential 22 year experiment, calling that experiment a success.

MAF-Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) had failed to monitor the Scion GE field test site well, allowing animals to get past the security fence, for important pruning not to happen, for prunings to be mown by a tractor mower that was not cleaned, and pollen structures to form in the open on stressed GE tree seedlings. Independent scientists also challenged the quality of the Scion research.

“ERMA has approved some non-GE trees to release pollen in the upcoming GE experiments and is relying on the integrity of Scion, and its partner ArborGen, to not confuse GE trees and the non-GE experimental control trees producing pollen. However, Scion, ERMA, and MAF-BNZ, who is to monitor the experiments, have together previously allowed noncompliance by Scion to go unchecked even when pollen release was a risk.”

“ArborGen has said it wants to be the Monsanto of the tree world and evidence prepared for the application by Scion initially suggested pine pollen was only a risk for 300metres, although available research stated, “… viable pine pollen grains were captured at an altitude of 610 m.” and “GM pine plantings thus have a potential to disperse viable pollen at least 41 km from the source.”” (5)

“Pollen spread by Scion’s multi-million dollar GE tree partner ArborGen is the basis for legal action in the United States, where ArborGen is protesting that restrictions on GE tree field trials there will mean they may have to cut down existing GE trial trees that are already flowering. They now are pushing for GE forestry in New Zealand.”

The government has put $10.8 million in science funding into the Rotorua project and, with pro-GE forestry interests, actively lobbies Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and international forums such as the Convention of Biological Diversity and the World Trade Organisation along with the USA, for acceptance of GE forestry. Government’s Tourism New Zealand announced the phase out of the 100% Pure New Zealand brand in January.

The enlarged GE test site was being prepared for Scion and its USA partner ArborGen’s experiments in June 2010 before the application for approximately 4000GE pine trees was lodged with ERMA.

In response to Soil & Health’s 12 July media release suggesting that Scion had illegal prior approval from ERMA for the coming application justifying thousands of dollars of earthworks, Scion publicly denied that the earthworks were for a GE field test site, but formally applied a week later to ERMA. Public notification followed in August, with the ERMA hearing following in November 2010 at Rotorua. The decision was announced in December 2010.

“Regardless of the denial that the earthworks were for GE trees, the new external security fence was actually constructed by the time of the November ERMA hearing. This made the hearing a farce and no submitter was in doubt of what the decision would be. ERMA had effectively ticked the approval even before the application was officially received in July 2010.”(6)

“Poor risk analysis of GE plantings by ERMA, and poor liability provisions in the event of wider GE contamination, means that councils must add strong precautionary controls to district and regional plans.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 with no genetically engineered organisms in the Aotearoa New Zealand environment with the 100% Pure New Zealand brand restored.

NOTES:
(1)   Photographs available of machinery within the Scion GE tree test site April 14. Higher resolution available.
(2)   ‘Risks of GE trees and what to do instead’, 5 pm social – refreshments available, meeting 6 pm, 28 April, Blue Baths, Government Gardens, Rotorua.

(3)

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1104/S00219/council-moves-to-protect-its-community-from-gm-organisms.htm

(4)   http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/Documents/ERMA200479-decision.pdf

(5)   http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/short/ajb.0900255v1

(6)    Scion’s misleading responses to public concerns.

http://www.scionresearch.com/research/forest-science/tree-improvement/molecular-breeding/genetic-modification/fiction-or-fact

Government must separate GE foods in NZ stores

/in , ,

New Zealand’s Minister of Consumer Affairs John Boscawen, and Minister for Food Safety Kate Wilkinson, need to follow the Cypriot Parliament’s lead and give New Zealand consumers the choice of whether to eat genetically engineered (GE) foods or not, especially as a new report casts doubt on GE food safety, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

The Cypriot Parliament has on Thursday passed a bill that will have genetically engineered (GE) foods placed on separate shelves to non-GE foods, and last month a French report showed weaknesses in GE food safety evaluation, and pointed to possible kidney, liver and reproductive health concerns. (1,2)

“Democracy, despite pressure from the USA, has led to the people of Cyprus getting the type of consumer choice that New Zealanders should be able to expect,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“GE foods, of which New Zealand allows approxiamately70 different GE lines, spread through numerous processed products, must now be displayed on separate shelves in supermarkets and shops in Cyprus, with strong fines for non-compliance.”

“GE foods and those with GE ingrediants, will need prominent signage in three different languages. The Cypriots are serious.”

Originally mooted in 2005, Cyprus was subject to US embassy pressure saying that such a Bill would be “like a poke in the eye to the US” and likely to damage US-Cyprus relations. However the Bill was passed by unanimous vote, regardless of industry and US wishes.”(3)

Wikileaks has shown that the USA has been exerting pressure on numerous countries, including New Zealand to relax regulatory conditions and allow more GE foods and crops. The USA is the world’s leading developer and producer of GE products and has been part of a major public relations push in New Zealand to soften public resistance to GE.

“Soil & Health – Organic NZ reported last year that there were 64 plus GE food lines allowed by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) into the New Zealand food supply, consisting of GE corn, soya, alfalfa, potatoes, canola, cotton, sugar beet and rice, and numerous GE processing aids.  This has increased to approximately seventy with several applications in process at any one time,” said Mr Browning. (4)

“FSANZ has yet to turn a GE food application down despite growing concern over GE food safety and flimsy food safety studies. Independent studies show very real risks but the same regulators that took decades to ban endosulfan continue to protect trade interests ahead of consumers.”

“The latest Seralini report uses available data to show that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is not testing adequately for health risks from GE foods. Independent research has previously shown organ, hormone and reproductive changes in animal GE feeding studies.”

Soil & Health – Organic NZ has an Organic 2020 vision similar to the Cypriot people of a GE Free country with clear choice of what is consumed.

———-

Notes

(1)   http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/separate-shelves-gm-foods-now-law/2011…

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1304…

(2)   http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10/

(3)   http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/biotechWeb.pdf

(4)   http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/ge-food-ingredients/

(5)   Seralini et al have conducted studies showing organ damage in rats fed GE food. The latest report is using the material including industry funded studies and shows the food safety authority is not adequately testing GE foods. Extract from latest French report (2): The 90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and the signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could be the onset of chronic diseases. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet obligatory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health protection. We are suggesting that the studies should be improved and prolonged, as well as being made compulsory, and that the sexual hormones should be assessed too, and moreover, reproductive and multigenerational studies ought to be conducted too.

Dirty tricks campaign to get genetic engineering into the New Zealand landscape

/in , ,

A dirty tricks campaign is under way to get public and government acceptance of genetically engineered (GE) crops into New Zealand farming systems, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

The release on Friday by Otago University’s Associate Professor John Knight, of an Agmardt funded report on the attitude of tourists to scenarios of nuclear power and GE crops was incomplete and constructed to get the result that Agmardt and United States foreign policy wanted, says Soil & Health. (1)

The report failed to disclose the results of significant questions around the 100% Pure New Zealand brand, or what trust in New Zealand would be, should the Government allow nuclear power, allow factory farming, close GE field trials, demand GE labelling and for biotech companies to be liable for GE damage. The report was a mix of selected data and opinion by the author, who is closely linked to the biotech industry.

“Agmardt and Pastoral Genomics have only just hosted the internationally discredited, University of California Professor, Pamela Ronald, for a public
relations tour of New Zealand. Ronald intentionally misrepresented organic systems and GE as potentially coexisting,” said Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning. (2)

“Both Knight’s report and Ronald’s presentations and responses to media are extremely misleading and part of a pro-GE strategy outlined in the recommendations by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) international GE  policy specialist Terri Dunahay following her time in New Zealand government agencies last year.” (3)

“Wikileaks has shown the United States embassy pressure on the New Zealand government to embrace GE, and now Fonterra and PGG Wrightson’s associates, Agmardt and Pastoral Genomics, are ramping up the public relations communications in New Zealand in an effort to tick Dunahay’s recommendation boxes and get GE rye grass and clover into New Zealand’s pastures.” (4,5,6)

“Monsanto’s GE crops, and Scion and ArboGen’s GE pines, would quickly follow any introduction of GE pastures,” said Mr Browning.

“Unfortunately the pro-GE PR is neither accurate nor balanced and fails to include the benefits of remaining both nuclear free and GE free, or the costs to New Zealand’s current primary production being able to declare its produce as free from GE contamination.”

“Associate Professor Knight needs to make available the latest raw research data for independent analysis.”

“Knight’s Agmardt funded report fails to address the opportunities to tourism by remaining GE free. Even accepting Knight’s biased research, the approximately 9 % of tourists, who said that they would stop visiting New Zealand if GE was introduced, are very valuable to a tourist industry currently suffering from decline in tourist numbers.”

“Knight failed to consider the effects of  the 9% drop in tourism, and suggested that ” Introduction of drought-tolerant GM pasture into New Zealand would seem highly unlikely to have a damaging impact on New Zealand’s ‘clean green’ image for either exports of food products or for tourism.”

“A well facilitated public debate between GE protagonists, and Soil & Health-Organic NZ and GE Free NZ representatives is urgently needed.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 where Aotearoa New Zealand remains Nuclear Free, GE Free, Factory Farm Free, and is following a path towards organic genuinely sustainable production and conservation.

(1) http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago017378.html  Please contact Steffan Browning for a copy of the full report. The full report is also available on request from Otago University, although the raw data does not appear to be available.
NOTES:
(1) http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago017378.html Please contact Steffan Browning for a copy of the full report. The full report is also available on request from Otago University, although the raw data does not appear to be available.
(2) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/mission-misrepresents-reality/
(3) http://www.fulbright.org.nz/voices/axford/2010_dunahay.html
(4) http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1012/S00171/wikileak-das-reed-engages-on-tpp-un-env-fiji-apec.htm
(5) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops
(6) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/pure-newzealand/

Soil & Health joins Federated Farmers opposing biosecurity plans

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand has come out in support of Federated Farmers in criticism of government Biosecurity funding plans.

“Biosecurity risks are predominantly through importing and that is where the costs should lie,” said Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Certainly exporters and industry have a lot to lose through biosecurity incursions, but biosecurity incursions affect everyone from consumers through to indigenous biodiversity”

“Reduction of biosecurity to only economic importance, with a user pays approach to just those economically affected misses the full environmental and social cost of many new organisms.”

“Biosecurity New Zealand needs better resourcing by Government to enable better border protection and if Government wants to insist on a purely economic base user pays system then charge the importers that incur the dominant risk.”

“Inspections need to be far more thorough without trust in overseas agencies.”

“Both Soil & Health and Federated Farmers members recognise the huge economic impact of biosecurity breaches. Government knows that there are risks to all primary production , biodiversity and tourism through poor biosecurity controls, and that importers are the primary risk.”

“Soil & Health promotes environmental sustainability and supports the validating of New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure brand, including pesticide reduction. Less pests, less pesticides.”

Methyl bromide gas seeps through Picton’s Ferry Terminal

/in ,

Detectable levels of the invisible and odourless, carcinogenic and neurotoxic methyl bromide gas have been found at Picton’s wharves during log fumigation activities.

Monitoring devices at Waitohi Wharf next to the interisland ferry terminal, and at Picton Wharf at the Picton marina recorded methyl bromide gas during venting of fumigated log stacks in nearby Shakespeare Bay in January.

“Methyl bromide within the Picton area and at the ferry terminal is something we have long predicted, and needs to stop immediately,” said Soil & Health Association of NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Allowing methyl bromide gas to seep through the ferry terminal is no way to welcome entrants to clean green 100% Pure Aotearoa New Zealand’s South Island. Recapture technology is available now, so no methyl bromide needs to reach the ferry terminal or Picton.”

The Marlborough District Council Environment Committee received a report last week on January 2011 fumigations showing methyl bromide gas was drifting from the Shakespeare Bay log fumigations through the ferry terminal towards Picton.

“Soil & Health-Organic NZ, and local group Guardians of the Sounds, have previously pointed out that just because methyl bromide was often not detected at the Port fence lines, it did not mean that it was not getting to the ferry terminal and Picton. We have been vindicated, and either fumigation must be stopped, or recapture of the toxic fumigant must be set up immediately.”

Monitoring at the Port fence line uses technology measuring parts per million, although the recent results are in parts per billion, which is lower than that required by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA). Air monitoring only indicates gas levels at the monitor site. Weather conditions also effect the concentration of gas at any particular point.

“A recording at one point may not represent what is happening 20 metres away, and ERMA staff have also acknowledged the difficulty in determining where the gas will go at Picton following ships holds or tarpaulins being opened for fumigant release.”

Port Nelson uses recapture technology when fumigating containers or sawn timber, but logs requiring fumigation are generally sent to Picton or shipped through Tauranga or another port for fumigation in the ship’s hold. Recapture technology is able to be used in log stacks under tarpaulins but gas recapture costs mean transporting logs to a more permissive fumigation facility is preferred by log exporters.

“Monitoring is a sop to the local community while log fumigation with the toxin is able to continue, with the gas being released to the atmosphere even though charcoal filter recapture technology is immediately available,” said Mr Browning.

“With record log prices, there is no longer an economic excuse for the timber industry or ports anywhere in New Zealand to expose local communities, ferry passengers or the atmosphere to the ozone depleting, carcinogenic and neurotoxic gas.”

Soil & Health – Organic NZ has campaigned for decades against the use of methyl bromide use and has a vision of an Organic 2020.

Notes:

Methyl bromide (CH3Br) is an odourless, colourless gas, used as a pre-shipment (QPS) fumigant pesticide that kills all pests and is extremely toxic to humans. Human exposure to methyl bromide has potentially serious acute impacts on the central nervous system and internal organs that can be fatal, with a range of neurological effects associated with chronic exposure. Deaths of workers at Port Nelson from motor neurone disease statistically linked to methyl bromide exposure, predicated the Environment Court case that has restricted the release of methyl bromide there.

New Zealand’s increasing log exports are the largest user of methyl bromide here. New Zealand has an obligation under the Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer to minimize methyl bromide emissions and recover and recycle to the extent possible. Use in New Zealand has risen at least tenfold since signing the Montreal Protocol in 2001, with expectations of significant further increase in parallel with record log exports.