Animal Cruelty Legislation Needs To Consider 1080 Effects

/in , ,

The Government needs to include the wilful cruelty associated of 1080 drops when considering the animal welfare bill the National caucus has agreed to fast track, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.
Originally an intended private member’s bill of National MP Simon Bridges, the bill seeks to raise the maximum imprisonment penalty for wilful ill-treatment of animals under section 28 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
“This Act is about knowingly ill-treating animals in a particularly gruesome way, and 1080 poison drops do exactly that,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
Taken from Mr Bridges website, “Section 28 creates the most serious offence in relation to animals and prohibits the wilful ill-treatment of an animal where the animal is permanently disabled, or dies, or the pain or distress caused to the animal is so great that it is necessary to destroy the animal in order to end its suffering.”(1)
“This is about sending a message that Parliament thinks this offending is abhorrent to our society. It’s more than not ok, it’s an outrage,” Mr Bridge had added.
Agriculture Minister David Carter has said he would consider whether the bill should be widened to make the Animal Welfare Act work better, and that increasing incidences of animal cruelty were “horrifying” many New Zealanders. Labour leader Phil Goff said at the weekend he supported Mr Bridges’ bill.
“Mr Bridges, and the Members of Parliament from most parties that have quickly supported his move, were motivated by recent animal cruelty episodes actioned by one or two people,” said Mr Browning.
“However decisions to knowingly inflict hideously long painful deaths on numerous animals from rodents, rabbits and possums, to pigs, deer, goats and birds by the use of large scale poison drops, are also conscious decisions by small groups of people.”(2)
“Animal welfare must be dealt with as a societal responsibility and all animals need the same protection from human induced cruelty whether it be at the hands of a small child, psychopathic individual, insensitive farmer or zoo operator, or pest control operator.”(3)
“1080 and several other poisons currently in use are slow and indiscriminate killers which need to be urgently phased out as alternatives to their use exist. To continue to knowingly cause a tortuous death when an alternative exists is likely to also meet the parameters of section 28 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.”(4)
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 where animal welfare meets the highest ethical standards.
(1) http://www.simonbridges.co.nz/index.php?/archives/81-Time-to-get-tough-on-animal-cruelty.html
(2) http://cms.connovation.co.nz/content/documents/shirley.pdf
(3) http://cms.connovation.co.nz/content/documents/Littin%20&%20Mellor%20SATRS%202005.pdf
(4) http://www.connovation.co.nz/alternatesto1080.aspx

Bethells Spraying Risks Environment and Community Effects

/in , ,

The intended helicopter spraying of crack willow with herbicide over 23 ha of wetland at Te Henga, near Bethells Beach, is another example of New Zealand’s use of crude chemical solutions without deep understanding of environmental risks, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“At a time when aerial spraying of chemicals is now banned in Europe, the so called Eco City of Waitakere intends to spray a wetland with strong dose glyphosate herbicide, in a secret formulation, that is a known aquatic toxin,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Spraying in the Te Henga environment, it is not possible for Council staff to determine where drift may go, or with the formulation confidential, the level of environmental impact from the spraying.”
“It is ironical that the backdrop wallpaper on the Council web-page for the spray program has insect, frog and lizard motifs, when they are just some of the type of species adversely affected by the AGPRO Green Glyphosate 510 intended to be used.” (1)
The highly referenced Glyphosate monograph prepared by New Zealand scientist Dr Meriel Watts for Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (PANAP), quotes several research documents showing damage to reptiles, amphibians and insects. Glyphosate affects species right down to the ecological base of the environment with algae and bacteria also affected. (2)
The monograph also says that the human exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides, even at very low doses may result in reproductive and hormonal problems, miscarriages, low birth weights, birth defects, and various cancers—especially haematological cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and hormonal cancers such as breast cancer.
The formulation of AGPRO Green Glyphosate 510 was kept as confidential during the Environmental Risk Management Authority consent application process for its use in New Zealand, however Soil & Health –Organic NZ point out that formulation ingredients are often more toxic than the glyphosate itself.
“Just as with previous aerial spraying in the Auckland region, the public are not fully informed of what is to be sprayed in their environment,” said Mr Browning.
“The watershed of Bethells is at risk from the cavalier approach to biodiversity.”
“It is urgent that Waitakere Eco-City, Auckland Regional Council, Rodney District Council, the landowners and the spraying funders, the Department of Conservation Biodiversity Condition Fund, put the brakes on the intended February 8 spraying, consult with the community and independent experts, and rethink how management of the Waitakere ecosystem should take place.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 in which aerial spraying of toxins has no place.
(1) http://www.waitakere.govt.nz/cnlser/pw/greennetwk/tehengawetland….asp
(2) http://www.panap.net/uploads/media/monograph_glyphosate.pdf
Some extracts pasted below.
Glyphosate monograph, http://www.panap.net/uploads/media/monograph_glyphosate.pdf
Page 2
Long-term Toxicity
Recently scientists have found harmful effects on human cells at levels of glyphosate too low to have a herbicidal effect, some at levels similar to those found in food. These effects are amplified by the adjuvants in the Roundup formulation, which assist penetration of the cells by glyphosate. Several researchers have reported that glyphosate appears to accumulate in human cells.
Cancer, genotoxicity, endocrine disruption, reproduction
The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) have declared that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans. The US EPA originally classified glyphosate as a Group C “possible human carcinogen”, then re-classified it as Group D “not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity”, then as Group E “evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans”, and then in 2006 rephrased this as “Group E carcinogen with no evidence of human carcinogenicity”.
Yet there is substantial laboratory and some epidemiological evidence that points to the opposite conclusion. Some researchers have concluded that glyphosate and its formulations clearly present a risk of carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reproductive effects on human cells.
Numerous laboratory studies have shown that glyphosate and the Roundup formulation can be genotoxic and endocrine disrupting. One study summarises these effects occurring at doses substantially lower than those used in agriculture, or permitted as residues: at 0.5 mg/kg (40 times lower than levels permitted in soybeans in the US) they were anti-androgenic; at 2 mg/kg they were anti-oestrogenic; at 1 mg/kg they disrupted the enzyme aromatase; at 5 mg/kg they damaged DNA, and at 10 mg/kg there were cytotoxic. These effects can result in crucial outcomes for sexual and other cell differentiation, bone metabolism, liver metabolism, reproduction, development and behaviour, and hormone dependent diseases such as breast and prostate cancer (Gasnier et al 2009).
Studies have demonstrated that glyphosate and/or Roundup cause genetic damage in human lymphocytes and liver cells; bovine lymphocytes; mouse bone marrow, liver, and kidney cells; fish gill cells and erythrocytes; caiman erythrocytes; tadpoles; sea urchin embryos; fruit flies; root-tip cells of onions; and in Salmonella bacteria. Oth­er studies have shown that it causes oxidative stress, cell-cycle dysfunction, and disruption to RNA transcription, all of which can contribute to carcinogenicity.
Laboratory studies have shown that very low lev­els of glyphosate, Roundup, POEA, and the me­tabolite AMPA all kill human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells. Roundup can reduce sperm numbers, increase abnormal sperm, retard skel­etal development, and cause deformities in am­phibian embryos.
Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides, even at very low doses may result in reproductive and hormonal problems, miscarriages, low birth weights, birth defects, and various cancers—especially haematological cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and hormonal cancers such as breast cancer.
Several epidemiological studies have linked exposure to glyphosate with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, hairy cell leukaemia, multiple myeloma, DNA damage; and one study with spontaneous abortions and pre-term deliveries.
Neurological
Glyphosate is assumed by regulators to have no neurological effects—the US EPA did not require neurotoxicity studies to be carried out for the registration of Roundup. However there is emerging evidence that glyphosate can affect the nervous system, and in particular areas of the brain associated with Parkinson’s disease. In one case study glyphosate exposure was linked to ‘symmetrical parkinsonian syndrome’. An epidemiological study of children identified a link with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Other effects
Glyphosate damages liver cells and interferes with a number of enzymes important in metabolism.
Page 2-3 (Summary)
Environmental Effects
The environmental effects of glyphosate of greatest concern are those that occur at a subtle level, and can result in significant disruption of aquatic and terrestrial eco-systems, including the agro-ecosystem.
Aquatic effects
Glyphosate is water soluble, and is increasingly found in the environment at levels that have caused significant effects on species that underpin the entire aquatic food chain. Glyphosate and/or Roundup can alter the composition of natural aquatic communities, potentially tipping the ecological balance and giving rise to harmful algal blooms. It can have profound impacts on microorganisms, plankton, algae and amphibia at low concentrations: one study showed a 70% reduction in tadpole species and a 40% increase in algae. Insects, crustaceans, molluscs, sea urchins, reptiles, tadpoles, and fish can all be affected, with vulnerability within each group varying dramatically between species. Effects include reproductive abnormalities, developmental abnormalities and malformations, DNA damage, immune effects, oxidative stress, modified enzyme activity, decreased capacity to cope with stress and maintain homeostasis, altered behaviour, and impaired olfaction that can threaten their survival. Amphibians are particularly vulnerable. Roundup is generally more toxic than glyphosate, especially to fish.
Page 16
Most recently a leading Argentinean scientist, Professor Carrasco of the University of Buenos Aires Medical School, demonstrated significant consistent and systematic malformations in amphibian embryos resulting from very low dose exposure to glyphosate, and warned that comparable effects can happen in humans. In the first part of the study amphibian embryos were immersed in a solution of the herbicide 1,500 times weaker than that used in agriculture: the embryos suffered head deformities. In the second part, the embryos were injected with glyphosate, also at 1,500 times dilution: the impact was even more severe, demonstrating that it is the active ingredient, not the adjuvants that are the problem. Effects included reduced head size, genetic alterations in the central nervous system, increased death of cells that help form the skull, deformed cartilage, eye defects, and undeveloped kidneys. Carrasco also stated that the glyphosate was not breaking down in the cells, but was accumulating. The findings lend weight to claims that abnormally high levels of cancer, birth defects, neonatal mortality, lupus, kidney disease, and skin and respiratory problems in populations near Argentina’s soybean fields may be linked to the aerial spraying of Roundup (Valente 2009; Trigona 2009; Ho 2009).

NGO’s call for Diet drink’s aspartame to be dumped in favour of natural sweeteners

/in , ,

Safe food campaigning NGO’s are once again calling for drinks and foods containing artificial sweeteners to be taken out of supermarket trolleys and 2010 school tuck-shops.
The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand and Safe Food Campaign point out that the sweetener aspartame in Diet drinks, and most sugar-free gums, is widely accepted to be dangerous and safe naturally derived alternatives are available.
Following a campaign throughout 2007-8 by Safe Food Campaign, Soil &Health Association of NZ, and anti-aspartame campaigner Abby Cormack, there was a world first 5% drop in Diet drink sales and a 50% drop inchewing gum sales containing aspartame.
Abby Cormack had suffered serious health problems following a high consumption of Extra gum and use of some Diet drinks.
However the NGO’s are concerned that public relations work by Coca Colamay have lifted sales of Diet drinks containing the neurotoxic artificial sweetener aspartame again. Internationally the big two beverage manufacturers, Coca Cola and Pepsi are beginning to use new naturally derived stevia sweeteners in response to consumer demands.
“While in our earlier campaign we were successful lifting public awareness about the dangers of aspartame it is important that those gains for peoples health are continued,” said Abby Cormack.
“It is disturbing that the government has reversed the healthy foods in schools program and allowed junk foods again. Neither the Diet labelled aspartame containing drinks or the heavily sugar laden drinks belong in school tuck shops.”
“I don’t wish my past health problems on anyone, least of all New Zealand children.”
“With the natural sweetener stevia already approved by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), there is no need to be selling aspartame containing foods and beverages in New Zealand,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Soil & Health and Safe Food Campaign want junk drinks, especially those containing aspartame, out of schools for 2010. There is no need to compound the health issues such as obesity in New Zealand children by using neurotoxic and carcinogenic containing products in tuck-shops.” Soil & Health promotes the use of natural sweeteners that fit its motto of ‘Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People,’ and aspires to an Organic 2020.
Notes: Aspartame (951, Equal, Nutrasweet) is an artificial sweetener found in many products including diet drinks, sugar free products, dietary supplements, sports drinks and medications.
Aspartame has been linked to many health symptoms, including those expressed as ADHD, anxiety, depression, irritability, confusion, memoryloss, insomnia, dizziness, migraines, cramps, abdominal pain, numbness or tingling of extremities, rashes, chronic fatigue, and sight and personality changes.
http://www.safefood.org.nz/
http://www.organicnz.org/campaigns/aspartame/
http://www.organicnz.org/organic-nz-magazine/1105/sweet-poison/
http://www.mpwhi.com/main.htm

What We Want For Christmas – Strawberry Growers To Go Organic

/in , , ,

Analysis of New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) pesticide residue results out yesterday show strawberries laced with multiple residues and dodgy chicken take-aways in Auckland. (1)
Samples of strawberries bought in late July and August in Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin and Napier, were tested along with 60 other food types as part of the NZFSA Total Diet Survey.
The 4 combined strawberry samples from each city all had at least 8 different pesticides, with the Christchurch composite having 13 different chemicals, and Dunedin 11.
“Lets hope this Christmas the strawberries are a lot better or preferably organic,” said Soil & Health –Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Certified organic growers successfully grow fruit and vegetables without dangerous pesticide residues.”
“It is possible that the out of season strawberries were imported from Australia, but without dimethoate residues as expected in Australian imports, it appears a New Zealand grower needs some organic growing lessons for Christmas. 8 to 13 residues is disrespectful to consumers and shows a casualness that appears to be creeping back into New Zealand growers approach to pesticides.”
“The Auckland Chicken Take-Away composite sample contained 10 different pesticide residues, while the other cities had two residues each. Something is definitely dodgy in some Auckland take aways.”
“Multiple residues expose consumers to increased risks including cancers, reproductive, cardiac, respiratory and nervous system disorders. The Food Safety Authority needs to look much more closely at these results. Non-compliance with the NZFSA accepted maximum residue limits (MRL) was evident in other testing of celery, spinach and ginger, with one celery sample having 4 different pesticides over the limit and another with 3.”(2)
All 27 celery samples had at least one residue, and only 5 did not contain chlorothalonil fungicide (sold as Bravo) and which is implicated in aggravating the health affects of other pesticides. Those 5 contained dithiocarbamate fungicides, as did most fruit and vegetables tested for NZFSA.
Dithiocarbamate and chlorothalonil are both on the Pesticide Action Network International list of Highly Hazardous Pesticides for global phase out.
Dithiocarbomate fungicides (eg mancozeb, maneb, thiram) are severe central nervous system toxicants, carcinogen, and endocrine disruptors; also causing sterility and birth defects, and affecting liver, kidney and respiratory and cardiac, systems. Chlorothalonil, apart from aggravating the health effects of other pesticides is carcinogenic, mutagenic and an environmental toxin.
“The lists go on, with apples, pears, pizza, muffins, bread, courgettes, grapes and hamburgers, and hot chips being the more common multiple residue foods. A New Years resolution for consumers will be to grow your own or go organic, or get your local grower or baker to go organic,” said Mr Browning.
“Soil & Health – Organic NZ will be meeting with NZFSA in the New Year to look at how we might encourage grower improvement towards significant pesticide reduction in clean green 100% Pure Aotearoa New Zealand.”
Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People and a vision of an Organic 2020.
References:
(1) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/science/research-projects/total-diet-survey/q3-2009-nztds-analytical-report-final-15-dec-09.pdf
(2) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/science/research-projects/food-residues-surveillance-programme/

Global Research Alliance In New Zealand At Risk Of Unsustainable Outcomes

/in , ,

The New Zealand lead at the Copenhagen United Nations Climate Change Conference, by contributing $45 million to the Global Research Alliance on agriculture greenhouse gases, has all the hallmarks of a sustainability sham and pseudo science according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“Unless the Government’s Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research, which is to be the New Zealand hub of the Global Research Alliance, makes a rapid switch towards organic research and development, the most immediate and sustainable solutions to agricultural greenhouse gas emissions will be wasted,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
At Copenhagen the Round Table on Organic Agriculture and Climate Change (RTOACC) (1) was also established and including the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) it has an immediate focus on soil carbon with principle objectives to;
* Initiate, support and facilitate research on organic agriculture and climate change,
* Advise the international community on organic agriculture and climate change issues,
* Develop a measurement method to enable reliable quantification and certification of carbon sequestration in organic agriculture.

“Currently our government shows no sign of assisting the further development of the New Zealand organic sector, which has the most to offer for genuinely sustainable solutions in primary production, yet $10 million has already been earmarked towards unsustainable chemical attempts at dealing with nitrous oxide emissions from the over fertilized and intensive conventional farms.”
“Compared with trading partners and progressive farming focused countries such as Denmark which actively encourage growth of their organic sectors, New Zealand appears to be more strongly focused on vaccines, genetic engineering and more chemicals.”
At Copenhagen, the Danish minister of food, agriculture and fisheries, Eva Kjer Hansen, said her country had reduced greenhouse gas emission from farming by 23 per cent since 1990, while boosting food production by 16 per cent over the same period.
Earlier this year, the Danish Food Minister also said, “Organic farming is Green Growth – a combination of green production and production with a sound economy. We are now making it possible to double the area used for organic production through a massive effort amounting to almost DKr 350 (95 million NZD) a year. This will result in a greater Danish organic production of apples, carrots, milk and salami, to name a few products. And this will benefit consumers, exports, the environment, nature and animal welfare.” (2)
However in New Zealand the group behind the Government’s AgResearch hosted Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Centre, the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium has said that it wants any investment to stay with them and be for new technologies.
The Consortium in its submission to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee in February said, “Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions from livestock are the result of a complex interaction of biological activities. They are the product of natural systems that have evolved over millions of years and are therefore very robust and stable. Intervening in these systems through science needs to be done in a careful and deliberate manner to ensure that there are no unfortunate circumstances.” (3)
“Soil & Health – Organic NZ agrees, but we must point out that the current path of the Consortium using risky nitrification inhibitors, methane dumbing vaccines, and animal rumen intervention is not necessary due to the proven and sustainable options provided through organic agriculture,” said Mr Browning.
“New Zealand’s farming environment and clean green 100% Pure reputation will be better served by diverting from the environmentally damaging and animal welfare unfriendly path AgResearch and its hungry partners are taking.”
“With more than $200 US million pledged by the Global Alliance of ~22 countries including $125 US million over 4 years by the United States, and an early 2010 meeting here in New Zealand, it will be tempting for AgResearch and company to try and look technologically clever while completely missing the obvious.”
“For example, proven management tools such as animal feed changes and better soil drainage can reduce nitrous oxide in livestock farms, and reducing stocking rates and breeding from naturally low methane emitting stock can make significant emissions reductions.”
“Organic farming’s higher levels of soil carbon can offset significant emissions while ensuring greater resilience for farmers during adverse climate events.”
British research shows that on average, organic farming produces 28% higher levels of soil carbon compared to non-organic farming in Northern Europe, and 20% higher for all countries studied (in Europe, North America and Australasia). A worldwide switch to organic farming could offset 11% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. Raising soil carbon levels would also make farming worldwide more resilient to extremes of climate like droughts and floods, leading to greater food security. (4)
At the recent Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) conference Dr Manfred Bötsch, the Swiss equivalent of the Minister of Agriculture explained how organic farming is now fully integrated into Switzerland’s high quality management of its agriculture, environment, and landscape, and how the public benefits arising from this high quality management is paid from the public purse. The growth of organic farming now representing 11% of Swiss agricultural land has been significant in reducing excess nitrogen levels there by 25% since 1985, surplus phosphorous by 65% since 1990/92 while cutting use of pesticides by 35% since 1990. (5)
Dr Urs Niggli, Director of the world’s largest organic research institute, FiBL, also a member of the Round Table on Organic Agriculture and Climate Change (RTOACC), spoke about how long-term field experiments indicate the ability of organics to increase the soil’s capacity to store carbon, and its ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy use, even when calculated per food unit. (6)
“Considering the growth in demand for organic and genuinely sustainable, animal friendly and residue free foods that fit with New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure market image, expensive research investment should steer away from that which uses undesirable technologies such as genetic engineering, chemical soil interventions and vaccines that compromise animals normal metabolism,” said Mr Browning.
Soil & Health – Organic NZ has a vision of an Organic 2020 using technologies that do not compromise sustainability or animal welfare.
References:
(1) http://www.fibl.org/en/service-en/news-archive/news/article/round-table-on-organic-agriculture-and-climate-change-established.html
(2) http://www.fvm.dk/Default.aspx?ID=18488&PID=169747&NewsID=5558
(3) http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/D33A8624-BAA4-448C-AB37-F47353FA8ED5/103621/PastoralGreenhouseGasResearchConsortium_192_.pdf
(4) http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=BVTfaXnaQYc%3d&tabid=574
(5)http://www.oanz.org.nz/events/conference09
(6)http://www.oanz.org.nz/uploads/events/2009_organic_sector_conference/urs_niggli.pdf

Organic Sector Firmly Opposed To Genetically Engineered Animals

/in , , ,

Organic sector members opposed to AgResearch’s continuing efforts to experiment on genetically engineered (GE) animals have taken a look at the facility that threatens to further tarnish New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure branding. (1)
With the knowledge that the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) was both consenting non-notified applications for GE cattle and goats within the AgResearch Ruakura containment buildings, and was to consider further outdoor field trials there, attendees at the Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) conference in Hamilton in November took a spontaneous look at the current GE cattle grazing nearby.
The group including OANZ annual award winners James Millton of Millton Vineyard and Colin Ross, Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning, organic farmers, consultants, certification staff, writers and consumers expressed disappointment that inhumane and risky GE science was being government funded, although threatening the advantages of clean and sustainable production such as organic.
“While the GE cattle grazing at Ruakura looked healthy, they were the few GE experimental animals that had survived the less than 5% embryo success, still births, and gross birth deformities that AgResearch don’t want to be open about,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
Current GE cattle are from previously consented AgResearch GE field trials that ERMA have allowed to remain pending new applications for GE experiments to be processed. The expectation that ERMA would tick the AgResearch applications through, regardless of public and scientific concern, was not met when an appeal to the High Court by GE Free NZ had the applications declared invalid in June this year. Although AgResearch has, in turn, appealed the High Court decision, to be heard on 25 January, AgResearch and ERMA have continued to try and allow the AgResearch contractual obligations with overseas GE companies to be met, and both non-notified indoor applications and another outdoor GE field trial application including cattle, sheep, and goats have been lodged. (2,3)
“While the High Court process is still running, it is a mockery of the judicial system for ERMA to allow further applications for essentially the same purpose, and to have the public excluded from decisions allowing GE experimental animals to the mercy of scientists already proven to fail the animal welfare and ethical standards expected by the community.”
“With no public consultation, ERMA has also now allowed indoor GE goats to become bioreactors at Ruakura, in direct contradiction of the findings of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (RCGM) that recommended food-animals not be used as ‘bioreactors’. The ethical considerations have also been marginalised.”(4)
Groups such as the Soil & Health Association (5), GE Free NZ, Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR), Sustainable Future, and many individuals, including organic farmers, have also submitted to ERMA against AgResearch’s latest notified application for GE animal experiments on cattle, sheep and goats. Submissions closed on Friday 18 December.
“Genetic engineering of plants or animals is one of the biggest threats to our organic producers and New Zealand’s rapidly growing international trade in organic products.” said OANZ Chair Derek Broadmore.
“The growing organic sector presents the best possible image for New Zealand primary production overseas and leads in sustainable practices, yet it has to compete for funding with risky science that promotes products that consumers the world over have firmly rejected.”
“New Zealand and overseas consumers appreciate our clean green 100 % Pure NZ certified organic foods, why would we compromise that by allowing GE plants and animals into the New Zealand environment?”
In his submission opposing AgResearch’s current application, an organic farmer Mr Peter McPartlin said, “We farm, organically, 2000 acres in Marlborough producing prime Angus beef for the Asian markets and prime venison for the restaurant trade in Europe. Our marketing exploits the government funded “New Zealand Pure” brand and we have a heavy reliance on being perceived as clean, green and natural and GE free. None of our consumers in these markets ask for GE products in preference to natural ones – any scientist telling you otherwise is lying!”
“AgResearch GE field trial animals, milk and effluent is disposed of at the Ruakura site, with risk of contamination into surrounding land, stock and waterways,” said Mr Browning.
“Organic standards and production rules such as BioGro, have zero tolerance for GE, and any risk of contamination by GE animals or plants should be eliminated.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that includes a clean green and 100% Pure GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand.

Notes:

Links accessed May 2009
(1) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/focus/gm-cattle-amend.html

(2) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/BertDocs/ERMA200223%20Application%20summary%20-%20FINAL.pdf

(3) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/find/WebResults.aspx?search=GMD09016&submit.x=31&submit.y=11&submit=Search

(4) http://www.organicnz.org/ link at; Read the Soil & Health Association submission to ERMA requesting this application be declined !

Celery at top of dirty dozen

/in , ,

See also a later update.

December 2009

Celery is at the top of a food list as most likely to contain pesticide residues in New Zealand. As well as celery, a range of fruit, dairy products and bread are all ranked in the top dozen of foods most likely to contain pesticide residues. Close contenders behind this ‘dirty dozen’ were cucumber, nectarines, lettuce, tomatoes, wine and pears.
Safe Food Campaign researcher Alison White will be presenting her study on the updated dirty dozen at a meeting in Wellington on Tuesday night. She said that food was ranked according to the percentage of samples with pesticide residues and the number of pesticides detected in the total samples. Data is largely drawn from surveys carried out by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority.
“The Food Safety Authority attempts to reassure us that because the pesticides are below a certain level, then they assume it to be safe. However, we don’t really know the effects of all these chemicals in our food,” commented Ms White.
“What we do know is that there are various serious long term effects associated with particular pesticides that are found in our food, including endocrine or hormonal disruption, cancer, immune system suppression, nervous system damage, genetic damage and birth defects. We also know that various pesticides used to grow food have damaging effects on wildlife and the ecosystem.”
“The problem we have with the Food Safety Authority’s assurances, is that they only consider the effects of one pesticide by itself, as if that was all we were exposed to,” said Dr Meriel Watts of Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand.
“In reality we are exposed daily to multiple residues in various combinations, the effects of which the Authority knows little about. In fact the Authority is still in denial about the problem of mixtures of residues. Yet there is plenty of good science showing that combinations of pesticides can have a much more toxic effect even at low levels, than single pesticides by themselves.”
“The ongoing daily ingestion of low levels of mixtures of toxic chemicals in our food may well be contributing to a raft of chronic health complaints including cancer and Parkinson’s disease,” said Dr Watts.
“While a raft of pesticides is applied to celery, chlorothalonil (Bravo) remains the most common, although it is carcinogenic, mutagenic, an environmental toxin and is thought responsible for aggravating the health effects of other pesticides,” said Soil & Health Association spokesperson Steffan Browning. (1).
“A study released this year found that exposure to certain pesticides, including dieldrin and chlorothalonil, increased the risks of a blood disorder that can lead to multiple myeloma 5.6 fold and 2.4 fold respectively.” (2).
“Considering that dieldrin was banned in agriculture in New Zealand in 1968 and from other uses in 1989, clorothalonil, or Bravo, may be a significant culprit in New Zealand cancers.”
“A fresh approach to food is needed in New Zealand in line with the growth in organics internationally. It is time that pesticide free organic production targets, such as in Soil & Health’s Organic 2020 vision, were taken on for the well being of New Zealand’s environmental, economic and human health,” said Mr Browning.
“Women who are pregnant or breast feeding, those whose immune system is compromised and young children especially need to eat organic food, at least those foods on the dirty dozen list. While washing and peeling foods where possible can reduce some pesticide residues, it is even better to go organic,” concluded Ms White. “In this way you support a system which better protects our children as well as the environment.”
Dirty Dozen
Food in New Zealand more likely to contain pesticide residues ranked according to number of pesticides detected in total samples and percentage with pesticides

Food

% with residues

no. of pesticides

sample size

1. Celery

98.2

21

56

2. Peaches, fresh/canned

96.4

15

56

3. Apricots, fresh/canned

96.4

14

56

4. Butter/cream/cheese

100.0

3

24

5. Wheat: bread, all products

79.3

23

232

6. Apples

80.5

20

288

7. Plums

91.6

8

48

8. Mandarins

83.3

10

36

9. Raspberries

85.4

7

48

10. Oranges

82.1

9

56

11. Strawberries

71.7

16

92

12. Grapes/raisins/sultanas

57.1

25

28

Notes:
Data obtained from NZ Food Safety Authority surveys: 2003/04 New Zealand Total Diet Survey, NZ Food Residue Surveillance Programmes 2004-2008, all available at www.nzfsa.govt.nz. Results from several years were combined to produce sample sizes that were more robust for analysis. A summary of residues from 280 apple samples taken from 120 orchards after harvest but before washing was supplied courtesy of Apple Futures.
(1) Lodovici, M. et al. 1994. Effect of a mixture of 15 commonly used pesticides on DNA levels of 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine and xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes in rat liver. /J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol./ 13(3):163-168. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3483984Lodovici, M. et al, 1997, Oxidative liver DNA damage in rats treated with pesticide mixtures, /Toxicology/, Volume 117, Issue 1, 14 February 1997, Pages 55-60 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9020199These results indicate that the toxicity of low doses of pesticide mixtures present in food might be further reduced by eliminating diphenylamine and chlorothalonil.
(2) http://checkorphan.getreelhealth.com/grid/news/all/individuals-who-apply-pesticides-are-found-have-double-risk-blood-disorder?from=checkorphan.org

Clean Up Lincoln Countryside and Clean Out NZs GE Labs

/in , , ,

Leakage of GE material from a Plant & Food Research containment facility should come as no surprise, but be a wake up call to Government that a major GE catastrophe is just a matter of time, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

It was reported on Monday that Plant & Food Research was aware of another possible breach of containment at one of its Lincoln glasshouses, as Arabidopsis plants testing GE positive were found outside the glasshouse.

“GE containment facilities are only as good as human error or the structure allows,” said Steffan Browning spokesperson for Soil & Health.

“Plant & Food have been aware of such leaks for a long time and the Lincoln science community is well aware of previous containment ruptures.”

“With many GE experiments taking place in risky containment throughout New Zealand, also involving the genetic engineering of microbes such as E. coli or salmonella, it is also just a matter of time before new strains of those will escape containment.”

“MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ), now investigating the latest Lincoln GE breach, played down GE contamination risk at last summer’s Plant & Food GE Brassica flowering event, even though they found that the scientist in charge, Dr Mary Christey, had allowed flowering on more than one occasion.”

“Incredibly MAFBNZ then chose to say that pollen would not have blown more than 2 metres and was unlikely to have been moved by insects due to a lack of flowering plants, when in fact the renown Canterbury nor’ wester had blown over an adjacent tree and the flowering GE Brassica was amongst a sea of flowering plants.”

“Soil & Health wants testing of organic brassica seed saved from the Lincoln area last summer, to be included in independent testing for GE contamination. MAF wouldn’t last summer, so it is good to see some possible change in attitude as they actually get to test the surrounds of the latest GE breach.”

“If contamination exists, there is opportunity to clean up, but MAF keeping its genetically engineered head in the sand, just aggravates the risk to non-GE producers such as high value organics, from loss of markets,” said Mr Browning.

“New Zealand consumers and overseas customers like our clean green 100 % Pure Brand NZ. The risky unwanted GE products that Plant & Food, AgResearch and others keep pushing, fly in the face of clean, safe and desirable organic and sustainable production that the researchers could be putting so much more effort into.”

“GE field trials don’t fit and it is clear that GE containment laboratories don’t either.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that includes a clean green and 100% Pure GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand.

GE Food and Environment Regulators Need Changing

/in , , ,

New Zealand’s food and environmental safety regulators need either some major staff changes, political policy push or a culture change, if public safety is to be considered properly, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

The latest revelations showing that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) distorted research results in 2000 from studies of animals fed with soy that was genetically engineered (GE) to produce high amounts of the amino acid lysine soybean. FSANZ has also failed to take the feeding studies into account when approving a similarly GE high lysine corn, now rejected by European governments.

The study referenced in the FSANZ approval documents showed that some pigs required 66% more feed to grow as well as pigs on a normal diet. This indicates that the GE feed is having an anti-nutrient or toxic effect.

Dr Elvira Dommisse, a former GE scientist for Crop & Food and now an advocate of GE-free organics said, “FSANZ have not actually understood the animal feeding studies, because if they had, there is no way they could have approved such GE food crops for human or animal consumption.”

“This will be another regulatory example for my presentation on GE mis-regulation in New Zealand tomorrow at the Organics Aotearoa New Zealand conference being held at Waikato University,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Following the series of non-compliances at GE field trials, the complicity between the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), MAF-Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ), science funders and research institutes such as Plant and Food, AgResearch, and Scion, has been outstanding and needs exposure.”

“The culture of economics first and complicity to avoid public scrutiny, or precaution pervades ERMA, MAF, the Crown Research Agencies in terms of environmental risk, but it is also rampant in terms of the food supply in FSANZ and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA).”

“FSANZ has ticked through 61 GE plant lines as safe for human consumption with NZFSA standing right behind them, although feeding studies have shown increasing serious health concerns.”

“Each of ERMA’s granted GE field trials have had consent conditions breached, and along with MAF inspection and enforcement teams, have effectively assisted those involved to dodge meaningful penalty. AgResearch is being assisted by ERMA to dodge both public processes and meaningful precaution with new GE animal applications that either dodge public process or have unintelligible information to technically circumvent the findings of GE Free NZ’s successful High Court outcome.”

“Organic production, as highlighted in the Innovate – Go Organic titled conference 13-15 November in Hamilton, avoids the risks of GE and requires no backroom complicity for it to succeed. A Clean Green 100% Pure New Zealand will support the market preferred safe and sustainable organics, and shun dodgy unsafe GE technologies,” said Mr Browning.

Soil & Health has a vision of a GE Free NZ in an Organic 2020.

ERMAs Chemical Cowboy Approach To Methyl Bromide Branded Reckless

/in , ,

ERMA’s methyl bromide control recommendations, released yesterday, are among the most reckless in the world with little regard for human and environmental safety, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. (1)
“Releasing a gas that seriously depletes our ozone layer and is a known neurotoxin, and allowing bystanders to be as close as 50 metres from the release of up to 1000kg of that gas is outrageous. This has to be one of ERMA’s worst,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.(2)
Tonnes of methyl bromide fumigant gas are released to air from under tarpaulins or ships holds following each log fumigation, with smaller amounts being released from containers used for fumigation of imported and export goods.
“With no mandatory air modelling recommended, monitoring is useless and fumigators are only making assumptions of where this invisible, odourless and dangerous fumigant will go. It should be asked why ERMA puts restrictions on anything. This report has to be one of the clearest examples of how New Zealand’s environmental, health and safety regulatory bodies are failing the community.”
The recommendations are part of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) current reassessment of methyl bromide. The reassessment comes at a time when log exports are soaring. Export log fumigations account for more than 80% of the methyl bromide used in New Zealand. Although originally aiming to phase out the use of methyl bromide gas by next year as part of the ozone-focused Montreal Protocol, New Zealand is now using close to 10 times the amount of methyl bromide gas than it was in 2001.
“The dominant focus of ERMA’s report is on effects to the market economy. This means ERMA is functioning more as an Economic Risk Management Authority. The environmental and human safety hazards are clearly secondary to New Zealand’s big business interests,” said Mr Browning.
“Soil & Health is not opposed to the use of methyl bromide for fumigation for biosecurity purposes either, but the release of hundreds of tonnes of the extremely toxic gas near local communities and its inevitable effect on climate change is unacceptable.”
“Recapturing the gas, as is done in Nelson and overseas, should have been demanded by ERMA throughout New Zealand, and gas recapture infrastructure quickly developed by the log exporters. However cost has once again been allowed to come before the health and safety of New Zealanders.”
Tasmania has already made methyl bromide recapture mandatory for quarantine treatment, and the European Parliament has banned the use of methyl bromide within the European Union (EU) from March 18, 2010. (3)
“Methyl bromide due to its damage of the ozone layer has a much greater effect on climate change than carbon dioxide, yet ERMA is hiding behind the fact that man made ozone hole damage appears to be lessening. So now New Zealand is blatantly taking advantage of everyone else fixing the problem.”
“With ERMA’s chemical cowboy approach, New Zealand is once again demeaning its clean green 100% Pure reputation.”
Soil & Health has been involved with several ERMA reassessments and other hearings, and believes the ERMA submission process now open to the public until 18 December, is unlikely to make significant changes to the recommendations.
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that will not include release to air of dangerous ozone depleting fumigants.
References
(1) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/publications/pdfs/Methyl%20Bromide%20Reassessment%20Application.pdf
(2) Extract from ERMA’s Methyl Bromide Reassessment Application
1. The Agency proposes the adoption of the following tolerable exposure limits (TELs):
TEL(chronic)

TEL(acute)24 hour average

TEL (acute)1 hour

0.005 mg/m3

1.3 mg/m3

3.9 mg/m3

1.3 ppb

333 ppb

1000 ppb

0.0013 ppm

0.333 ppm

1 ppm

2. The Agency proposes that the following minimum buffer zones (the downwind distance between the ventilation release location and any non-occupational bystander) be observed when ventilation occurs:
Situation

Buffer zone

Ship‘s hold (greater than 1000 kg methyl bromide used)

100m

Ship‘s hold (less than 1000 kg)

50m

Logs/timber under covers outdoors and indoors (without recapture technology)

50m

Shipping containers

25m

Note 1: Non-occupational bystanders include not just those persons living in nearby residential properties but also those who may be temporarily present in a location, for example, walking on footpaths.
(3) European Union
B1.2.1 At its meeting on March 25, 2009, the European Parliament banned the use of methyl bromide within the European Union (EU) from March 18, 2010. This ban is significantly sooner than the 2015 phase-out originally proposed by the European Commission and supported by EU governments.
B1.2.2 The ban covers the use of methyl bromide as a pesticide, as well as its use for QPS purposes prior to transport. This ban includes the gassing of containers to control vermin. The only remaining exceptions to the ban will be the use of methyl bromide for analytical use in laboratories and for its use in emergencies, such as where a large-scale epidemic occurs (methyl bromide used for emergencies may be used for a period not exceeding 120 days and up to a quantity not exceeding 20 metric tonnes).
B1.2.3 The calculated level of methyl bromide which may be used in the period from 1 January 2010 to 18 March 2010 in the EU is not to exceed 45 (ODP) tonnes. Until 18 March 2010 methyl bromide may be placed on the market and used for QPS purposes for treatment of goods for export, under the condition that at least 80 % of methyl bromide released from the consignment is recovered.