Marlborough Needs To Clean Up Its Air

/in , ,

The Marlborough District Council and its subsidiary company Port Marlborough need to commit to a ban on the release to air of methyl bromide log fumigants, at least until the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has completed its reassessment of the neurotoxic gas next year, according to the Soil & Health Association.
The Marlborough District Council was due to decide today on the recommendation of its Environmental Policy Committee that any decision relating to methyl bromide log fumigation at Port Marlborough should wait until after the ERMA reassessment. Soil & Health believes that is the wrong way around and lacks responsibility and the correct precautionary approach.
Methyl bromide fumigations at Port Marlborough had stopped in September 2007 following significant publicity but began again earlier this year.
“The Marlborough Mayor and Councillors all know that Nelson has been through a rigorous Environment Court process for its Port fumigation activities, and now has stringent rules that offer the port workers, and the Nelson people and environment, a reasonable level of protection,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Log fumigation releasing several tonnes of the very dangerous gas at each log shipment, is no longer possible in Nelson. Precaution and common sense say that the same risks exist in Picton and Shakespeare Bay, and until gas recapture technology as is being developed in Nelson can occur in Marlborough, log fumigations must stop.”
Today’s Picton and Blenheim protest against methyl bromide log fumigation, organised by the Guardians of the Sounds group, is supported by Soil & Health who initiated public response to the methyl bromide issue in both Picton and Wellington.
“Both Wellington and Picton ports have had fumigation tarpaulins blown off log stacks during high winds, releasing hundreds of kilograms of toxic and ozone depleting gas unexpectedly,” said Mr Browning.
Wellington’s Regional Council owned CentrePort, has been reported to be now fumigating logs only in the ships hold, to better able controlled release of the toxic gas. However Mr Browning points out that even then, the Port companies have no real idea where the gas will go, as they have not computer modelled the air flow.
‘Until air modelling and then recapture of the gas following fumigation occurs, large scale methyl bromide fumigation must stop.”
“Marlborough councillors, nearly all of whom in the 2007 local body election campaign opposed the Picton fumigations, know that Nelson has led the way, but for short term economic imperatives seem now prepared to risk community and environmental health.”
“With Europe effectively banning methyl bromide fumigant release to air early next year, maybe Marlborough’s short term economic outlook may get a bite in its clean green sauvignon blanc reputation, when word of high spray drift and ozone depleting fumigations get to those discerning markets.”
“Marlborough, the Picton community and the ozone layer deserve better now. Soil & Health hopes the Council will listen to its community and stop the gas.”
Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and has a vision of an Organic 2020 that does not include the use of neurotoxic, ozone depleting fumigants.

US Commentator Calls New Zealand GE Trees Irresponsible

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association is calling for a ban on New Zealand exports of genetically engineered (GE) organisms.
The intended growing in the United States of 260,000 GE eucalyptus trees from New Zealand has been described as “Irresponsible, Dangerous, and Stupid,” by Jim Hightower, a U.S. national commentator who broadcasts daily radio commentaries carried by more than 150 commercial and public stations, as well as on the web. He was also twice elected Texas Agriculture Commissioner. (1,2,3)
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which initially recommended approval of the large GE tree plantings is currently considering the submissions to the forestry biotech company ArborGen’s application.
“This has happened with practically no media coverage or public participation. It is happening solely because a handful of global speculators hope to profit by making ethanol from cellulose-enhanced eucalyptus – never mind that their self-aggrandizement would put America’s native forests in danger of irreversible contamination by these destructive, invasive Frankentrees,” said Hightower.
“It is a double standard to be exporting very risky products, such as GE eucalyptus trees, most of which are intended to be allowed to flower and set seed. We all know the same trees would be unacceptable planted in New Zealand,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“The double standard is being recognised overseas and further GE exports from New Zealand will continue to erode our clean green 100% Pure NZ brand. Those opposed to the GE trees are the very consumers identified as the best value international market for New Zealand produce over the next two decades. They want wellness, GE free, sustainably produced, animal friendly, and fair traded products.”
Nearly 17,500 public comments, including some from New Zealand, were sent to the USDA opposing its recommendation for approval of ArborGen’s proposal. The USDA received only 39 favourable comments. If allowed, the plantings would take place on 330 acres of land across seven states in the Southern U.S., to supposedly trial future biofuel production. Soil & Health submitted against the USDA recommendation (4).
“The irony is that eucalypts, release soil carbon through their nutrient uptake, losing more carbon from the soil than they take from the atmosphere, and as such negate much of the point of biofuels. Not only will the GE trees be very risky as an invasive fire promoting GE weed, but they will also contribute to the human component of climate change,” said Mr Browning.
The 260,000 GE eucalypts were grown in New Zealand by Horizon 2, which is based in ArborGen’s Australasian headquarters near Te Teko in the Bay of Plenty. Rubicon, effectively old New Zealand company Fletcher Forests, is in turn a third of ArborGen. (7)
“The Rubicon – ArborGen – Horizon 2 GE tree exports lower New Zealand’s reputation by being both carbon depleters and GE.”
The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has also granted Pacificvet Ltd of Christchurch, approval for importing for future exporting, a live GE E. coli vaccine (Poulvac® E. coli) used in the immunisation of poultry against colibacillosis. The vaccine, not permitted for use in New Zealand, is intended to be exported to South Pacific countries which will not be under ERMA controls. (5,6)
Specific consent from the Minister for the Environment is required however, if the export is for the non-contained use of the GE organism (GMO) in the country of import, and it appears import for export consent holder Pacificvet Ltd of Christchurch is now wanting to export the vaccine.
“This is a rather strange situation of New Zealand being the warehouse for GE goods not permitted for use in New Zealand, but for use by some of our less cautious neighbours,” said Mr Browning.
“Like most New Zealanders, Soil & Health is proud that there is no effective release of GE organisms in New Zealand, and to maximize this country’s GE free advantage, wants a ban on the export of GE material.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 free of genetically engineered organisms.

Notes
(1) http://jimhightower.com/node/6900 (Text also below)
(2) Audio, http://jimhightower.com/sites/jimhightower.civicactions.net/files/28_17_rnc.mp3
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hightower
(4) Soil & Health’s previous media release and references further below Jim Hightower text.
(5) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/appfiles/execsumm/pdf/GMC08001-003.pdf
(6) http://www.pacificvet.co.nz/index2.html
(7) Click the links below for photographs of the Horizon 2 facility – ArborGen Australasian Head Office at 1943 SH39 Te Teko Bay of Plenty (07) 3229030 http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=0&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|, http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=1&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|, http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=2&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|, http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=3&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|

(1 Text) The Invasion of Genetically-Engineered Eucalyptus
Jim Hightower jimhightower.com, August 6 2009

Here’s a great idea: Let’s bring into our country a genetically-engineered, non-native tree that is known to be wildly invasive, explosively flammable, and insatiably thirsty for ground water. Then let’s clone thousands of these living firecrackers and plant them in forested regions across seven Southern states, allowing them to grow, flower, produce seeds, and spread into native environments.

Yes, this would be irresponsible, dangerous, and stupid – but apparently “Irresponsible, Dangerous, and Stupid” is the unofficial slogan of the U.S. Department Agriculture. In May, with little consideration of the devastating consequences for our native environment, USDA cavalierly rubberstamped a proposal by a profiteering corporation named ArborGen to do all of the above.

Substantially owned by International Paper, ArborGen shipped tissue from Brazilian eucalyptus trees to its New Zealand laboratories, where it was genetically altered to have more cellulose. New Zealand, however, outlaws plantings of genetically-engineered crops, so ArborGen sought out a more corporate-compliant country: Ours. The engineered eucalyptus was waved right into the good ol’ USA to be cloned, and it’s now awaiting final approval for outdoor release in our land.

This has happened with practically no media coverage or public participation. It is happening solely because a handful of global speculators hope to profit by making ethanol from cellulose-enhanced eucalyptus – never mind that their self-aggrandizement would put America’s native forests in danger of irreversible contamination by these destructive, invasive Frankentrees.

Luckily, several scrappy grassroots groups have mobilized to bring common sense and public pressure to bear on USDA. For updates and action items, visit www.nogetrees.org

Pesticide residues in food shows need for organics

/in , , ,

Pesticide residues in the New Zealand diet are being downplayed by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA), according to two advocacy groups. The comments of the Soil & Health Association of NZ and of Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand (PAN) follow analysis of two food study results released by the NZFSA.
“The method of reporting of pesticide residues detected in the Total Diet Study (TDS) (1) hides the fact that most composite regional food samples contained pesticide residues, with several having significant multiple residues. It is time for food without pesticide residues – this means organics,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Analysis of the Food Residue Surveillance Programme (2) results for celery and spinach, showed 100% of the celery samples, and 75% of the spinach samples contained pesticide residues, with many samples containing multiple residues.”
“The celery and spinach were mostly contaminated with chlorothalinol (Bravo) or dithiocarbomates respectively, and sometimes with both. Other toxic pesticides were also found, this showing the need for to boost organic agriculture.”
“Of the celery samples, one had 6 different pesticide residues, one had 3 and three had 2. Fourteen spinach samples had at least 2 pesticide residues. These chemical cocktails are increasingly being shown to be dangerous.”
“The Total Diet Survey, far from giving our produce a clean bill of health has highlighted two persistent problems” said Dr Meriel Watts of Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand.
“Tucked away at the back of the document are tables showing that almost all products made with grains such as wheat contains residues of the neurotoxic organophosphate insecticide pirimphos-methyl; and the majority of fruit and vegetables contain dithiocarbmate insecticides.”
“Pirimphos-methyl is used to fumigate grain silos, and there is no chance of removing it from the grain. Organic grain is not treated with this chemical”
“The dithiocarbamate insecticides which turned up in 16 out of 26 of the fruit and vegetables tested, is a perennial problem.”
“It has become very clear that New Zealand simply has to stop using these particular pesticides if we are very going to stop the residue problem,” said Dr Watts.
Dithiocarbamate fungicides and chlorothalonil are 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 toxicant, carcinogen, and endocrine disruptors; they also cause sterility and birth defects, also affecting liver, kidney and respiratory and cardiac, systems. Chlorothalonil is carcinogenic, mutagenic and an environmental toxin and it is thought responsible for aggravating the health effects of other pesticides (3).
A study of cancer patients by Massey University’s Centre for Public Health Research (4) found an elevated leukaemia risk among horticulture workers, with risks to market gardeners and nursery growers, especially women, being higher than those to the general public.
In a separate study released by US government health staff in a recent issue of the American Society of Hematology journal, Blood, (5,6) it was found that exposure to certain pesticides, including dieldrin and chlorothalonil (Bravo) increased the risks 5.6 fold and 2.4 fold respectively, of a blood disorder that can lead to multiple myeloma.
“Considering that dieldrin was banned in agriculture in New Zealand in 1968, and from other uses in 1989, the commonly used fungicide Bravo (chlorothalonil) as found in most non-organic celery, may be a significant culprit in New Zealand cancers. Soil & Health urgently wants studies to focus on Bravo,” said Mr Browning.
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020.

————–
Notes:
(1) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2009/2009-08-17-residues-still-low-in-nz-food-study-shows.htm
(2) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/publications/media-releases/2009/2009-06-24-crop-tests-produce-mixed-results.htm
(3) 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=3483984 Lodovici, 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/9020199. These results indicate that the toxicity of low doses of pesticide mixtures present in food might be further reduced by eliminating diphenylamine and chlorothalonil.
(4) http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-us/news/article.cfm?mnarticle=female-farm-workers-at-highest-risk-of-leukaemia-15-06-2009
(5) http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/cgi/content/short/113/25/6386
(6) http://www.checkorphan.org/news/individuals_who_apply_pesticides_are_found_have_double_risk_blood_disorder

Proposed Amendment to the New Zealand Folic Acid Standard

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc remains supportive of the position of the existing Standard to exempt organic bread from mandatory fortification with folic acid.
Soil & Health remains opposed to the mandatory fortification of all bread, but is pleased that the integrity of organics was supported by then Food Safety Minister Annette King, the Commerce Commission and FSANZ. The exemption of organic bread allows a measure of choice for all consumers and generally has the advantage of having higher base levels of natural folate than many other types of bread, due to the ingredients being less processed.
Soil & Health received significant communication of support from members and also several organic bakers to the news of the organic exemption. Soil & Health interprets the current Standard as protecting the integrity of organics, a position it expressed in consultation and submissions to FSANZ and the Food Safety Minister.
Soil & Health agrees with the substance of the New Zealand Commerce Commission (NZCC) and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) findings in relation to consumer expectations of foods labelled ‘organic’ or ‘certified organic’, as expressed in the earlier Issues Paper.
Soil & Health has some degree of concern that foods labelled ‘natural’ were not exempt, however unless those foods are reasonably certain to be pesticide and additive residue free, as expected with organic foods, the ‘natural’ claim may be spurious.
Foods labelled ‘natural’, are without the benefit of standards and certification processes as in the organic sector, however should a food supplier be able to provide evidence of the ‘naturalness’ of its product, for example wild harvested and organic ingredients with no synthetic additives, Soil & Health would expect that it should also be exempt.
Soil & Health supports increased education of the community and in particular women of childbearing age, of the function of folate in NTD prevention, and Soil & Health accepted it has a role with its membership of communicating that function, the dietary sources and options available.
Of the suggested options
* 5.1 Status Quo
* 5.2 Amendment to Commencement date (preferred option)
* 5.3 Revocation of the New Zealand Folic Acid Standard

Soil & Health prefers option 3 (5.3), Revocation of the NZ Folic Acid Standard.
Revocation of the Standard in conjunction with a strong public health educative program that not only targets women of child bearing age, but educates the public in general to the benefits of folate and a healthy full diet.
Noting that there are significant increases in obesity and other symptoms of poor dietary choice, there is an opportunity to address folate intake as part of a more comprehensive nutritional campaign that will have benefits far in excess of the most optimistic outcomes of mass medication, and without the possible risks associated with synthetic folic acid or other mandatory supplements.

Federated Farmers Bees Man Ambushing Beekeepers GE Protection

/in , ,

Federated Farmers GE statements show they are confused about what clean and green means, and appear to be influenced by the vested interests of one of their provincial presidents, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.
Federated Farmers genetic modification (GE), biosecurity, and bees spokesperson John Hartnell has been hard hitting in the media against Northland Councils seeking public feedback to proposals to set policy protecting non GE growers and the community from the costs of GE contamination.
“It would seem that John Hartnell may be overly influenced by New Zealand’s main lobbyist for GE, Dr William Rolleston, a biotechnology entrepreneur and Chair of the Life Science Network, but now also Federated Farmers President of South Canterbury province,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“The position Hartnell is taking, flies in the face of one of his own ventures, that of exporting organic honey. You can’t have organic or GE free honey if GE crops or trees are in the same region, but like a bee that has lost its way, Hartnell seems to be confused about what direction he should be taking.”
“The position that Northland Councils are exploring is actually about ensuring that honey producers, horticulturalists and farmers are not disadvantaged should GE be allowed in the New Zealand environment.”
“However Hartnell who should be looking out for New Zealand beekeepers and biosecurity appears to be trying to ambush protections for New Zealand beekeepers and primary producers, by criticizing the small spending by the Councils on a poll to test community acceptance of their plans,” said Mr Browning.
“When GE pollen was released by Plant & Food Research at its GE Brassica field trial at Lincoln near Hartnell’s home, did he join Soil & Health demanding that MAF-Biosecurity test nearby bee hives or brassica seed for contamination? No!”
“Good biosecurity practice in protecting New Zealand’s clean green brand would be testing for contamination to remove doubt. Federated Farmers biosecurity emphasis needs to be at home as well as at the border.”
“Hartnell’s honey would not be able to be marketed as clean green, 100% Pure New Zealand if GE contamination was found, but he doesn’t want decent protection to be installed for his fellow industry colleagues either. What’s up? Something’s murky in the Feds and it smells like GE.”
“Federated Farmers Dairy vice-chairperson, Willy Leferink chose to mention the benefit of GMO free grass being part of New Zealand’s market advantage recently, and Federated Farmers Grains Council certainly knew their market risks when maize for Japan was contaminated with GM soy, but somethings up. Hartnell’s here and he doesn’t seem to want to risk Northland Councils putting in protections for non-GE producers,” said Mr Browning.
“It is time Federated Farmers joined in the vision of a clean green Aotearoa New Zealand, recognised the economic advantages of the brand, and protected the real interests of its members.”
Current Government legislation does not give full protection to those disadvantaged should GE contamination occur. Although the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification had 49 recommendations as a framework to its outcome of “to proceed with caution”, only 20 recommendations have been fully implemented and significant gaps remain around environmental testing and liability.
The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand have allowed GE field trials all to fail consent conditions, including potentially GE pollination events, without significant penalty.
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that includes a GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand.

Life Sciences Confused About GE Risk

/in , ,

The biotech lobby group, Life Sciences appears confused about the birds and the bees, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

Quoted in today’s Christchurch Press newspaper, Life Sciences chairman William Rolleston had said, “The recent breaches by Plant and Food Research at Lincoln in a GM-brassica trial were not as bad as some might think. You have to ask yourself, `what risk was actually posed by those plants?’”

“However genetically engineered cauliflowers, broccoli and kale, all appear to have flowered at Plant & Food Research’s Lincoln facility last year, and yet no tests have been carried out to check on pollen spread,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Does Life Science’s not understand bees and pollen and fertilisation?”

“MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand have covered their backsides for their poor monitoring of the GE field trial by not testing for GE contamination, and now New Zealand’s biggest GE promoter, Life Sciences, is doubting any risk. The fact that the scientist involved allowed rows of GE cauliflowers to start flowering as early as April 2008, and I discovered a pollinated flowering GE kale in December 2008, suggests high risk and insect pollination.”

In 2006 the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) approved a trial – GMF 06001- to genetically modify four species of Brassica –cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and kale with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticidal genes. Planting commenced in late 2007 ahead of the 2008 High Court hearing of the appeal by GE Free NZ and the organic sector against the approval …

MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand (MAF-BNZ) is required by law to monitor GE field trials approved by ERMA, but failed to stop the Plant & Food GE brassicas from flowering. The scientist’s midyear report stated that broccoli had commenced bolting in January 2008 and were removed ahead of flowering. However her own photographs suggested flowers, and her April 2008 photographs had fully bolted cauliflowers.

Honey and brassica seed from a nearby organic property have been stored for testing and Soil & Health has been in discussions with Plant & Food regarding testing for the GE material used by the Crown Research Institute during the breach.

“Soil & Health intend testing the material because our own government regulators have failed even the most basic consideration of neighbouring farmers and growers,” said Mr Browning.

“Organic certification can be lost through GE contamination and if there is GE contamination in the Lincoln area, the sooner it is cleaned up the better.”

“Brassica’s are some of the most promiscuous plants around, and with little care by regulators ERMA, MAF-Biosecurity, or the experimenter, Plant & Food Research, it appears that the community must step in to test for contamination.”

Rolleston was also quoted, “There had been a lot of talk about “how onerous and unnecessary” regulations around GM research were.”

However Browning says that the breaches prove the need that both strong regulation around controls and monitoring are necessary, including strict liability controls over the experimenters. Consent breaches have occurred at all ERMA approved field trials.

Soil & Health supports strict liability controls to remove all costs of GE contamination from rates and taxpayers.

“With the track record of regulators and experimenters, a ban would be better.”

Soil & Health has a vision of a GE Free and Organic 2020.

Crop and Food confidential Annual Report No 2210, for GMF06001 July 2008http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/no/compliance/2008%20GMF06001%20Annual%20Report.pdf

MAF dodging Plant & Food’s $10million GE liability

/in , ,

The final response of MAF’s biosecurity and enforcement teams following major breaches of consent by Plant & Food Research (P&F) at its GE brassica (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbages etc.) field trial during 2008, is a massive insult to the more than 930 submitters who opposed the field trial, and shows the corruption of government, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning first alerted Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry – Biosecurity New Zealand (MAF-BNZ) last December to his discovery of the breach. Plant & Food Research had left GE brassica plants to flower in the field, something that was not permitted under the field trial’s consent conditions.
Last Monday a MAF Investigator from MAF Infrastructure and Compliance Enforcement notified Mr Browning that MAF had finalised the matter by way of a formal warning to the Plant and Food Research Field Test Manager, the scientist who had resigned her position as approved containment facility operator following publicity of the breach.
“MAF was in a position to send the strongest possible message to the science community for its sloppy approach to GE field trials. Instead it has just passed them the most lenient next-to-nothing approach possible,” said Soil & Health Spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Soil & Health has yet to receive the ‘comprehensive information summary’, the investigation report, completed by the MAF Investigator. There is also further information relating to the decision-making process that resulted in the warning decision.” However, Soil & Health believes that MAF, who have informally suggested that they were unable to penalise Plant and Food, have conveniently failed to interpret the law. Plant and Food could have been fined at least $10 million, and the scientist $500,000 (1).”
“The ‘slap over the wrist with a wet seed packet’ of a formal warning to the GE field trial’s key scientist, dodges the responsibility of her employer, Plant and Food Research, who continues to experiment with many other GE vegetables and flowers indoors and is holding an approval for a substantial and more risky GE allium (onion family) field trial that has not yet been planted. These GE crops will be allowed to go to flower and set seed in the field”
“With significant cost to those that submitted against the GE brassica and onion applications and who were vindicated in their concerns about pollen release when Soil & Health and GE Free NZ exposed the GE breaches, how is it that P& F are not fined substantially as the HSNO Act allows? All those submitters get it right, Soil & Health and GE Free NZ do the work, and Plant & Food gets a business as usual pass.”
“This smacks of collusion from the top down and begs the question of why MAF-BNZ is the agency responsible for monitoring GE experiments in New Zealand. When they fail that role along with the scientists involved, they are the sole agency responsible for checking the degree of GE contamination resulting from the breach. Deciding the penalty for this breach is also their task and they failed that. Another MAF division is the judge and jury deciding the legal penalty for those responsible and yet did not penalise P&F at all”
“ Who is responsible? The Minister? The CEO? Someone has allowed the three separate arms of MAF to blend a pro-GE business as usual solution, to a blatant example of why New Zealand science should not be proceeding down the GE path.”
“Is it because P&F is a Crown Research Institute (CRI)? Is it because sneaky behind the scenes GE exports from our science institutions are benefiting New Zealand big business in its environmentally unsustainable and blinkered approach to business? Fletcher Challenge’s manifestation Rubicon’s attempt to grow 260,000 GE eucalypt trees, exported after developmental assistance by the laboratories of Arborgen and CRI Scion in New Zealand, through to flowering and seeding in several US states and Brazil, is one of the more reckless examples of GE development yet,” said Mr Browning.
Just a few days ago Prime Minister Key gave $1million dollars to the Queenstown tourisms 100% Pure branded winter festival.
“How about Plant & Food’s $10 million penalty going to clean green 100% Pure organic research and development?”
“Risky and sloppy GE science does not fit with tourism’s 100% Pure brand or the Clean Green brand that sells so much of our primary production and worse still, it lacks a conscience about long term environmental and health effects.”
Every GE field trial approved by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has been in breach of its consent conditions, with two closed down since Soil & Health and GE Free NZ have disclosed serious non-compliances at them. Both Scion and Plant and Food risked pollen release.
MAF-BNZ also failed to monitor the Scion GE pine tree field trial correctly, and then joined with ERMA and Scion into damage control, ignoring evidence supplied by Soil & Health, back dating illegal consent changes, misleading the public about the breaches, with the Minister of the day also joining in.
Photographs and the scientist’s own log have shown how the GE brassica field trial was breaching its ERMA consent conditions with flowering plants, even as GE Free NZ and the organic sector were in the High Court appealing ERMA’s decision allowing the trial. If the decision was made under the RMA, the scientist would not have dared plant until the appeal decision was final.
“Plant and Food not only planted but breached its consent conditions ahead of a final decision.”
“Such gross negligence and arrogance gets the wet seed packet approach and business as usual by MAF. What is ERMA’s report, due out shortly, going to say about the many consents given to P&F? Probably not a lot, when two of ERMA’s own team granted the decision to Crop & Food (now P&F ).”
P&F was formed during the time of the GE brassica field trial by a merger of Crop & Food Research (C&F) and HortResearch, who employed two scientists involved in the ERMA decision to allow the GE brassica field trial. The C&F GE brassica applicants and some decision makers were based at the Lincoln CRI research centre. At the time HortResearch employed some ERMA decision makers and assured the many submitters and public that GE pollen release would not be a problem, because of “the controls that have been designed to ensure that GM brassicas do not produce open flowers in the field test site.”
“Blind faith in the colleagues next door or just fobbing the public off?”
“Science funders need to look at their priorities as well, and Foundation of Research Science and Technology (FORST) should be focused on genuine sustainability as their funding target, but with GE contamination well through that organisation, and now also including then acting Crop & Food CEO at the time of the GE brassica breach, it will be a difficult challenge for funding to focus on genuine sustainability and organic research, unless government shows direction.”
“With such incestuous connection between the regulatory and science fraternities, no wonder the community loses faith. The community may have to look beyond the regulations if they are not seen to genuinely work, or GE pollen can be expected as a routine contamination. Science regulation in New Zealand means little this week.” said Mr Browning.
Currently there are no GE field trials in operation in New Zealand, with Plant and Food being coy about their intentions with the GE onion family field trial approval they hold, and AgResearch’s wide ranging GE animal applications have been stopped following GE Free NZ’s successful appeal to the High Court against ERMA. AgResearch GE experimental cattle are grazing at Ruakura, but are not allowed to be experimented with, due to their relevant consents having expired. Technically with the High Court decision they should now be euthanased within a year (2). However, AgResearch intends reapplying, despite the significant animal welfare concerns by the public and admissions of “a less than 9 percent live birth rate, aborted deformed foetuses, deformed calves, gangrenous udders and ‘animals suffering from respiratory conditions’”.
“There is a very good opportunity for government to say NO TO GE FIELD TRIALS. All have failed in some respects, all are contrary to 100% Pure, Clean Green brand NZ, there ***is none in operation and the public are mostly opposed to them.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 with a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and is active in seeking genuinely sustainable solutions for New Zealand production and environment. Plant and Food’s $10 million plus penalty could be a good investment for sustainable value added organic production.

——
NOTES:
(1) Who will carry out enforcement for new organisms?
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) is the primary agency undertaking new organism enforcement activities.

What do enforcement officers do?

Enforcement officers will visit premises from time to time to check that controls on new organisms are being complied with. The frequency of inspections should reflect the risks involved. High risk situations should be checked often, while low risk situations may be visited on a less frequent basis. The Act gives enforcement officers the power to enter premises to collect information and evidence. An enforcement officer can also issue a compliance order requiring a person:
* to cease doing anything that contravenes the Act or is significantly dangerous; or
* to do something to ensure compliance, or to remedy the effects of a breach.

(2) What are the penalties for serious offences (non-compliance) under the HSNO Act?
The penalties for breaching the HSNO Act are fines of up to $500,000 in the case of an individual; and, in the case of a body corporate, the greater of $10 million, or three times the value of any commercial gain from the contravention, or 10 per cent of the turnover of the body corporate and all its interconnected bodies corporate, if the commercial gain cannot be ascertained. In addition, a person could be found to have civil liability for acts or omissions in breach of the Act.
(3) 45A Controls required for certain developments and for all field tests
· (1) This section applies to an approval under section 45—

o (a) to develop a new organism in containment that is a genetically modified organism, to the extent that the development does not take place in a containment structure; or
o (b) to field test a new organism in containment if the new organism is a genetically modified organism.
(2) An approval—
o (a) must include controls to ensure that, after the end of the development or field test, the organism and any heritable material from the organism is removed or destroyed; and
o (b) may include controls to ensure that, after the end of the development or field test and after heritable material is removed or destroyed, some or all of the genetic elements remaining from the organism are removed or destroyed.

A Quarter Million NZ Raised GE Eucalyptus Trees Intended for Planting in US

/in , ,

More than a quarter of a million genetically engineered (GE) eucalyptus trees exported from New Zealand stand to shred New Zealand’s clean, green brand and risk large-scale health and environmental damage, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.
ArborGen, the (GE) tree research and development giant, which is one third owned by New Zealand company Rubicon (formerly Fletcher Challenge Forestry), is trying to plant 260,000 GE cold tolerant eucalyptus trees in 29 so called “field trials” in 7 different US states. These trees will be able to flower and set seed, and while not permitted to be field trialled in New Zealand have been developed in and exported from New Zealand. They are derived from the hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis X Eucalyptus urophylla (1).
Submissions to the United States Department of Agriculture’s regulatory authority Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) close July 6. (2)
ArborGen and Rubicon have a collaborative GE tree development contract with Crown Research Institute Scion, formerly known as Forest Research Institute. Rubicon has stated that it wants commercialisation of GE forests in New Zealand to have less regulatory impediments.
The development is part of a drive to commercialise a new source of hardwood trees for the US South pulp and paper industry, and the cold-tolerant variety also as a raw material for second-generation wood derived biofuels. Arborgen currently has US government funding for research and development of biofuels. However there is international concern with the use of wood for bio-fuel because of the destructive impacts on biodiversity and on rural and indigenous communities worldwide. GE eucalypts from New Zealand have also been exported to Brazil.
“Such plantings would not be accepted by New Zealanders, but big New Zealand business combined with proven sloppy Scion scientists are prepared to take big risks globally,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Scion and Rubicon’s involvement with large-scale GE brings shame to New Zealand’s clean, green GE-free reputation.”
“The government must stop the export of genetically engineered plants, animals and products from New Zealand. A clean, green brand does not include products of genetic engineering or participation in planting of new global weeds.”
US environmentalists are also expressing serious concerns, as one parent line of the GE eucalypt hybrid being trialed is a known host for a fatal fungal pathogen Crytococcus gattii. This pathogen has been found in the US and can cause fatal fungal meningitis in people and animals that inhale its spores. It is believed that creating extensive habitats for the fungal pathogen is dangerous and foolhardy.
In California, eucalypts often out-compete native plant species and are now widespread throughout the coastal and southern parts of the state. Authorities spend millions annually to eradicate these invasive trees.
New Zealand’s Rubicon is keen for ArborGen’s GE cold tolerant eucalypts to be commercialised in a wide range of new regions, allowing them to flower and set seeds. The cold-tolerance is bred in to the GE eucalypts to allow greater geographic spread (3) where they can outperform other species native to those regions.”
“The wilding pine scenario in New Zealand should alert anyone with concerns for biodiversity about the risks of Rubicon and ArborGen’s current US application,” said Mr Browning.
At last year’s UN Convention on Biological Diversity the New Zealand government voted against suspending GE tree plantings while more conclusive proof of environmental safety occurred.
“Scion has already shown serious negligence with its own GE pine field trial last year and then made misleading claims about the trial’s environmental outcomes. Those in charge of the GE pine tree field trial at Rotorua were continuously in breach of consent conditions and international obligations, for the trial’s duration.”
Research conducted by Columbia University (4) has found eucalyptus to be a great threat to ecosystems. The US Forest Service has also reported on the ability of eucalypts to suppress the growth of other plants and their increased fire risk. (5) Duke University scientists have created pollen models that show tree pollen travelling for over 1,000 kilometres from a forest in North Carolina northward into eastern Canada. (6)
“With the serious risks of genetic engineering, Rubicon, Scion and Arborgen are being reckless and damaging to New Zealand primary production, tourism and manufacturing’s best value trading brands – clean and green and 100% Pure. Just as Nuclear Free has resonance with New Zealanders and our international customers alike, so does GE Free, with New Zealand polls consistently showing almost 70% opposed to GE,” said Mr Browning.
“New Zealand Corporates and Crown Research Institutes need to be more responsible and share the clean green vision.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 with a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and is active in seeking genuinely sustainable solutions for New Zealand production and environment.
——-
NOTES:
(1) http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0059
ArborGen LLC wishes to field test genetically engineered (transgenic) Eucalyptus trees during which time the trees may flower. These plants are a clone coded EH1 derived from a hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis X Eucalyptus urophylla. These have been genetically engineered with different constructs. The purpose of the field trials is to test the effectiveness of the CBF gene which is intended to confer cold tolerance and to test the efficacy of the Barnase gene designed to alter fertility. In a small set of experiments the CBF and Barnase genes are also being tested in combination with genes introduced to alter lignin biosynthesis (claimed as CBI). In addition the trees have been engineered with a common selectable marker gene (nptII) which confers resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin.
(2) Submissions to the United States Department of Agriculture’s regulatory authority Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), can be made through its official web site http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=09000064809c344a
or more easily at http://www.globaljusticeecology.org/petition.php
(3) Luke Moriarty, “Rubicon Interim Report”, Rubicon. 02/28/07
“The excellent results of the best performers in the field trials would suggest that the level of cold tolerance can be extended even further, thus offering a broader geographic market for this new hardwood product than originally anticipated.”
(4) Introduced Species Summary Project, Tasmanian Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulusLabill.)
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff-burg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/Eucalyptus_globulus.html
(5) Lora L. Esser 1993. Eucalyptus globulus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer).
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [2007, November 5].
(6) Predicting gene flow from pines
http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/208843.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v422k3131t176470/
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1402.cfm
An interesting overview of GE Trees can be found at http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/GE-Trees/GE-Trees-Cellulosic-Biofuels-Destruction-of-Forest-Biological-Diversity

NZ Pesticide Use / Cancer Link Shows Need For Support

/in , , ,

Two recent studies linking agricultural chemical use to increased bone marrow malignancies show the need for greater government investment into organic agriculture according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
Both studies released this month implicate pesticides used in New Zealand, and Soil & Health urgently wants further studies to focus on the commonly used fungicide Bravo (chlorothalonil). It is thought that Chlorothalonil is responsible for aggravating the health effects of other pesticides.
“Simultaneously as these studies are released, government funding for the successful Organic Advisory Program is coming to an end. A solution to worker and community exposure to cancer-causing pesticides is being allowed to ebb away just when New Zealand needs the added value of organics to enhance and protect community health and our clean green brand,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“A government target for increased organic production can reduce the incidence of cancers in New Zealand, yet funding is consistently being withdrawn from the best example of healthy, sustainable agriculture, with the expectation that the pioneers of organics in New Zealand should fund future growth. Those pioneers have more than contributed already in an uneven playing field, while pesticide-happy producers have externalised their costs onto the health of their workers, families, community and the public health system. Enoughs enough. It is time for an organic vision from government.”
Massey University’s Centre for Public Health Research has just released an analysis of a study (1) of cancer patients that found an elevated leukaemia risk among horticulture workers, with risk to market gardeners and nursery growers, especially women, particularly elevated compared to the general public.
In a separate study released by US government health staff in the June 18 issue of the American Society of Hematology journal, Blood, (2,3) it was found that exposure to certain pesticides, including dieldrin and chlorothalonil (Bravo) increased the risks 5.6 fold and 2.4 fold respectively, of a blood disorder that can lead to multiple myeloma.
“Considering that dieldrin was banned in agriculture in New Zealand in 1968 and from other uses in 1989, Bravo may be a significant culprit in New Zealand cancers,” said Mr Browning.
Soil & Health has repeatedly brought attention to the risks of Bravo fungicide in New Zealand food production.
A 2004 statement said, “All recent samples of conventional celery tested by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and Soil and Health separately, contained the environmental toxin and probable carcinogen, chlorothalonil, the active ingredient in Bravo fungicide.”
“Syngenta, the manufacturer of Bravo is now advertising to growers, New Bravo WeatherStik and in their own words, “Uncommonly persistent. Sticks and stays between sprays like no other”, with 64% chlorothalonil remaining after a 40mm 2 hour simulated rainfall.”
In 2007, ““New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) also fails consumers with its food testing by using the spurious Maximum Residue Limit as a safety guide and takes no account of the cocktail effect of consuming multiple agrichemical residues (4).”
“Chlorothalonil the active ingredient in Bravo fungicide, is noted and down played in the NZFSA celery and spinach residue results. 16 and 13 results above the MRL respectively for 48 tests each, but the real fact is that celery only had 6 out of 48 tests chlorothalonil negative and 5 of those had other residues. The only one residue free celery sample of 48, would most likely be organic but was not differentiated.”
“Organic celery of course has no such pesticide residues.”
“Cancer statistics need to be evaluated in the high horticultural spray regions of New Zealand, such as Marlborough and Hawkes Bay, as anecdotal evidence suggests a higher than average incidence of cancers there.”
A fresh approach to food is needed in New Zealand and with a massive growth in organics internationally, it is time that targets for organic production (which is free of synthetic pesticides) such as in Soil & Health’s Organic 2020 vision, were taken on for New Zealand’s environmental, economic and human health.
Healthy Soil, Healthy Plants, Healthy People.
———
Notes:
(1) Below or http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-us/news/article.cfm?mnarticle=female-farm-workers-at-highest-risk-of-leukaemia-15-06-2009
(2) http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/current.dtl#INSIDE_BLOOD look at Lymphoid Neoplasia: Pesticide exposure and risk of monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in the Agricultural Health Study
(3) Below orhttp://www.checkorphan.org/news/individuals_who_apply_pesticides_are_found_have_double_risk_blood_disorder
(4) Lodovici, M. et al 1994,1997 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCN-3RH123D-6&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=935242972&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c8e96fd36709a6617d101f34322937c4 These results indicate that the toxicity of low doses of pesticide mixtures present in food might be further reduced by eliminating diphenylamine and chlorothalonil.
Funding for the Green Party initiated Organic Advisory Program finishes this month although a significant growth in area farmed organically occurred during the initiative. Separate government funding for the organic sector lead agency Organics Aotearoa New Zealand is being wound down with the intention that the sector finds its own funding, although huge government money is still being spent on risky and failed science such as genetic engineering and for pesticide clean ups.
(1) Female farm workers at highest risk of leukaemia
Agricultural workers have the highest incidence of leukaemia of all New Zealand occupation groups, probably because of their exposure to chemicals, the University’s public health specialists have found.
And women agriculture workers are even more at risk than men, according to the Centre for Public Health Research.
The centre has just released analysis of a study started in 2003-04, when researchers interviewed 225 cancer patients aged 25-75 and 471 randomly selected participants from the general population.
They found elevated leukaemia risk four or five times greater among market gardeners and nursery growers compared to the general population. Market farmers and crop growers, and field crop and vegetable growers, also all experienced varying degrees of elevated risk.
The study builds on research published by the centre last year, which showed those working in plant nurseries were four times more likely to develop non-hodgkin’s lymphoma, while vegetable growers and those in general horticulture production have a two-fold risk of developing that disease.
Lead researcher for the latest study Dr Dave McLean says that market farmers and growers face a risk 1.8 times greater than the average population, probably due to exposure to pesticides. The overall risk appeared to be up to 3.4 times greater in women than men.
“It is not clear why this gender difference exists, but it has been hypothesised that it may be due either to the different tasks (and therefore potential for exposure) traditionally performed by men and women in horticultural occupations, or to the fact that some of the chemicals are endocrine disruptors that affect women in a different way than they do men.”
Such trends had also been detected in previous studies of workers in horticultural occupations in Italy, and in workers with occupational exposure to agricultural chemicals, such as fungicides and insecticides, in the United States and Italy.
Elevated risk was also found to be associated with having worked as a rubber and plastics products machine operator and also in the plastic product manufacturing industry, with the chemical 1.3 butadiene, which is used in their manufacture, a likely suspect.
An increased risk of contracting leukaemia was also suggested for other occupations including electricians, blacksmiths, toolmakers and slaughterers, along with those working in textile bleaching and dyeing.
Occupational cancers account for more than 300 deaths in New Zealand each year, with the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee estimating that 30 deaths annually from leukaemia are attributable to occupational exposures.
Oxford University Press, on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association, has published the Centre’s findings.
(3 ) Individuals who apply pesticides are found to have double the risk of blood disorder
Monday, June 15, 2009
WASHINGTON – A study involving 678 individuals who apply pesticides, culled from a U.S. Agricultural Health Study of over 50,000 farmers, recently found that exposure to certain pesticides doubles one’s risk of developing an abnormal blood condition called MGUS (monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance) compared with individuals in the general population.
The disorder, characterized by an abnormal level of a plasma protein, requires lifelong monitoring as it is a pre-cancerous condition that can lead to multiple myeloma, a painful cancer of the plasma cells in the bone marrow. The study will appear in the June 18 issue of Blood, the official journal of the American Society of Hematology.
“Previously, inconclusive evidence has linked agricultural work to an increased multiple myeloma risk. Our study is the first to show an association between pesticide exposure and an excess prevalence of MGUS,” said lead author Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “This finding is particularly important given that we recently found in a large prospective cancer screening study that virtually all multiple myeloma patients experienced a MGUS state prior to developing myeloma.”
“As several million Americans use pesticides, it’s important that the risks of developing MGUS from the use of pesticides is known,” added senior study author and NCI investigator Michael Alavanja, DrPH.
The blood of study participants, who were individuals licensed to apply restricted-use pesticides, was assessed for MGUS prevalence. The median age of participants was 60 years (range 30-94 years), and all lived in either Iowa or North Carolina. Participants also completed questionnaires providing comprehensive occupational exposure information for a wide range of pesticides, including information such as the average number of days of pesticide use per year, years of use, use of protective gear while applying pesticides, and pesticide application methods. Information on smoking and alcohol use, cancer histories of the participants’ first-degree relatives, and other basic demographic and health data were also obtained. Individuals with prior histories of lymphoproliferative malignancies (such as multiple myeloma or lymphoma) were excluded. Cancer incidence and mortality were monitored annually, and, after five years, follow-up interviews were conducted to update the information about participants’ occupational exposures, medical histories, and lifestyle factors.
For comparison, data were obtained from a large MGUS-screening study conducted by the Mayo Clinic, and the results from the pesticide-exposed group were compared with the assessments of 9,469 men from the general population of Olmsted County, Minnesota. The two groups were similar in terms of age, race, and educational attainment. Because of the low prevalence of women among workers who apply pesticides, women were excluded from the study.
In the pesticide-exposed group, no MGUS cases were observed among those who were less than 50 years of age, but the prevalence of MGUS in those older than 50 was 6.8 percent, which is 1.9 times higher than the general population study group of men in Minnesota.
The researchers also evaluated the potential association between MGUS prevalence and 50 specific pesticides for which usage data were known. Of the chemicals studied, a significantly increased risk of MGUS was observed among users of dieldrin (an insecticide), carbon-tetrachloride/carbon disulfide (a fumigant mixture), and chlorothalonil (a fungicide). The MGUS risk for these agents increased 5.6-fold, 3.9-fold, and 2.4-fold, respectively. Several other insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides were associated with MGUS, but not significantly.
“There is great concern regarding the increase in frequency in mature B-cell malignancies in the Western world and what may be the cause of this. A number of reports in the past have linked exposure to pesticides with increased risk of these types of cancers, but the present study is the first to link agricultural work to a pre-malignant condition,” said John G. Gribben, MD, DSc, Professor of Experimental Cancer Medicine at Barts and the London School of Medicine, who is not affiliated with the study. “It is vital to assess the risk of workplace exposure and disease, and the results lend further support to providing safe workplace practices to limit exposure to potential carcinogens.”
“Our findings are intriguing,” stated Dr. Landgren. If replicated in a larger sample from our study and other large studies, further work should focus on gaining a better understanding of the molecular basis of MGUS and multiple myeloma. Ultimately, this will result in the identification of novel molecular targets involved in the progression from MGUS to multiple myeloma and in the development of targeted therapies.”
Reporters who wish to receive a copy of the study or arrange an interview with lead author Dr. Landgren may contact Patrick Irelan at 202-776-0544 or pirelan@hematology.org.
The American Society of Hematology (www.hematology.org) is the world’s largest professional society concerned with the causes and treatment of blood disorders. Its mission is to further the understanding, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disorders affecting blood, bone marrow, and the immunologic, hemostatic, and vascular systems, by promoting research, clinical care, education, training, and advocacy in hematology. In September, ASH launched Blood: The Vital Connection (www.bloodthevitalconnection.org), a credible online resource addressing bleeding and clotting disorders, anemia, and cancer. It provides hematologist-approved information about these common blood conditions including risk factors, preventive measures, and treatment options.
Blood, the official journal of ASH, is the most cited peer-reviewed publication in the field. Blood is issued to Society members and other subscribers weekly and is available in print and online at www.bloodjournal.org.
Source: American Society of Hematology

NZ Should Note Tasmanias Clean Green GE Free Approach

/in , ,

New Zealand should follow Tasmania’s acknowledgement of the advantages of its clean green image on Wednesday when it extended its ban on the release of genetically engineered organisms to the environment for another five years, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“Supported by our Parliament, New Zealand’s primary industries need to take on the vision of sustainability and a genuine brand of clean and green to take on the opportunities as identified by the Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Tasmania’s GMO-free status is a vital factor for our primary producers, helping them realise their full potential in international and interstate markets,” said Mr David Llewellyn, Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industries and Water, later adding, “The prime markets are demanding, and are prepared to pay for, food that is clean, green and safe.”(1)
“ Here in New Zealand, Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) are pushing a future with genetic engineering while also being the best examples of bad practice, such as Plant & Food Research’s recent GE Brassica field trial disaster and Scion’s aborted GE pine tree field trial last year,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Mr Browning.
“AgResearch with its applications for an infinite range of GE animal experiments throughout New Zealand is another example of poor understanding and care for New Zealand’s real market advantages, clean green and GE free, as identified by our similarly advantaged neighbour Tasmania.”
“Genetic engineering does not fit with brand New Zealand or the New Zealand community any more than intensively battery farmed pigs and chickens, or dirty dairying streams. We are cleaning up our animal welfare and there is a lot of focus on cleaning up our streams. Genetic engineering must follow and our science industry must stop its fascination with genetic engineering field trials and focus on our market strengths and image.”
Most New Zealanders are strongly opposed to the genetic engineering of animals in New Zealand, with farmers as ardently opposed as the rest of the community. (2)
A Colmar Brunton Omnijet survey of over 1000 people last year, commissioned by the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand and the national animal advocacy organisation SAFE, found that only 27 per cent of New Zealanders, and just 28 per cent of farmers, support genetic engineering (GE) of animals. However six out of ten farmers (61%) who stated an opinion in the survey said they do not support GE of animals, and almost a third of all farmers surveyed (28%) stated they ‘don’t know.’
“At a time of economic uncertainty, the use of a diminishing science budget on developing risky and unwanted genetically engineered plants, animals and products is all the worse,” said Mr Browning.
“There is a clear political and economic advantage for New Zealand’s leaders to take an enlightened approach and bring New Zealanders along to further develop the clean and green, 100% Pure brand.”
“Communities such as those in the North that are considering genetic engineering free zones need constructive political and legislative support to help maintain their current GE free environmental and market advantage.”
“Twice as many New Zealanders oppose GE than support it.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020, which is GE free, and has high standards of animal welfare and environmental sustainability, and which fits perfectly with the markets identified as the best value for New Zealand’s primary producers.
“Tasmania has identified a similar advantage. Will New Zealand spot the clue?” asks Mr Browning.
(1) David Llewellyn, MP, Minister for Primary Industries and Water, GMO Ban Bill Passed
(2) KIWI POLL REJECTS GE ANIMALS
Both references in full further below.
(1)
David Llewellyn, MP, Minister for Primary Industries and Water
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
GMO Ban Bill Passed
Tasmania’s ban on the release of genetically modified organisms to the environment will continue for at least another five years under a Bill passed by Parliament today.
The Minister for Primary Industries and Water, David Llewellyn, said today that the State’s GMO-free status is a key factor in the Tasmanian Brand.
“Tasmania’s GMO-free status is a vital factor for our primary producers, helping them realise their full potential in international and interstate markets,” Mr Llewellyn said.
“The decision by some other Australian states to relax their GM bans has actually increased the value of Tasmania’s GMO-free status.
“It provides us with opportunities for even better Tasmanian access to prime markets.
“The hard work done over recent years has ensured that Tasmania is well placed to take full advantage of its reputation as a reliable supplier of the best and safest food.”
The commercial release of genetically modified food crops is now banned until November 2014. The ban prohibits the unauthorised importation of genetically modified organisms, but does not apply to the importation of non-viable materials, such as processed animal feeds and food.
Mr Llewellyn said that the opportunities for Tasmania’s primary industries, operating under the Tasmanian Brand, are exciting.
“The prime markets are demanding, and are prepared to pay for, food that is clean, green and safe.
“Tasmania is already well-positioned to meet that demand, and our decision to extend the GMO ban makes the Tasmanian Brand even stronger.”
Further information: Tasmanian Government Communications Unit Phone: (03) 6233 6573
(2)
12 October 2008
KIWI POLL REJECTS GE ANIMALS
Most New Zealanders are strongly opposed to the genetic engineering of animals in New Zealand, with farmers as ardently opposed as the rest of the community, a new survey shows.
A Colmar Brunton Omnijet survey of over 1000 people, commissioned by the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand and the national animal advocacy organisation SAFE, found that only 27 per cent of New Zealanders, and just 28 per cent of farmers, support genetic engineering (GE) of animals. However six out of ten farmers (61%) who stated an opinion in the survey said they do not support GE of animals, and almost a third of all farmers surveyed (28%) stated they ‘don’t know.’
The two organisations that commissioned the poll, along with GE Free NZ and the Green Party, mounted nationwide campaigns last month to vehemently oppose four applications submitted by AgResearch to conduct broad-ranging genetic research and the commercialisation of GE animals. The groups warn the applications threaten New Zealand’s clean green image and could result in potentially catastrophic environmental disasters in addition to animal suffering.
“Twice as many New Zealanders oppose GE than support it,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “These AgResearch applications effectively threaten our entire nation by proposing commercial production, and go much further than just small-scale, contained research.”
SAFE campaign director Hans Kriek said today: “The majority of New Zealanders are opposed to GE animals (55%) and almost one in five (18%) want more information about what is being planned, the risks involved, the effect on the animals and who will really benefit. New Zealanders have an inherent distain for the genetic engineering of animals. When you consider the foetal abnormalities, deformities and congenital health defects of cloned GE animals, kiwis have very valid reasons to oppose GE.”
The survey shows two thirds (67%) of people who expressed an opinion are opposed. Opposition is equally strong across different ethnicities: among those with Maori descent who expressed an opinion nine out of ten (86%) are opposed.
For further details of the survey or for more information please contact: Steffan Browning, Soil & Health Association of NZ spokesperson: 021 725 655 Hans Kriek, SAFE Campaign Director: 027 446 2711
http://safe.org.nz/Campaigns/Genetic-engineering-of-animals/ OR http://www.gefree.org.nz/geanimals.htm ORhttp://www.organicnz.org