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

Picton Fumigators Will Fail Safety & Indian Requirements

/in , ,

The log ship Pos Brave currently being loaded at Port Marlborough’s Shakespeare Bay is intended to be fumigated along with log stacks under tarpaulins, using several tonnes of toxic ozone depleting methyl bromide gas, although a Department of Labour inquiry into how a tarpaulin came loose during the last fumigation is unfinished, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
Soil & Health also points out that the phyto-sanitary requirements for methyl bromide fumigation for export logs to India will not be able to be met during the intended fumigation period over the next few days, as average temperatures will be well under the minimum 10-11 °C required to satisfy India’s biosecurity needs.
“Fumigator Genera with its litany of leaks needs to be stopped in its tracks from further risky fumigations near Picton. Genera has also had fumigation covers blown off and then shredded at other ports (1), allowing hundreds of kilograms of the highly toxic methyl bromide gas to be released at a time without warning,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Genera has been reckless concerning its safety standards in several instances that I have been aware of, including at the Ports of Nelson, Picton, Wellington and Tauranga, and communities deserve better. Soil & Health has photographic and video evidence for both Picton and Wellington which it will present to the Environmental Risk Management Authority.”
“By giving fumigator Genera and log exporter Zindia yet another chance as they combine logs from outside Marlborough into the fumigation parcels at Picton, Port Marlborough’s profit focused directors along with Port Marlborough owner the Marlborough District Council, show that commercial imperatives come before the health and safety of workers, ferry passengers and staff, and the residents of Shakespeare Bay and the Picton area.”
“Marlborough District Council’s assurances that a meeting of its Environment Policy Committee, sometime after the looming fumigation, will allow Soil & Health and industry to present their views ahead of a drawn out RMA air plan change, does nothing except fudge the issue and prolongs fumigation at Picton,” said Mr Browning.
“The Council and Port Marlborough are showing no real resolve to stop this archaic practice. Although the Marlborough District Council’s rules are particularly weak around gas discharge in the port area, they still preclude release of toxic fumigant gases, as they are offensive beyond the Port boundary. The Port can stop the fumigation at will. No enforcement of the discharge rule makes the Council immediately complicit.”
“Picton is clearly the scapegoat for a frustrated forestry industry and opportunistic port company, as similar fumigations cannot proceed in neighbouring Nelson (2) due to the human health and safety and the ozone depleting risks of large scale methyl bromide fumigations have been carefully considered by the Environment Court there, and found to be unacceptable.”
The complex Sounds valley system of land and sea make assumptions on released fumigant gas direction difficult, and as done in Port Nelson, air modelling must be undertaken ahead of new Marlborough District Council rules around fumigation. In the meanwhile all fumigation at Port Shakespeare must stop.
“Soil & Health has campaigned against methyl bromide fumigation for many years and now vindicated by the decisions of both the European Parliament and of the Environment Court in Nelson, will continue to campaign for a clean green Aotearoa New Zealand and against methyl bromide use. Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020.”
(1) Please click the links below for photographs of Genera’s remnant fumigation covers at Wellington’s Centre Port following high winds March 2008: wellington logs air 110 308 035; /att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=1&messageId=689b4388-d3a3-4059-ba5d-782ebf08897c&Aux=4|0|8CBFA41FC8B6A20|
(2) Clippings from Port Nelson’s 2008 Annual Report below.
———–
NOTES
Clippings from Port Nelson’s 2008 Annual Report.
The Environment Court hearing into fumigation activities at Port Nelson saw a move towards the use of recapture technology, which will be a first for New Zealand ports. We strongly support progress on this issue and also look forward to the relevant authorities making such technology mandatory around the country in the future, rather than purely in isolated cases such as ours.
The Environmental Committee has continued to meet and we again thank those committee members for their efforts and enthusiasm.
Fumigation
Some progress was made this year towards peace of mind for port workers and protection of the ozone layer from discharges of the toxic, ozone-depleting gas methyl bromide. In June 2008 the final ruling of the Environment Court hearing into regulation of fumigant use by the Nelson City Council Air Plan was received.
The court imposed a new chronic limit to be included in the Nelson City Council’s air quality plan, restricting annual average concentrations of methyl bromide to 0.0025 mg/m3 or less at the port boundary.
Permitted rules came into effect immediately to allow a limited number of container fumigations without recapture at specified distances from port boundary. A maximum of 3kgs of fumigant may be used, staggered venting protocols must be followed and better information is to be supplied to the Port Gatehouse to allow the activity to be monitored.
All other fumigations are controlled activities and require recapture technology, with a longer lead-in time for this part of the ruling. A resource consent showing how compliance will be achieved must be lodged by December 2008.

NZ Free Range Pigs Farmers Deserve CoOL Support

/in , , ,

New Zealand pig farmers that are practising humane free-range animal management practices deserve the benefit of Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling (McoOL), and inhumane farmers need further ‘outing’ following SAFE’s expose of intensive pig farming, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“Good clear labelling on animal products including pork that shows the country of origin and farming style, should be available to New Zealand consumers who wish to choose their food ethically,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“The New Zealand pork industry which has been very disadvantaged by the lack of Country of Origin Labelling, with up to one million kg of pork imported weekly, must not let that disadvantage be used as an excuse for cruel farming practices here, but implement a labelling code of practice that supports its free-range farmers.”
SAFE’s (Save Animals from Exploitation) excellent work again exposed the cruelty of battery type pig farming this week along with comedian Mike King who had previously promoted NZ Pork in advertising.
“SAFE has shown up farming practices that are often hidden by poor retail labelling that disadvantages the farmers that show responsibility with animal welfare,” said Mr Browning.
“Ambiguous and misleading labelling that hides the Country of Origin of often cruelly raised imported pork combined with little effort by retailers to source humanely raised pork has encouraged cheap and cruel farming methods.”
“Clear labelling will support consumer choice of sustainable and ethically produced foods and encourage demand for products from the better farmers. Why should those that produce with humanity and environmental care be disadvantaged by poor labelling regulations.”
Soil & Health wants to see urgent implementation of Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling in New Zealand, as has happened just 2 months ago in the United States, along with a pork industry labelling code of practice that differentiates between free range and battery intensive raised pork.
Soil & Health is opposed to inhumane farming practices and has a vision of an Organic 2020. Organic farming standards do not allow the farming practices as SAFE has exposed.

GE Ingredients In Inghams Chicken Feed

/in , , ,

Inghams advertisements are misleading the public by claiming that their chicken products have no genetically modified ingredients, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“Inghams are taking huge advantage of consumer resistance to GE foods by making GM free claims in television and print advertising, yet hidden well away on their website in their GM Policy(1), they argue for their use of GE soy in chicken feed,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Soil & Health and Inghams both know that surveys show most consumers remain opposed to genetic engineering, whether in plants, animals, food or the environment. Consumers also prefer 100% New Zealand produced food with no added hormones or artificial colours, flavours or preservatives.”
“Chickens fed on genetically engineered soy or maize do not meet those consumers expectations and the Commerce Commission needs to act quickly against Inghams. Inghams chickens are fed with GE soy at least, and Ingham’s marketing varies from directly false to blatantly misleading.”
“Ingham’s bagged chicken advertisements strongly emphasise 100% New Zealand chicken and no GM ingredients, added hormones, artificial colours, flavours or preservatives. The advertisements for Ingham’s processed products such as Kiev, Kebabs, Fillets Nuggets, Chipees, and Burger Patties also proudly proclaim 100% New Zealand chicken, free of GM and various additives. However, Ingham’s are again mischievously misleading, with each product still containing some other artificial additive.”
“Ingham’s are also allowing Greenpeace supporters to be misled as the Greenpeace GE Free Food Guide, with its traffic light colour coding, has Ingham’s chicken in the ‘Orange CHANGING’ section due to Inghams’ previous statements.”
Greenpeace states; “Companies in the Orange section have committed to removing GE crop derived ingredients from their products and are in the process of doing so.
Greenpeace quotes from Ingham’s August 2007 website policy statement;
“Ingham’s is committed to continuing to source non-GM ingredients for its poultry products. We will use our best endeavours to source non-GM ingredients for poultry feeds – such raw materials must meet our quality standards, be available in substantial quantities and be economically sustainable. Our policy also includes a commitment to our customers that they would always be advised before any changes to the above.”
“Ingham’s on the contrary, have shown no commitment since they indicated a move to GE free feed some years back, nor have Ingham’s advised their customers that they are still using GE soy for their manufacturing of poultry food. Ingham’s is Australasia’s largest stockfeed manufacturer, and some of their fellow chicken or egg producer customers are listed in Greenpeace’s Red ‘MAY CONTAIN GE’ section. The Greenpeace guide quotes:
“Brink’s Chicken policy:
NB: Brink’s chicken use Ingham’s feed which has tested positive for containing soy that is 85 per cent GE contaminated. – 2003
Mainland Poultry policy:
“Our feed continues to be manufactured from GE soy as we have not been able to source a viable non-GE alternative to date. We continue to investigate this option on an ongoing basis.” May 2007”
Have Ingham’s forgotten? No. Ingham’s direct consumers with GE questions to their website but appear to be cheating in their advertising. Ingham’s are likely to be no more serious than Mainland Poultry with its ongoing investigation of a non-GE alternative or Brink’s Chicken 2003 use of Ingham’s feed containing 85% GE contaminated soy.
“Like organic poultry producers, Ingham’s and their feed customers could all be GE free, but are continuing to take a cheap easy option, with Ingham’s going further and blatantly misleading well-intentioned consumers,” said Mr Browning.
Ingham’s Genetic Modification (GM) Policy begins, “Ingham’s Enterprises have a clear GM position. As is the case with all Ingham’s products, our chickens contain no GM content and are not genetically modified”… “The use of GM Soy in feed does not compromise the absolute GM-free status of the poultry products the company produces. Animals that eat feed with a component of GM Soy are no different to other animals that may have been fed a low GM or GM-free diet. This position is verified by numerous feeding studies:”
“Not only does Ingham’s advertising misleading but its policy contradicts itself, stating that all Ingham’s products, chickens included ‘contain no GM content…’ Rather an unusual statement considering the chickens are eating GE food and more recent GE feeding studies show the transfer of DNA into the gut of animals,” said Mr Browning.
“Ingham’s uses dated reports suggesting that GE soy is equivalent to conventional soy, yet feeding studies have consistently shown differences for GE foodstuffs, soy included. One reference by the Federation of Animal Science Societies, a pro-GE industry organisation shows its bias on its website, “Consumers should appreciate that absolute safety is not the objective with respect to any approach used to evaluate complex substances such as food.”
On finding Ingham’s use of GE feed, consumers will be further confused when reading the Ingham’s philosophy, vision, and mission. As Ingham’s word it:
“Quite simply the Ingham’s philosophy is,
“Doing the right things and doing things right”
Our Vision: To be Australasia’s first choice for poultry products, recognised for brand excellence, a commitment to its employees, food safety, the environment and innovation.
Our Mission: To be responsive to customer and community needs and to provide trusted quality food products to fit today’s changing lifestyles at a competitive price.”
“Soil & Health struggles to see how Ingham’s is doing the right things or doing things right, how it can be recognised for brand excellence, how it shows commitment to food safety and the environment, or how it is providing trusted quality food. Ingham’s are misleading consumers and have not seriously tried to go GE free.”
“As Ingham’s also currently exports its feed to South Pacific countries, it is spreading its GE-contaminated feed wider. Do the consumers elsewhere in the Pacific know what is in their chicken feed?”
Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and promotes an environment and diet free from GE and synthetic additives.
————-
Note:

Links accessed May 2009
(1) Ingham’s GM Policy http://www.inghams.co.nz/consumernz/aboutus.aspx?docId=285 or below.
GE and GM are used interchangeably for this media release. Soil & Health prefers the term GE (genetic engineering) believing that GM (genetic modification) is a misused term that could also include natural breeding techniques including hybridisation.
Ingham’s GM Policy NZ
Ingham’s Enterprises have a clear GM position. As is the case with all Ingham’s products, our chickens contain no GM content and are not genetically modified.
Ingham’s GM policy is based on good science, healthy chickens, and sustainable practices that benefit both our customers and suppliers while creating net social and environmental benefits.
Ingham’s is committed to continuing to source non-GM ingredients for its poultry products. We will use our best endeavours to source non-GM ingredients for poultry feeds – such raw materials must meet our quality standards, be available in substantial quantities and be economically sustainable.
Our policy also includes a commitment to our customers that they would always be advised before any changes to the above.
Ingham’s abides by all regulations in Australia and New Zealand, regarding food safety, labelling, and packaging. It has food safety procedures in place to ensure the integrity of all its non-GM ingredients and monitors suppliers to ensure that this high level of integrity is maintained.
The use of GM Soya in feed does not compromise the absolute GM-free status of the poultry products the company produces. Animals that eat feed with a component of GM Soya are no different to other animals that may have been fed a low GM or GM-free diet. This position is verified by numerous feeding studies:
(i) “NZ Royal Commission Report & Recommendations (2001)”
(ii) “Federation of Animal Science Societies (2000) FASS Facts, On Biotech Crops – Impact on Meat, Milk and Eggs. Savoy IL”
(iii) “The Royal Society (2002) Genetically modified plants for food use and human health – an update. Policy document 4/02 (February)”
Ingham’s understands that there is considerable community interest in the uses of genetic modification and we believe it is important to keep customers informed of our policies and relevant facts.

Port Marlboroughs Monitoring of Methyl Bromide Failed

/in , ,

Methyl bromide fumigation leakage at Picton two weeks ago has shown that the on site monitoring systems employed by Port Marlborough are unable to protect the public, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
Soil & Health are concerned that further fumigations may take place before adequate safeguards are in place and are calling for Shakespeare Bay log fumigations to be stopped ahead of Marlborough District Council reviewing its Air Plan and Port Marlborough making publicly available a Fumigation Code of Practice that has the same features as that for Port Nelson.
Referring to the inadvertent release of toxic methyl bromide gas from under tarpaulins on May 1 by fumigation company Genera, when covers came away during fumigation of logs, the Marlborough Express newspaper reported yesterday that Port Marlborough’s Chief Executive had said that early release of the gas could have put workers at risk and was unacceptable, but that on site monitoring showed methyl bromide had not exceeded one part per million.
“A release of hundreds of kilos of gas not breaching the one part per million criteria, simply shows what Soil & Health has said all along; that monitoring is effectively useless unless based on expert air dispersion modelling that considers topographical and meteorological conditions, including breezes, calms, and inversions,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“While criteria of one part per million may seem laudable, if the monitoring system employed by the Port actually worked for detecting risk, then the one part per million threshold would have been breached. It is ludicrous to suggest the leaks and other crude releases of methyl bromide gas during recent fumigations have all remained less than one part per million beyond the Port boundary.”
“Modelling would show where the gas would go under a range of situations. Only then, depending on weather and residual gas dispersal management following a gas recapture process, appropriate placement of and type of monitor, could Port Marlborough assume gas dispersion was meeting even their prescribed safety standards.”
“Port Marlborough and its contracted monitoring agency had just seven monitors in place around the Shakespeare Bay site during the recent fumigation. Positively, two of the monitors photographed by Soil & Health were near public vantage points but without computer dispersion modelling, and with many hundreds of metres of boundary, the placements totally fail to relate to where the gas may be going.”
“In a letter to the Guardians of the Sounds chairperson Peter Beech, an air quality scientist has previously stated that, “…The consensus among all air quality practitioners around the world is that computer dispersion modeling is the first step in assessing the possible exposure to an air contaminant. …Trying to monitor an invisible plume of methyl bromide with a hand held worker exposure meter is like trying to catch a mosquito with a bird net, completely worthless.”
“Without computer dispersal modeling supporting a robust Resource Management Air Plan, fumigation in Marlborough is light years behind in safety than neighbouring Nelson,” said Mr Browning.
“By not knowing where the toxic gas goes or its concentrations along the way, Port Marlborough, Marlborough District Council, Genera, and log exporter Zindia are all gambling with community and worker safety. They are also choosing to ignore the very serious effects on climate change by the release of tonnes of one of the worst ozone depleting gases.”
“Externalising the true cost of forestry onto the rest of the community, locally or globally is not acceptable. If the timber industry wants to export commodity logs to markets that insist on methyl bromide fumigation, then they should build fumigation facilities that can recapture the toxic used gas. Alternatively develop other markets or higher value products.”
“Soil & Health has campaigned against methyl bromide fumigation for many years and will continue to campaign for a clean green Aotearoa New Zealand and against methyl bromide use. Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020.”

Logs From Methyl Bromide Free Nelson To Be Fumigated

/in , ,

Fumigation company Genera can no longer release large volumes of the highly toxic methyl bromide gas in Nelson, so log exporter Zindia intends shipping logs from there for fumigation in Picton, exploiting the local Marlborough District Council’s conflict of interest and ineffective air plans, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
The 28,600 DWT bulk carrier Pos Brave has been scheduled to load logs in Nelson for fumigation in Picton in about a weeks time. (photo below)
“Why should Picton be at risk for Zindia and Genera’s dirty activity when Nelson now has protection? The deaths of several Port Nelson workers from motor neurone disease, linked to methyl bromide fumigation, pre-empted safety improvements there, yet the same fumigators want to carry on the same old dangerous activities with Nelson logs in the neighbouring community,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
Following extensive Environment Court hearings, large scale release of the neurotoxic and ozone destroying methyl bromide gas in Nelson is prevented, due to new community safety and environmental protection focused Port Nelson air quality plans. The Port Nelson fumigation Code of Practice also improved significantly following the hearings.
“Zindia seems blinkered to environmental and community safety and has complained about the economic cost to Marlborough if it could not fumigate Marlborough logs at local Picton’s Shakespeare Bay. However it now wants to import and fumigate a ship full of Nelson logs and release the toxic gas from them into the atmosphere near Picton.”
“I think the patience of Picton people will be close to a limit with such blatant abuse of the tolerance shown to date. Marlborough District Council and Port Marlborough need to stop this fumigation from occurring and modelled on Nelson, set an effective air plan in place immediately.”
“The monitoring regime touted by Port Marlborough and the Marlborough District Council as being 5 times more rigid than elsewhere in New Zealand during the last log fumigation event is meaningless and a cruel twist to what must happen in Port Nelson.”
“Port Nelson fumigation must only be released following the use of recapture technology which has collected the vast majority of the gas into carbon filters, with the small allowable remnant of gas being very heavily diluted and vented at predetermined rates and set times.”
“Due to cost, Zindia does not want to put its logs through such a process in Nelson, although a related company does there with sawn timber. Picton and the Marlborough District Council are seen as the cheap way out. Marlborough District Council with its demand on Port Marlborough to produce millions of dollars in dividends, is risking the health of its own community and aggravating climate change, by not preventing the fumigation business.”
“Marlborough District Council has a conflict of interest and its executive must be calling the shots as when they were standing for council in 2007, there was almost complete opposition to methyl bromide fumigation from the mayor and councillors.”
“Organisations such as Soil & Health and Guardians of the Sounds have suggested that to prevent the Picton “toxic town” label, the Marlborough District Council, its subsidiary Port Marlborough, log exporter Zindia, the forestry industry and fumigator Genera, need to build a fumigant gas recapture facility that can allow fumigation but protects the community and environment,” said Mr Browning.
“In the interim as in Nelson, whether from a ships hold or from tarpaulins in the open, there must be no more large scale release of toxic and ozone destroying gases.”
Release of methyl bromide gas from under tarpaulins in the open has also been discontinued in Nelson and during the last methyl bromide fumigation in Picton, Genera lost any control of the gases from at least one covered log stack when its cover came free. Other tarpaulins were intentionally removed very quickly allowing toxic gas to be released in high concentrations.
“Soil & Health has campaigned against methyl bromide fumigation for many years and now vindicated by the decisions of the European Parliament which are to ban methyl bromide use, and the findings of the Environment Court in Nelson, Soil & Health will continue to campaign against methyl bromide use and for a clean green Aotearoa New Zealand. Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020.”

Picton Fumigators May Fail Safety and Indian Requirements

/in , ,

The Marlborough District Council, Port Marlborough, log exporter Zindia and fumigator Genera, should all be deeply ashamed at the release of tonnes of highly toxic ozone destroying methyl bromide gas from Port Shakespeare last Friday night, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
Soil & Health also questions whether the fumigations would have met the log destination country India’s phyto-sanitary requirements due to cold conditions over the relatively short fumigation period.
Port Marlborough allowed methyl bromide release in Picton from log stack fumigation tarpaulins and from the hold of the ship Ideal Bulker on Friday night in conditions and volumes that would not be permitted in neighbouring Port Nelson.
Nelson City Council’s air plan for the Port of Nelson was developed with the assistance of an Environment Court process with considerable scientific expert evidence including air modelling of where any released gas might go. Marlborough District Council could immediately make an air plan variation to match that of Nelson.
As supported by the Environment Court in Nelson and also the European Parliament, release of methyl bromide is based on the use of recapture technology. Europe is to ban use of methyl bromide by March 18 next year; with any emergency derogation using a fraction of current use, and at least 80% of any gas used being recaptured.
“Risking unacceptable levels of toxic gas exposure to inter-island shipping passengers and staff, by releasing hundreds of kilos of highly toxic gas at a time, is absolutely reckless,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “The fumigators said they would slowly release the gas but pulled some large covers off in close to a minute.”
“The neurotoxic gas was released during the night in cold conditions and variable breezes with no idea where the gas was actually going or who might be exposed to it, before its ultimate destination of damaging the ozone layer and aggravating climate change.”
“In the Nelson air plan, any release must happen during specific daylight hours, following recapture of most of the toxic gas, yet log exporter Zindia, fumigation company Genera and Port Marlborough and its owner the Marlborough District Council, in full knowledge of the Environment Court’s findings use effectively no standard in Picton. Monitoring around a few sites at the Port edges is a pot luck approach at detecting methyl bromide which could be going anywhere, and in no way relates to Nelson’s approach.”
“Port Nelson’s own fumigation Code of Practice has strict protocols on methyl bromide use and recapture of the majority of the gas, and there is no reason why Port Marlborough should have anything less. The recapture in Nelson is based on immediate human safety, yet another great danger globally is the effect of Zindia’s tonnes of methyl bromide on the ozone layer and climate change. Port Marlborough has yet to make its Code of Practice publicly available.”
“Zindia and Genera should be looked at very hard by the Indian Government as to whether they have met the pre-shipment phyto-sanitary requirements for logs being imported into India. India does not want some of New Zealand’s indigenous timber damaging insects and has strict requirements on timber treatment to ensure its biosecurity needs, yet it appears those requirements may have been treated as casually as the safety of Picton and the ozone layer.”
India – Logs to India require fumigation with methyl bromide at:
. 48gm/m3at >21°Cfor24hours.
. 56 gm/m3 at 16-20°C for 24 hours.
. 64gm/m3at 11-15°C for 24 hours.
. 72 gm/m3 at 10-11 °C for 24 hours.
Picton’s weather was bleak throughout the fumigation period and certainly fell below 10 degrees centigrade, making effective fumigation doubtful.
“As I sailed into Picton on the Interislander ferry Arahura, during methyl bromide fumigant release near 9-30pm on Friday evening, the breeze was coming through the cutting from the fumigated log ship and log stacks a few hundred metres away,” said Mr Browning. “My photographs and videos show the proximity to the ferry and the fluctuating windsock at the ferry terminal.”
“On arrival at about 10pm at the Shakespeare Bay observation point, that had no public warning signs, the raised ship hatches allowing methyl bromide fumigant release were visible, and soon after, two major log stacks had their covers removed within minutes. No warning signs, no gas recapture, no care, and an oscillating breeze.”
“The wind which was mostly southerly in Picton was much more variable and often very quiet at the observation point and photographs of the log ship’s flag support that. The complex Sounds valley system of land and sea make assumptions on released fumigant gas direction difficult, and as done in Port Nelson, air modelling must be undertaken ahead of new Marlborough District Council rules around fumigation. In the meanwhile all fumigation at Port Shakespeare must stop.
“Soil & Health has campaigned against methyl bromide fumigation for many years and now vindicated by the decisions of the European Parliament and findings of the Environment Court, will continue to campaign for a clean green Aotearoa New Zealand and against methyl bromide use. Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020.”

Picton getting tonnes of toxic gas again

/in , ,

Two environmental organisations are calling for Port Marlborough and its owner the Marlborough District Council to make an immediate stop to the use of pre-shipment methyl bromide log fumigation at Picton’s Shakespeare Bay.

Fumigation of logs under tarpaulins is underway at Picton for the first time since September 2007, for deck loading on the log ship the Ideal Bulker. The ship’s hold is also to be fumigated with the highly toxic and ozone depleting methyl bromide gas in the next few days, when 3 tonnes of the gas will be released into the air.

Guardians of the Sounds and the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand believe the shipment, following one in February that used 4 tonnes of the neurotoxic gas in just the ship’s hold, is a snub to the health concerns of the Picton community and to New Zealanders concerned at the extreme effects on climate change by ozone depleting gases. The cold still conditions in Picton today are some of the least safe for release of methyl bromide. The Picton community and ferry travellers have not been informed of the current fumigation.

“The crude release of 3 tonnes of ozone depleting gas into the atmosphere this week in Picton is also in direct contrast to the European Parliament’s resolution of 25 March 2009, banning all uses of methyl bromide in less than a year, including those used for quarantine and pre-shipment,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Ozone depleting substances have a global warming potential up to 14,000 times greater than carbon dioxide. It is as if the Marlborough District Council and Port Marlborough had not heard of climate change or its seriousness, or really understand what the word toxic means.”

“In February we were led to believe by the log exporter Zindia, that there was to be just a single shipment of gas released without filtration,” said Guardians Chairperson Peter Beech.

“We are very disappointed, that in the face of persistent opposition from the people of Picton, concerned about the risks posed to their community’s health and safety by tonnes of extremely toxic gas released to the atmosphere, that Port Marlborough continues to agree to fumigations.”

“We hold Zindia the exporter, Genera the fumigation company, Port Marlborough and its owner Marlborough District Council, all to account. Considering the deaths of Nelson port workers by motor neurone disease attributed to methyl bromide fumigations, release to the air around Picton of that gas, that attacks the respiratory and nervous systems and body organs, and is carcinogenic, makes those responsible potentially merchants of death,” said Mr Beech.

“Following public outcry and an extensive Environment Court case in Nelson, with scientific modelling of where released gas might go, methyl bromide log fumigations without recapture of the gas, can no longer happen in Nelson,” said Mr Browning

“If Zindia is not able to operate its substandard fumigation in Nelson, then why in Picton? The answer lies with Marlborough District Council choosing to operate in the interests of commerce while gambling with the health and safety of its community and its environmental reputation.”

“The Council and its subsidiary Port Marlborough can stop the fumigation instantly. Port Marlborough has final sign off to any fumigation and does not need to accept fumigation on its property. They successfully stopped fumigation previously when other commercial imperatives linked with community concerns.”

“Strangely while almost all Marlborough District Councillors state opposition to the fumigations, they and the Mayor are failing to immediately correct the inadequate district air plans. Who is calling the shots in Council?”

“In keeping with Brand New Zealand’s Clean Green 100% Pure image, and Soil & Health’s vision of an Organic 2020, the release of toxic or ozone depleting gases must be stopped.”

Notes
Methyl bromide (CH3Br) is an odourless, colourless gas, used as a pre-shipment (QPS) fumigant pesticide that kills all pests and is extremely toxic to humans. Human exposure to methyl bromide has potentially serious acute impacts on the central nervous system and internal organs that can be fatal, with a range of neurological and cancer causing effects associated with chronic exposure. Methyl bromide use is limited internationally due to health risks and its serious ozone depleting properties, although due to log exports a 300% increase in its use in New Zealand occurred from 2001 – 2007.

Picton Methyl Bromide History
Methyl bromide gas used for export log fumigation has been vented from Port Marlborough’s Shakespeare Bay facility in the past. This is close to Picton’s wharves and township and was halted in September 2007 following major public meetings organised by Guardians of the Sounds in opposition to the fumigation.

Motor Neurone Disease
An international motor neurone disease expert, Canterbury University Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Ian Shaw, in 2007 said that statistically it appeared the Port Nelson motor neurone disease rate was 25 times the international average. At least six port workers had died from the disease, which causes progressive muscular atrophy.

That number is potentially double with ex-Nelson port workers dying in other parts of NZ. Nelson may have the second highest motor neurone death rate in the world.

European Parliament Position
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/474&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

Beyond protecting the ozone layer, the reduction of ozone depleting substances also plays a significant role in fighting climate change. Ozone depleting substances have a global warming potential up to 14,000 times greater than carbon dioxide. Without the Montreal Protocol global greenhouse gas emissions would be 50% higher than they are today….
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ozone/review.htm

Ends.

Contact
Steffan Browning
Spokesperson
The Soil & Health Association of NZ
021 725655
steffan@buyorganic.co.nz

Pete Beech
Chairman
Guardians of the Sounds
0275 404407 (03) 5736891
p.beech@ xtra.co.nz
www.guardiansofthesounds.co.nz

Brussels, 25 March 2009 – Commission welcomes agreement in Parliament on ozone layer
The Commission welcomes the vote today by the European Parliament that confirms the first reading agreement reached between Parliament and Council on reinforcing ozone legislation. The agreement comes less than a year after the Commission’s proposal was presented. In addition to updating current legislation on the protection of the ozone layer in light of scientific developments, the new regulation reinforces measures on the illegal trade and remaining uses of ozone depleting substances, including hydrochlorofluorocarbons. It also confirms the ban on the use of methyl bromide from early 2010 and bolsters measures on the management of banned substances in older products.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: “Ozone depleting substances have caused greater UV radiation to reach the earth, which endangers human beings and the environment. I welcome the European Parliament and the Council’s swift adoption of this new legislation which further restricts the use of these substances in the European Union. The new legislation should help the ozone layer recover from 2050 onwards and also contribute to our efforts to mitigate climate change.”

Building on the successes of the Montreal Protocol
International measures to protect the ozone layer in the stratosphere have had remarkable success. In the EU, current legislation – generally more ambitious than the 1987 Montreal Protocol that regulates these substances internationally – helped achieve a 99% phase-out of ozone-depleting substances, thus demonstrating its commitment to lead in the implementation of multilateral environmental agreements.

Beyond protecting the ozone layer, the reduction of ozone depleting substances also plays a significant role in fighting climate change. Ozone depleting substances have a global warming potential up to 14,000 times greater than carbon dioxide. Without the Montreal Protocol global greenhouse gas emissions would be 50% higher than they are today.

Strengthening EU legislation on the ozone
The legislation agreed on by the European Parliament today follows from the Commission’s proposal presented in August 2008. The aim of the new legislation is to adapt EU legislation on the protection of the ozone layer to the latest scientific developments and simplify it. It also strengthens the measures on the illegal trade and use of ozone depleting substances in the EU and introduces measures to prevent the dumping of these substances – or obsolete equipment relying on these substances – in developing countries.

The new legislation restricts further the use of some ozone depleting substances, such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and methyl bromide. It bans the use of virgin HCFCs from 2010 while allowing the use of recycled HCFCs under certain conditions until the end of 2014. Production of HCFCs for export – mainly to developing countries where the phase out is lagging by about ten years – would cease by 2020 in decremental steps and caps instead of the original deadline of 2025. It also mandates the Commission to adopt tougher provisions on ozone depleting substances trapped – or “banked” – in products such as insulation foams in buildings in addition to already existing obligations on the recovery and elimination of substances in air conditioners and refrigeration equipment.

Measures on methyl bromide will be tightened under the new ozone legislation. All uses of the substance will be banned by March 2010, including those used for quarantine and pre-shipment.

The legislation also expands the list of substances for which reporting is required, but that are not yet covered by the Montreal Protocol.

Background
The discovery in the early 1980s of a significant decrease in the concentration of ozone in the stratosphere over the Antarctic led to governments agreeing in 1987 on a Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer – the Montreal Protocol. Thus began the phasing-out of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) according to a set timetable.

By 2007 all 191 parties signatory to the protocol had reduced their use of ozone depleting substances by 95% from the base year. Industrialised countries achieved the highest results since developing countries were given a delayed timetable. In its 2007 report, the Montreal Protocol Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) confirmed that the ozone layer is slowly recovering – but slower than projections – thanks to the control measures introduced by the Protocol.

As a result of international efforts scientists report that it is now possible for the ozone layer to fully recover sometime between 2050 and 2075. However, the scientists warned that a number of challenges remain to ensure this happens, particularly emissions from “banked” substances, exempted uses and new ozone depleting substances. The SAP expressed concerns about the growing production of HCFCs in developing countries. The parties to the protocol subsequently agreed in 2007 on an accelerated HCFC phase-out schedule.

More information:

Commission proposal: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ozone/review.htm

European Parliament legislative resolution of 25 March 2009 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone layer (recast) (COM(2008)0505 – C6-0297/2008 – 2008/0165(COD))

(12) In view of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (7) which banned the use of methyl bromide as a biocide by 1 September 2006, and Commission Decision 2008/753/EC which banned the use of methyl bromide as a plant protection product by 18 March 2010, the use of methyl bromide for quarantine and pre-shipment applications should also be banned by 18 March 2010.

Article 12

Quarantine and pre-shipment applications and emergency uses of methyl bromide

1. By way of derogation from Article 5(1), until 18 March 2010 , methyl bromide may be placed on the market and used for quarantine and for pre-shipment applications for treatment of goods for export provided that the placing on the market and use of methyl bromide are allowed respectively under Directive 91/414/EEC and Directive 98/8/EC as transposed by the Member State concerned.

Methyl bromide may only be used on sites approved by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned and, if economically and technically feasible, under the condition that at least 80 % of methyl bromide released from the consignment is recovered.

2. The calculated level of methyl bromide which undertakings place on the market or use for their own account in the period from 1 January 2010 to 18 March 2010 shall not exceed 45 ODP tonnes.

Each undertaking shall ensure that the calculated level of methyl bromide which it places on the market or uses for its own account for quarantine and pre-shipment applications shall not exceed 21 % of the average of the calculated level of methyl bromide which it placed on the market or used for its own account for quarantine and pre-shipment in the years 2005 to 2008.

3. In an emergency, where unexpected outbreaks of particular pests or diseases so require, the Commission, at the request of the competent authority of a Member State, may authorise the temporary production, placing on the market and use of methyl bromide. Such authorisation shall apply for a period not exceeding 120 days and to a quantity not exceeding 20 metric tonnes and shall specify measures to be taken to reduce emissions during use provided that the placing on the market and use of methyl bromide are allowed respectively under Directive 91/414/EEC and Directive 98/8/EC.

MAF-Biosecurity NZ and Plant & Food still not taking GE risk seriously

/in , , ,

MAF – Biosecurity NZ (MAFBNZ) appears to be letting go of New Zealand’s zero tolerance to GE contamination, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. Although genetically engineered (GE) brassica plants were known to have flowered in a Plant & Food Research trial in Lincoln, MAFBNZ has not undertaken any testing for contamination by GE plant pollen in the Lincoln area.

Soil & Health has asked for MAFBNZ to instigate comprehensive testing for GE contamination of brassica seed and bee products, especially honey, from the Lincoln area. They have also asked for the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) to immediately reassess and withdraw consents held by Plant & Food Research for GE field trials of brassica and Allium species (onions, garlic, leeks etc).

“Despite New Zealand exports and tourism relying significantly on our Clean Green, 100% Pure and GE- Free image, MAFBNZ have not even managed to get a testing regime underway at Lincoln to ensure the GE-free status of properties near the botched Plant & Food Research field trial,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Zero tolerance is the appropriate regime regarding GE contamination in New Zealand and that is what MAFBNZ is tasked to ensure. Assuming wind would blow pollen just 2 metres and that bees and other insects would not pollinate plants more than 100 metres from a GE pollen source is ludicrous, yet that is how MAF has justified it not testing.”

MAF is currently responsible for enforcing compliance with any conditions imposed by the ERMA on using new organisms, and for managing any biosecurity issues raised by GE organisms at the border or in New Zealand.

Following the discovery of a flowering GE Brassica by Soil & Health in December 2008, MAFBNZ evaluated non-compliance with controls at Plant & Food Research – the Lincoln-based crown research institute containment facility where GE brassica plants had been growing as part of an approved field trial. MAFBNZ has said that the risk of bees carrying pollen away was extremely unlikely and by other insects as very low.

MAFBNZ Principal Adviser Doug Lush says the MAFBNZ investigation was wide ranging and included a thorough analysis of the possible range that any pollen or seed could have travelled.

He says MAFBNZ has conducted surveillance for brassica plants to a radius of 100m from the trial plot. No Brassica oleracea (broccoli type) plants, capable of forming seed during the risk time period, were found. He also referred to skant flowering and bee behaviour reducing the chance of pollen spread. However, Soil & Health argues that even if skant GE flowering at the time, it could have been prevented by committed MAFBNZ inspections and he did not take the necessary action to get the bolting plants removed, as had been specified in the trial consent.

“That flies in the face of the photographic evidence of a more than one GE flowering event, a strong floral sward during the December 2008 GE brassica flowering event and conditions at that time favouring the site for bee and other pollinator activity,” said Mr Browning.

“MAF have gone for the easy route of checking the Plant & Food trial site over the next few years in the very unlikely event that GE seed from the flowering plants remains. Yet as the site was cleaned up ahead of seed maturing, following publicity about the flowering GE plant, it is far more likely that GE seed has been formed beyond the site where pollen was transferred.”

“ GE brassica pollen has been shown to travel up to 26 kilometres in a British study. There was evidence of plenty of insect activity and strong winds at the Lincoln site at the time, so this possibility cannot be ruled out. Plant & Food’s own entomologists have identified some native flies as having the ability to carry 10 times more pollen as honey bees from the brassica pak choi.”

“In the failed experiment’s log, Plant & Food’s Dr Mary Christey recorded that monitoring (including for flowering) had to stop on at least one occasion due to high winds, and her own photographs show other GE brassica flowering events around that time. Wind events at the time of the December flowering toppled a pine tree between the GE brassica and intended GE onion trial sites, yet MAF’s Principle Advisor said, “Wind dispersal of brassica pollen is thought to extend only up to two metres”.

Denial from Plant & Food also continues with their spokesperson quoted this week as saying that Dr Christey’s photographs showed plants, “all at stages within the controls required for this trial,” yet the photographs obtained by GE Free NZ clearly showed some flowering and many plants had started to initiate flowering, a process known as bolting.

The ERMA consent condition (condition 1.8) explicitly states that “Brassica oleracea plants shall be prevented from producing open flowers in the field test site. Plants identified as initiating bolting must either be immediately moved back into a containment structure (control 1.4) or killed (control 1.12).

“Once again this begs the question, just how many GE brassicas flowered in the Lincoln environment over the last year? With proven flowering events, extensive testing for GE contamination must be carried out in the area. This now needs to continue beyond the current season due to MAF’s lack of action in collecting samples, as some seed set may now be harvested or fallen on the soil. Brassica seed can remain viable in the soil for several years.”

“Although Soil & Health applauds the end of the proven risky GE brassica field trial at Lincoln less than 2 years into its 10 year consent period, the Plant & Food GE alliums field trial approval must also be revoked.”

“Plant & Food have failed badly with the GE brassica trial, and remain unable to take ERMA’s consent conditions seriously. With an ERMA consent that includes allowing flowering of GE onions in supposed insect and wind safe structures at the trial site later this year the Crown Research Institute must stop its GE field trials immediately.”

“ERMA has enough information now to carry out a public reassessment on all Plant & Food’s GE activities and curtail the field trials quickly.”

“The stopping of these dangerous risks to New Zealand’s biosecurity helps maintain and build the clean green image that is more and more important for the sales of New Zealand produce.”

Soil & Health is committed to GE free food and environment and aspires to an Organic 2020.

References:

1) Overseas experience has shown GM crops threaten organics.
In May 2003 The UK Guardian newspaper reported UK environment minister Michael Meacher conceded that contamination from GM crops threatens organic food production. “The coexistence of organic and GM crops is a very real problem,” he said. see: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,959641,00.html

2) Scientists have identified contamination risks in GM oil seed rape
The Guardian, October 14, 2003 (UK)
Government scientists have discovered that genetically modified oil seed rape cannot be contained by separating it from fields of conventional crops, after bees carried the pollen up to 16 miles (26km) away. A second piece of research has shown that once GM oil seed rape has been grown in a field, it would be 16 years before a conventional crop could be grown in the same field without fear of contamination of more than 0.9%, the threshold for claiming that the crop was GM free. The amount of gene flow rapidly declines over tens of meters and long distance transfer is “rare”. Transfer from one field to the next is around 0.1%, one in 1,000. Long distance transfer was blamed on bees carrying the pollen back to the hive and swapping it with other pollen – fertilising plants thought to be miles out of reach. The scientists concluded: “Complete (100%) purity cannot be maintained by geographical separation.” The second study involved the cross-pollination of rape with other wild relatives and spilt seed re-growing in fields the next year. Only rigorous spraying with weed killer every year for five years would reduce them to less than the 0.9% contamination level for the new crops to be classed as non-GM. If the field was not sprayed, the model predicted that the presence of the original variety in subsequent crops would not fall below 1% for 16 years. Web Link: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1062559,00.html

3) The Press, October 7, 2005 (New Zealand)
The skills of native flies in pollinating South Island crops may shed more light in evaluating the potential of cross contamination from genetically modified plants. A study by Crop & Food Research is monitoring the behaviour of native flies in arable plants and has found they could be major pollinators.

“If New Zealand was ever to allow commercial transgenic crops we must first examine any possibility of gene flow from these crops to other crops, weeds and native flora,” said Crop & Food Research entomologist Dr Brad Howlett.

Little was known about the role of native pollinators in transferring pollen in crops before this study. Until now it was assumed bees do most of the crop pollination and arable farmers have traditionally placed honey bee hives next to crops for this purpose.

Native flies have, however, been found in some crops carrying up to 19,000 pollen grains – as many as honey bees. On crops of pak choi, a bibionid fly was found in numbers 10 times more than honey bees and carrying the same amount of pollen.

The range of pollinators in crops, however, varies widely even on sites that are close together. In Central Otago it was found that two onion fields about 17km apart attracted completely different ranges of insects.

“To evaluate the likelihood of the movement of transgenic genes via pollen from GM plants, we must first understand the mechanisms that cause pollen movement,” said Howlett.

http://www.GEinfo.org.nz/102005/06.html

Web Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3436158a3600,00.html

Methyl Bromide Fumigation Supported By Marlborough District Council

/in ,

Marlborough District Council company Port Marlborough’s stance and supposed tough conditions on methyl bromide fumigation at Picton has been a carefully staged play by those involved and the fumigation remains as dangerous as ever, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ, which wants such fumigations stopped immediately.

Port Marlborough has announced this week the resumption of methyl bromide export log fumigation at its Shakespeare Bay facility adjacent to Picton Harbour. Previous fumigations had been stopped in September 2007 following public protest and business considerations by the Port. The ship Kang Shen currently being loaded with logs for India is due to be fumigated in the weekend.

“It is commendable that the Port Company has set one part per million standard for monitoring outside the facility and set a bond on the fumigators, however they know full well that due to woeful inadequacies in monitoring and the lack of modelling, that the bond will never be collected,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Port Marlborough, log exporter Zindia, fumigator Genera, but most of all the Marlborough District Council, have let the community of Picton down and are setting the scene for continued long term fumigations.”

“One part per million (1ppm) was set in Nelson* as a beyond port boundary threshold following an extensive Environment Court process. However that was set on the basis of predictive modelling and on the understanding that very limited amounts of gas would be released at any one time. Most fumigation at Port Nelson releases only a residue following post fumigation capture of the bulk of the ozone depleting and neurotoxic gas. Picton deserves nothing less.”

“Without modelling, the route of the released gas is unknown and monitoring at fence level around Port Marlborough is almost guaranteed to miss the invisible gas plume. Where a plume may descend on any given day is unknown and Port Marlborough’s single monitoring device and few borrowed ones can’t even begin the task of ensuring safety.”

“The statement from Marlborough District Council, that they will impose conditions on the use of fumigants such as methyl bromide at Picton’s port, when it drafts the new Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan, is an empty statement, as this is years away.” said Mr Browning.

“Of course the Council will impose conditions in a few years time. What Council won’t have meaningful air safety plans by then? There are tools in the RMA that would allow a council with resolve to stop the fumigation now.”

“The Health Board’s Ed Kiddle reported statement yesterday that the Picton situation is different from Nelson due to Port distance from the town also lacks credibility. Modelling in Nelson showed the large distance that gas may go there and is the background to the 1ppm level set. Modelling has not occurred in Picton and almost definitely would show such unpredictability that all fumigation would have to be using post fumigation capture technology.”

“The complicity by those involved in this activity is disturbing. Marlborough’s Mayor and councillors, Port directors, and their management, and the financially blinkered log exporter and fumigator, need to reconsider their performance and review immediately their decision.”

“Beyond the health of the local environment, community and visitors the Marlborough District Council needs to reflect on its international responsibilities and its marketing image.”

“What an irony that in a region with some of the highest levels of melanoma in the world that release to the atmosphere of tonnes of ozone depleting methyl bromide could be considered. Sweltering under a recent blazing Marlborough sun following the largest hole in the ozone layer ever recorded Marlborough District Council and Port Marlborough again allowed methyl bromide fumigation of export logs.”

Soil & Health is committed to sustainability and has a vision of an Organic 2020.

* http://www.ncc.govt.nz/environment/air_quality/air-quality-plan/download…

Methyl bromide (CH3Br) is an odourless, colourless gas, used as a pre-shipment (QPS) fumigant pesticide that kills all pests and is extremely toxic to humans. Human exposure to methyl bromide has potentially serious acute impacts on the central nervous system and internal organs that can be fatal, with a range of neurological and cancer causing effects associated with chronic exposure. Methyl bromide use is limited internationally due to health risks and its serious ozone depleting properties, although due to log exports a 300% increase in its use in New Zealand occurred from 2001 – 2007.