Methyl bromide fumigant bouquet for Picton this Valentines Day

/in ,

Fumigation of logs with the highly toxic gas methyl bromide is intended to resume in a few weeks at Port Marlborough, Picton. On 14 February this year, fumigation with the neuro-toxic and ozone depleting gas is planned for a shipment of logs for export. In September 2007, this fumigation was stopped.

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.

Soil & Health Association spokesperson, Steffan Browning, who raised the methyl bromide issue in Picton, and Guardians Chairman Peter Beech, have been invited to a meeting at Port Marlborough. They will meet with Picton councillors, Port Company officials, the log exporter Zindia and fumigator company Genera on February 3rd (9.30 a.m.) to discuss the February 14th log fumigation at Shakespeare Bay.

“The anger of the community of Picton can be expected to be high,” said Mr Beech, “Port Marlborough, Genera and Zindia all know the feelings of the people, yet appear to be blinded by profit. The 2007 Picton public meetings showed the Marlborough District Council and the Council owned Port Company that the community’s level of tolerance to local toxic fumigation was at an end and public protest can be expected.”

“Log fumigation with methyl bromide at Shakespeare Bay is contrary to the undertaking by Port Marlborough CEO Ian McNabb, soon after his replacement of Des Ashton who had been CEO at the time of the 2007 controversy,” said Mr Browning. “Mr McNabb had told Mr Beech and me on separate occasions that while he was there, there would be no methyl bromide fumigations.”

“It is clear that the Picton community wants release of methyl bromide and its similarly toxic alternative phosphine gas to be permanently stopped in Picton. A public statement is now needed from the Port Company and District Mayor, that release of fumigants into the atmosphere at Picton will stop permanently.”

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.

Previous log fumigations were under tarpaulins at the Port with methyl bromide gas being released to the atmosphere when fumigation was complete. Methyl bromide used to fumigate the hold of the Hong Kong registered ship Kang Shen on 14 February will also be released to the atmosphere.

“Responsible methyl bromide fumigators internationally are capturing the gas rather than participating in ozone depletion and risking the health of communities. Log exporters in clean green New Zealand need to lift their game. Methyl bromide is 50 times more damaging to the ozone layer than now banned CFC refrigerants,” said Mr Browning.

“The fumigation is contradictory to an Environment Court decision for Port Nelson which gave strict guidelines for exposure using ‘capture and destruction’ technology. Capture and destruction is light years ahead in safety than the archaic methods of releasing gas to air without any filtering or certainty of where the toxin is going.”

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.

“This ozone depleting neurotoxin should not be released anywhere, let alone near communities throughout New Zealand,” said Mr Beech.

“The log exporters concern about economic impact must be a very big second to the health risks posed to the community and the damage to the ozone layer, particularly relevant to Marlborough which has New Zealand’s highest level of melanoma, and in a year which has record ozone depletion effects,” said Mr Browning.

ERMA has recently begun a 2-½ year process reassessing methyl bromide’s use and controls, and the Pest Management Association has developed an interim Code of Practice – The Control and Safe Use of Fumigants. However the Code of Practice is only voluntary, not site-specific, and does not adequately address safe exposure limits or the release to the ozone layer, according to Soil & Health. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act states that affected parties must be consulted in approval of Codes of Practice, but so far the Guardians of the Sounds, the Soil & Health Association of NZ and the wider community have not been consulted.

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

Plant & Food Research needs to drop GE

/in , , ,

Plant & Food’s misleading statements and conflicts of interest further show the need for genetic engineering (GE) field trials to be abandoned says the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

“Plant & Food’s spin shows desperation to continue its GE field trials taking Aotearoa New Zealand down a path away from its current Clean Green and 100% Pure branding,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“A revamp of the board, management, and direction of this important crown research institute will be required if intentionally false information about risky science continues to be the norm.”

In an attempt to cover up failings at the institute’s GE brassica field trial on National Radio yesterday Plant & Food Research’s Chief Operating Officer Dr Bruce Campbell stated that only one flower was the issue, that a guard row would catch any pollen, and that no plants remained at the site.

“Dr Campbell was quite wrong to say that there was just one flower on one stem. Several flowers had opened and Dr Campbell and his staff not only have had access to my photographs of the split stem with the two flower heads that included a seed pod from a fertilised flower but have that stem in their possession,” said Mr Browning.

“Each of the opened flowers will have released pollen into the environment and GE seed pods may have resulted on non-GE brassicas in the area as a result of this negligence. A wide range of brassicas including broccoli, cabbage, forage kale and cauliflower would have been susceptible to insect or wind pollination.”

“Dr Campbell was wrong to suggest that a guard row completely surrounding the site would intercept any pollen – it would not. Even if there had ever been a complete and robust guard or buffer row, it would never have been able to ensure that no pollen would go beyond the site. However the original brassica guard row had been chopped back in August and the occasional regrowth and many weeds would not miraculously scoop up all the GE pollen released. That was never the function of the so-called guard rows.”

“Dr Campbell’s statement that all GE plants had been removed and destroyed was also wrong. The same sloppiness by Plant & Food Research that allowed a GE plant to flower continued with at least one experimental plant and one buffer row plant still evident among the weeds at the site when we inspected following the supposed removal of all remaining live plants.”

“The field trial site is another example of the lack of monitoring of GE science in New Zealand. This so-called GE research is also a huge waste of the scarce research dollar. There is no demand, locally or internationally for GE crops. There are organic growers out there who can successfully grow brassicas without harmful synthetic pesticides”

“ERMA’s consent conditions for the field trial state that following the growing season monthly inspections for volunteer plants must occur and any volunteers must be removed and killed by steam (autoclaving). Dr Campbell stated on radio that monitoring was carried out more regularly than required, yet when I inspected the site in December the dozens of plants showing regrowth were many months old and at least one had flowered. There was no evidence that anyone had been moving in the site and the principal scientist involved had started her holidays,” said Mr Browning.

“This is the same type of sloppiness that occurred at the Scion GE pine tree trial which also showed very poor monitoring of consent conditions.”

“Dr Campbell, Plant & Food’s management and board appear to be blinded to the risks of GE and need to reassess the appropriateness of their involvement with GE and any positions in the ERMA and Foundation of Research, Science and Technology (FORST) funding agency.”

“Such blatant misinformation coming from a research organisation that is largely funded by the taxpayer shows a need for a major shake up and revamp of agricultural and horticultural science in this country.”

“It appears that Plant & Food have strong GE intent as in a statement on the merge of the crown research institutes Crop & Food and Hortresearch into a single organisation Plant & Food Research, Dr Campbell promoted the benefit of combined GE plant research and stated, “both science companies had similar stances on the use of genetic engineering in food production, as both were using biotechnology.”

The chair of Plant & Food is a FORST director and two senior HortResearch staff were on the ERMA GE Brassica field trial committee that approved this field trial.

“Plant & Food and most of its staff have the capacity for better results if resources weren’t being tied up in the dangerous, risky and unproven GE area. Plant & Food through its predecessors have produced fantastic results in a range of non-GE areas that do not carry the risks of GE.”

“The fastest growing category of the international food industry is in organics and Plant& Food and FORST would be better to invest in that exciting, proven and environmentally safe growth area.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that includes a GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand.

NGOs visit GE field trial site today

/in , ,

Soil & Health and GE Free NZ are calling for the closure of all Plant & Food Research* genetically engineered (GE) field trials.

The crown research institute Plant and Food Research’s GE brassica trial site in Lincoln, Canterbury, has been shown to be in breach of controls imposed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) by allowing a GE plant to flower and release pollen in the open field. Soil & Health and GE Free NZ representatives will be visiting the site today to ensure removal of illegal GE plants.

“The ten year field trial has been shown to be sloppy and environmentally dangerous following its first year of operation, just as submitters opposed to the trial had been fearful of,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning, who discovered the flowering GE plant during a surprise private monitoring visit ahead of Christmas.

“The trial planted ahead of GE Free NZ’s High Court appeal against the ERMA decision, has failed to monitor volunteer plants leaving a GE debris filled site open to the elements and a direct threat to our environment,” said Claire Bleakley, president of GE Free NZ in Food and Environment, who located the ‘secret’ trial spot with Mr Browning in August last year.

Former Crop & Food scientist Dr Elvira Dommisse added her concern with the discovery. “Yet again, conditions of a GE field trial have been breached. GE brassica pollen is likely to have been released in the Lincoln area. If the Crop & Food (Plant & Food) staff responsible can’t manage their field trials without serious breaches of conditions, then the field trials should be stopped.”

In 2006 ERMA approved a trial – GMF 06001- to genetically modify four species of Brassica –cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and kale with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) insecticidal genes.

“These dangerous, irresponsible GE field trials must not be allowed to contaminate our horticulture land and further endanger farmer livelihood. The researcher’s cavalier attitudes, shoddy research, secret locations and poor adherence to controls mean that ERMA must immediately call a halt to all trials,” Ms Bleakley said.

At the December visit the ‘secret’ site was overgrown with weeds and littered with stalk residue from the GE kale. Plants had been cut off above ground level and not dug out as required in the controls. The re-growth from cut stalks of the buffer rows were flowering and setting seed.

Many GE brassica stalks had also re-grown with at least one kale having bolted producing a flowering stem and seed pod. The plant’s label confirmed that it was a GE plant that had sprouted from the GE stem left in the soil. The seed pod is evident in the attached photograph.

There is a possibility that the buffer plants have been pollinated by the GE pollen. The GE pollen may also have been carried several kilometres by either insects or wind.

“The site is within two km of Lincoln University’s organic Biological Husbandry Unit and Heinz-Wattie’s certified organic Kowhai farm,” said Ms Bleakley. “Neighbouring properties are privately owned farming, horticulture and lifestyle blocks, and are likely to have brassica plants. This event is not science for the benefit of New Zealanders, but is endangering New Zealand’s GE Free brand and international trading reputation.”

When Plant and Food Research was rung and told of the breach the GE brassica trial, Soil & Health were told that the trial’s managing scientist Mary Christey was on holiday and fellow scientist Dr Tony Conner fielded the call. When Mr Browning went down to the site a second time he found that the offending GE flower stalk and seed pod had been removed but many plants with re-growth remained.

“The level of misinformation by Plant and Food Research and auditor MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand’s communications staff is very concerning,” said Mr Browning. “Saying they were twisting the truth would be being kind to them. These people seem to be prepared to say anything and only admitted to a GE flowering stem when The Press presented my photograph to them.”

“Still denying open flowers defies belief and a science institution presented with a fertilised seed pod appears to need a lesson about the birds and the bees. And for GE field trial auditor MAF-Biosecurity to say no breach had occurred when re-growth volunteer plants remained is disappointing and flies in the face of the trial’s ‘strict’ conditions.”

“Last year started with major monitoring compliance breaches by another crown research institute, Scion at the GE pine tree field trial site at Rotorua. This led to similar denials and misrepresentation from Scion, MAF- Biosecurity NZ and ERMA, although later led to the closure of the site and felling of all the GE trees.”

“If the ERMA and Biosecurity New Zealand fail to take action to punish the culprits they will once again have proved themselves to be nothing more than facilitators for the cheap tricks turned by the rogue scientists at Plant and Food Research rather than regulators working in the national interest. The trial must be shut down immediately and brassica seed and honey within the Lincoln area tested for adventitious GE contamination,” said Mrs Bleakley.

“GE field trials in New Zealand are becoming a real threat to the farmer and the clean green brand. Today we will revisit the site to ensure New Zealand’s GE free status is protected,” said Bleakley and Browning.

Soil & Health shares a GE free vision with GE Free NZ in food and environment, and has a vision of an Organic 2020.

Ends:

*formerly Crop and Food.

Crop & Food merged recently with HortResearch to form Plant and Food Research. HortResearch’s Kieran Elbrough and Max Suckling were half of the 2007 ERMA decision making committee that approved the Crop & Food GE brassica field trial application.

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

NZ Bans Endosulfan

/in ,

The coalition of groups that have long campaigned for banning the controversial pesticide endosulfan is extremely pleased that New Zealand’s Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has announced it will ban it. Effective immediately. Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand (PAN ANZ), Soil and Health Association, and Safe Food Campaign have been urging ERMA for many years to ban the use of endosulfan.

Action to get rid of the insecticide began back in the mid-1990s, when Dr. Meriel Watts of PAN ANZ, with the Soil & Health Association, worked with Toxins Action Group and other community groups in Auckland to get the City Council to stop using endosulfan on sports fields because of the risk of breast cancer posed by the pesticide.

Endosulfan, already banned in 55 countries including all the European Union countries, is an insecticide used on a wide range of fruit and vegetables and also on sports turf in New Zealand. Illegal residues have been found twice in beef destined for South Korea, resulting in enormous costs for exporters.

“We are delighted that ERMA has overturned its earlier ‘proposed’ decision to keep using this pesticide” stated Dr Meriel Watts, Co-ordinator of the Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand. “It would have been deeply embarrassing for New Zealand to continue its use when the pesticide has entered the process for a global ban under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.”

Endosulfan has triggered international action because of its toxicity, persistence in the environment and its ability to accumulate up the food chain. In October the Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) agreed that endosulfan meets the screening criteria for a POP, and is now undertaking a rigorous assessment preparatory to listing it for a global ban, alongside DDT and its other persistent organochlorine relatives.

“ERMA has made the right decision to get rid of a pesticide that is contaminating the global food supply,” declared Ms Alison White of the Safe Food Campaign. “Endosulfan has been found in body fat, breast milk, placental tissue and umbilical cord blood, largely as a result of residues in food. We would also welcome an urgent reassessment of other hazardous pesticides still used in New Zealand, notably the herbicide 2,4-D and the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos,” she added. “Like endosulfan, these pesticides can have an effect on hormone function even at minute doses. Chlorpyrifos and 2,4-D have both have been linked to brain damage in young animals, embryos and foetuses.”

“ERMA have made a real Christmas present for food safety and the environment by banning the use of endosulfan in New Zealand from January 16, 2009,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“The decision is much better than previous ERMA reassessment decisions would have had us expect and is a credit to the many people that signed the petitions and made submissions, as part of the campaigns of Dr Meriel Watts and Pesticide Action Network, Soil & Health, Safe Food Campaign, Sue Kedgley Green Party MP, and also those in Tauranga that campaigned against the sports field use of the insecticide.”

The three organisations carried out a number of residue tests on produce earlier this year to draw attention to the extent of endosulfan residues, especially in tomatoes.

“We found residues in both New Zealand and Australian tomatoes. The residue levels were not safe, despite being legal, and in some cases were high enough to trigger the growth of breast cancer cells. Lets hope Australia now revisits its decision to keep using the insecticide, so that the tomatoes they send us in winter will also be free of endosulfan” said Dr Watts.

“This decision vindicates our call for urgent reassessment of the older pesticides. There are many others needing reassessment and ERMA must have a substantial lift in funding to speed its reassessment process.”

“Methyl bromide, subject to international treaty due to its devastating effects on the ozone layer, is due to begin the ERMA reassessment process but economic benefits to forestry risk allowing that neurotoxin to continue being released into the atmosphere” said Mr Browning.

“While we are pleased ERMA has a program of reassessment, it will take at least another five years for just the 20 worst pesticides to be looked at. In the meantime pesticides with known adverse effects on health and the environment continue to be used. ERMA must speed up reassessments by looking at groups of substances together, such as organophosphates and pesticides which are aerially sprayed.”

“New Zealand needs to be a leader in removing pesticides not a follower,” said Mr Browning, “Organic foods produced without such pesticides are the fastest growing sector of the food and beverage trade internationally and have been identified as best value products for New Zealand to be exporting.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 and a future proofed clean green Aotearoa New Zealand.

Country of Origin Labelling fairness wanted by NZ consumers

/in ,

New Zealand consumers deserve urgent commitment by government agencies to Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling, considering the main excuse by Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is no longer valid, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

“Access to the United States market has been the most used example of why New Zealand doesn’t support Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling (MCoOL), yet consumers in the U.S. have now had MCoOL introduced,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

Soil & Health is part of more than 25 organisations in a group, ‘CoOL New Zealand’, formed to continue the push for change in New Zealand’s country of origin labelling laws. At an official launch hosted by Horticulture New Zealand in Wellington this morning, CoOLNZ officially launched www.cool.org.nz – Country of Origin Labelling website and facebook group ‘I Want A CoOL New Zealand’.

Country of Origin Labelling became effective in the United States for meat and perishable agricultural commodities such as fresh fruits and vegetables on September 30 *. Fish and shellfish had been subject to COOL requirements since April 2005. Products falling under US CoOL requirements now include beef, lamb, pork, chicken, goat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh fruits and vegetables, and some nuts such as peanuts, pecans and macadamia nuts.

“Meat and milk powder exports particularly to the United States are the commodities generally believed to be responsible for the lack of fair labelling in New Zealand, however Meat & Wool New Zealand said in the October 6 Farmers Weekly that there was not an issue of cost to them.”

“Considering the United States move, it is blatantly unfair that any other exporter or a free trade philosophy should prevent Kiwi consumers from full country of origin choice when purchasing their food.”

“Australian consumers also have vastly better CoOL choice than Kiwis, and New Zealand maintains a difference to Australia contrary to most other Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) decisions.”

“More and more often, New Zealanders are hearing of pesticide or additive residues, poor labour conditions, environmental degradation and animal welfare issues from a range of countries, but cannot easily choose to avoid products from those countries when shopping here.”

“Soil & Health’s own residue sampling showed the pesticide dimethoate in Australian tomatoes purchased in New Zealand, and although New Zealand growers do not use the chemical, shoppers are often not able to tell the difference as our current law has no mandatory Country of Origin Labelling.”

Dimethoate, a systemic organo-phosphate insecticide, is used as an insecticidal dip to kill the Queensland fruit fly in produce imported from Australia to New Zealand.

“Pesticide residues in imported food and the health effects of them are an urgent consumer and health issue. Although fantastic labeling examples such as at most New World supermarkets do exist, voluntary labeling as promoted by Foodstuffs or Progressive through their supermarkets is often either not working or is poorly utilized, and certainly not enforceable.”

“Soil & Health submitted to the Parliamentary Health Select Committee in support of the 39,000 signature Green Party- initiated petition calling for mandatory CoOL. ”

New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) was a submitter against CoOL to the Parliamentary select committee, which recently considered the Green Party initiated petition of 39,000 Kiwis wanting MCoOL.

“Consumers wanting to avoid growth hormone and antibiotic laced meat deserve to be able to bypass products from the huge proportion of imported pork. Whatever the soothing tones from authorities on melamine or other toxins, consumers must be able to make their own choices,” said Mr Browning

Soil & Health promotes a vision of an Organic 2020 with emphasis on locally produced healthy food.

NOTE:
* U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service web site at http://www.ams.usda.gov

New editor at Organic NZ

/in ,

New Zealand’s leading organics and sustainable living magazine, Organic NZ, has just appointed Philippa Jamieson as editor, starting with the next issue, out in the news stands late October.

Ms Jamieson, a freelance writer and editor, has contributed to Organic NZ for several years. Her book The Wild Green Yonder: Ten Seasons Volunteering on New Zealand’s Organic Farms, was published last year, and this year she volunteered on six organic farms in Europe.

“More and more people are farming and growing organically, eating organic food and using organic products in homes and businesses,” said Ms Jamieson.

“Organic NZ offers information and inspiration for people wanting to live healthy, sustainable lifestyles, as well as practical tips for farmers and home gardeners.”

The magazine is published by the not-for-profit Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, the world’s oldest organisation dedicated to organic production, founded in 1941. Philippa Jamieson, a long-time member of Soil & Health, sat on the association’s national council from 2006-2008, taking on the role of co-chair in 2007.

“Philippa brings a wealth of experience to the editor role, and an understanding of Soil & Health’s philosophy and aims,” said Steffan Browning, Soil & Health co-chair and spokesman. “Organic NZ is the flagship of our association, carrying news of our campaigns and articulating our commitment to genuine sustainability and our vision of an Organic 2020.”

“For New Zealand to live up to our clean, green reputation, we must clean up our act,” Ms Jamieson said. “Organic NZ is reporting on the positive changes going on around the country, and is an expression of Soil & Health’s motto of healthy soil, healthy food, healthy people.”

Kiwi poll rejects GE animals

/in , ,

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.

 

INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS FROM SURVEY

“The public and potential consumers need more information about the actual ‘modifications’ that will be undertaken. The potential to damage the already tarnished ‘green’ image of New Zealand is vast. The prospect of discovering some vague benefit ‘by accident’ is probably outweighed 100-1 by the chance of causing some unexpected harm ‘by accident’.”

“Many historical agricultural moves have been proven to work only for the company that developed them and have not necessarily increased production or profits for farmers”.

“These are the same type of people who said making beef feed from scrapie-infected lamb poses no risk, yet this is where BSE came from.”

“It is part of our ‘clean green’ image overseas to avoid the GE package and with a little-known economy like ours a reputation (even if it’s not true) goes a long way to identifying us.”

“In theory it sounds fantastic to be able to progress with potential medical advancements, however the risks of cross-contamination are unknown and that is why my view is ‘on the fence’.

“I would like more information on what they are doing and how safe it is so that if things go wrong we are protected. I would just want more information to be available as to the exact things they are going to do, not just a general overview. It could be worthwhile but it just doesn’t sound right towards animals.”

“It’s a waste of time and money; just cancel the plan.”

“It is short sighted, our focus should be protecting our clean green and unmodified image.”

“Let the international companies who are backing this research do it in their own countries.”

“It is not time to do this in New Zealand yet. Give it another ten years and try again.”

 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The survey of 1007 people was conducted between the 23rd and 28th of September 2008 through Colmar Brunton’s Omnijet and is a representative sample of the New Zealand online population.

The question asked:
“Do you support the genetic modification of animals in New Zealand?”

The following statement introduced the question:
Government research institute AgResearch has applied to develop Genetically Modified (GM)* animals at sites around New Zealand, including Waikato, Canterbury, and Southland.

AgResearch are seeking approval for an unlimited period of time, to genetically modify cows, goats, sheep, pigs, deer, llama, horses, rats, mice, guinea pigs, rabbits, chickens and cell-lines from humans and monkeys.

The intention is to recombine genes from the different species for research, as well as for commercial production of pharmaceuticals and milks with potential medical effects. The GM animals will be kept indoors or behind secure fencing outdoors. Food products developed from the GM animals will have official approval to be sold.

Concerns raised about the applications include the impact on New Zealand’s clean green reputation, animal suffering in the experiments, potential for new diseases or contamination of soil, and liability of the public for costs of clean-up if something unexpected goes wrong.

AgResearch believes it can be at the cutting edge of genetic modification of ‘transgenic’ animals and become a world leader. It has investment from overseas biotechnology companies which are interested in the cost efficiency of producing pharmaceuticals in New Zealand animals. AgResearch says other benefits may also be found by accident through the experiments.

*Sometimes called Genetically Engineered (GE) organisms.

ERMA’s GE horse vaccine use must be determined by ERMA

/in ,

Yesterday’s Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) hearing on the application by the Horse Racing Industry to use genetically engineered canary pox virus vaccines against equine influenza showed big risks for the agricultural sector here, the organic sector and primary industries that want to market goods as GE Free, according to the Soil & Health Association.

The question raised was if the GE vaccine application were to be approved by ERMA, would its use be mandatory if equine influenza was discovered? A horse racing representative replied that it would be MAF-Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) that would make those decisions.

“In the event of an equine influenza outbreak, there is the possibility of the mandatory use of live GE Canary pox virus vaccine, even though farmers, life-stylers, horse owners and organic producers may lose markets that demand GE Free products,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“ERMA must decline the application if it cannot ensure protection of the livelihoods and sustainable management choices of New Zealand growers. Leaving such decisions to a MAF-BNZ incursion reaction is too risky considering that the cost – benefit analysis could not be done comprehensively at the time. In past cases MAF-BNZ has downplayed the risks of GE contamination.”

“Loss of GE Free status or organic certification and potentially leaving numerous GE contaminated sites throughout New Zealand for a short term benefit for the racing industry is a task of ERMA’s.”

“Just as DDT, which was billed as a “safe” solution to grass grub decades ago, but left long term contamination and loss of land use options, this GE flu vaccine will potentially leave contamination that cannot be cleaned up.”

“In the event of mandatory use of GE canary pox virus vaccine against equine influenza, there must be a cost to the racing industry for the compensation of the thousands of horse and property owners that do not want their GE Free status tampered with.”

“There are non-GE options and the racing industry and MAF-BNZ must ensure that quarantine and incursion event management is maintained at a high standard using the effective non-GE vaccines available already.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 and is opposed to GE in food and environment.

GE protest in Wellington against the end of A GE Free NZ

/in , ,

Today’s 9am ERMA GE hearing in Wellington will begin with a 8-30am protest outside the Terrace Conference Centre, St Johns House, 114 The Terrace.

Today’s hearing is in response to the New Zealand Racing Board’s attempt to gain approval to import for release genetically modified vaccines (Proteqflu and Proteqflu Te) to protect horses against Equine Influenza.

“This application could mark the end of New Zealand’s GE Free status, as the use of the living GE vaccine would be a release throughout the environment where ever horses live,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “A horse race to hell, using avian flu genetic constructs. What is that meant to do to New Zealand’s clean green trading image.”

“Applications by AgResearch for a range of GE animals and experiments will also be the subject of today’s protest. Those applications open for submissions until October 31, effectively amount to a genetically engineered zoo that includes the use of human genes and unacceptable animal welfare practices.”

“The protest will include members of the Soil & Health Association, GE Free NZ, SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation), and the Green Party, in an expression of disappointment in recent applications to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).”

“Fundamental safeguards for the environment, and for New Zealand’s economic and public health are not in place, yet ERMA still accepts and processes applications for GE release.”

ERMA is yet to decide against an application, despite large opposition including expert technical evidence. GE field test auditing and compliance enforcement by MAF Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) has also been proven to be poor as shown by the now discontinued Scion GE tree field test.

“When things go wrong, liability will still rest with a community that still does not want GE.”

“In recognition of the level of community concern, all Northland’s District Councils plus Rodney and Waitakere have agreed on collaborative GE community consultation as the first step in local authorities from Auckland north investigating some type of local regulation (or prohibition) of GMO land use,” said Mr Browning. “Yet these applications could override the responsible approach of those communities.”

“Today’s protest is also under the shadow of an ERMA decision due on Crop & Food’s earlier application for a GE onion family (alium) field trial for a secret Canterbury location. The Environment Canterbury’s (ECAN) CEO was recently very clear that he did not consider GE experiments or crops a regional responsibility. However in the absence of sound law or decisions at a national level, regional and district councils need to act soon.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 and is opposed to GE in food and environment.

Aspartame promotion again lacks independence

/in ,

A public relations exercise that is currently responding to a 5% drop in sales of products sweetened with the artificial sweetener aspartame is once again misleading the public about aspartame safety, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

Seminars to promote the artificial sweetener are being run by the New Zealand Nutrition Foundation and supported by Coca- Cola Oceania. Speakers are Dr Bernadene Magnuson, a consultant to aspartame manufacturer Ajinomoto, and celebrity nutritionist Nikki Hart.

“The New Zealand Nutrition Foundation is a trade sponsored organisation whose title belies its real purpose, to facilitate trade for its members. It frequently uses material from its similarly funded peers in the United States,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Dr Bernadene Magnuson is internationally known for her biased review and selective quoting of industry funded science, whilst ignoring the large body of independent science that reveals the adverse effects of aspartame. The review, which used a non-independent panel, was funded by aspartame manufacturer Ajinomoto. Magnuson is an industry mouthpiece, sponsored by heavy aspartame user Coca-Cola and its misleadingly-titled The Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness of The Coca-Cola Company.”

“Since when has any Coca-Cola product been useful in health and wellness?”

“Nikki Hart, who is actively promoting aspartame use in presentations in Auckland and Wellington, failed to mention an important study published in 2005 that was conducted over eight years at the University of Texas. This study reported a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day. She instead uses research from Dr Blackburn, another Coca-Cola and industry supported collaborator of Dr Magnuson.”

While aspartame consumption has not been independently and conclusively been proven to help with weight loss, some research shows aspartame and other artificial sweeteners induce carbohydrate craving, which results in weight gain.

“Unfortunately our own New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) with its trade focus also uses similarly biased reviews instead of initiating genuinely independent research. Maybe its NZFSA title should read New Zealand Food Sales Authority.”

“New Zealanders are ill from the use of aspartame and yet it remains available in ‘Diet’ drinks in many schools.”

An analysis by Walton in 1996 of 166 studies on aspartame showed that all of the 74 published industry-funded studies attested to aspartame’s safety, whereas 92% of the independently funded research identified a problem. This pattern has continued.

Aspartame is the most commonly used synthetic sweetener in “Diet” drinks and sugar-free products, but has been the subject of controversy ever since early research linked it to cancers and neurological problems. In New Zealand aspartame gained more prominence in May 2007 following publicity of Wellington woman Abby Cormack’s aspartame poisoning symptoms. Ms Cormack conclusively linked the aspartame in the Wrigley’s chewing gum and Diet Coke that she was consuming, to her severe health problems.

During presentations to the Parliamentary Health Select Committee this year in response to an 8,000 signature petition calling for restrictions and warnings on aspartame use, the Ministry of Health’s Elizabeth Aitken and New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s toxicologist John Reeve both agreed that there was a link between aspartame and some illnesses.

“The petition has not been acted on by the Parliamentary Health Committee which, apart from a thorough minority report by Green MP Sue Kedgley, took the NZFSA ‘yes minister’ information as adequate,” said Mr Browning.

“The New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) continues to claim that aspartame is one of the most studied substances in the world, yet conveniently brushes aside the fact that while all industry-funded studies do not show a problem, the overwhelming majority of independent studies do. The reason it has been so studied is because its use has always been controversial.”

According to Nikki Hart there has been a recent drop of 5% in the consumption of products containing aspartame due to the “anti-aspartame bombardment” last year.

“Thanks to the efforts of Abby Cormack, the Soil & Health Association, Safe Food Campaign, Phoenix Organics, the Green Party’s Sue Kedgley and other active consumers and NGOs, that is something to celebrate. Many New Zealanders will be the better for it and Nikki Hart would do well to be involved with promoting natural sweeteners like the herb Stevia,” said Mr Browning.

Following its motto; Healthy Soil, Healthy Food and Healthy People, the Soil & Health Association advocates the use of natural and organic sweeteners and an Organic 2020 free of synthetic food additives.

Notes:

The global market for aspartame is around 17000 tonnes, worth US$637m (Leatherhead Food International)

For a referenced rebuttal of Dr Magnuson’s Ajinomoto funded science review;
http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_and_manufacturer_funded_reviews.htm

Aspartame (951, Equal, Nutrasweet) is an artificial sweetener found in over 6000 products including diet drinks, sugar free products, dietary supplements, sports drinks and medications.

Aspartame has been linked to many health symptoms, including those expressed as ADHD, anxiety, depression, irritability, confusion, memory loss, insomnia, dizziness, migraines, cramps, abdominal pain, numbness or tingling of extremities, rashes, chronic fatigue, and sight and personality changes.