Scion’s GE Tree Field Trial Research Result Claims Unsubstantiated

/in , ,

Crown Research Institute Scion’s claim that its research shows that GE trees are environmentally safe is seriously misleading, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

Soil & Health also believes that aspects of the GE pine tree field trial at Rotorua were continuously in breach of consent conditions and international obligations, for the trial’s entire life.

Scion has issued a media report stating that its research based on its field trial shows no gene transference into insects and micro-organisms by GE trees and consequently genetically engineered trees are safe.

“Scion’s prematurely terminated research is incomplete in design, unfinished, and unpublished in a peer reviewed journal,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “Without good design and an appropriate research period, followed by publication in a peer reviewed journal, how can a CRI make credible claims?”

In respect of concerns that modified genes could be inadvertently transferred from transgenic plants, into the wider environment, Scion chief executive Dr Tom Richardson had said, “In the case of this trial, our results show that this did not occur. The trial has been monitored for nearly five years and there is no evidence of gene transfer into other organisms, or negative impact in the soil environment or insect population in and around the trial site.”

Monitoring at the site is intended for another two years following removal of the trees in the next few weeks, aimed at detecting any potential gene transfer.

“For Scion to say that there was no horizontal gene transfer (HGT) following a primitive and short term study of only 5 years so far, is naïve or even duplicitous, certainly misleading” said Mr Browning.

Canterbury University School of Biological Sciences Professor Jack Heinemann (1), has asked, “Given that it would take all 6 billion people on earth, working in parallel, 30 thousand years to properly demonstrate no transgene transfer from those trees to just soil bacteria (much less all the other organisms in the environment) how did this independent research achieve a previously impossible detection capacity?”

“Scion’s attempts to vindicate incomplete research is more likely a ploy to satisfy its giant US dominated GE forest partner ArborGen’s multi-million dollar investment in Scion, and to urgently satisfy Government concerns about key recommendations by the Royal Commission into Genetic Modification not being met,” said Mr Browning. “Other claims made by Scion also lack credibility

A recent report by think-tank Sustainable Future, analysing key recommendations by the Royal Commission into Genetic Modification, found that some recommendations accepted by government yet not implemented, and requiring significant policy work, included

6.12 That the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) requires research on environmental impacts on soil and ecosystems before release of genetically modified crops is approved.

and

7.4 That, in connection with any proposal to develop genetically modified forest trees, an ecological assessment be required to determine the effects of the modification on the soil and environmental ecology, including effects on soil micro-organisms, weediness, insect and animal life, and biodiversity.

The authors of the Sustainable Future review also think that New Zealand may be in breach of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity: that is, the research currently undertaken by Scion is using GM sterility traits (often referred to as terminator technology or more technically as Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs)).

New Zealand had undertaken to have the UN position changed but following worldwide condemnation of GURTs in 2006, then Environment Minister David Benson-Pope said that New Zealand fully supported the consensus agreement reached by the international Working Group on genetic use restriction technologies (GURTs) and supports further research on the impacts of GURTs.

“If Scion’s short term research is portrayed as also saying GURTs in trees are safe in the environment, then New Zealand will be open to worldwide riducule,” said Mr Browning.

“Soil & Health has raised critical non-compliance issues at Scion in December 2007, with MAF Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) the compliance auditors potentially allowing GE pollen release. The trees were never trimmed to the 2m hedge, making pollen detection all the more difficult.”

The Environmental Risk Management Authority in its pre-hearing assessment (2) had stated, “ERMA New Zealand considers that it is likely that some pollen may be inadvertently shed during the trials due to reproductive structures not being removed (either by being missed or not being recognised) prior to maturity.,” and in its approval of the Scion field trial had stipulated, “To facilitate detection and removal of reproductive structures, all genetically modified trees shall be trimmed to maintain a 2m lower “hedge” with a single leader growing to a maximum height of 5m.”

Scion chief executive Dr Tom Richardson stated,” The results from this research trial support the argument that genetically modified trees are low-risk and can be safely introduced into the environment, without having a negative effect on other organisms.”

“However a very few years of trial is grossly inadequate to make such a sweeping statement of environmental safety.” said Mr Bowning, “It would seem commercial imperatives are the stronger in Scion’s objectives. Dr Richardson would do well to remember that his role is on a New Zealand Crown Research Institute and the New Zealand environment must come before investment partner ArborGen’s dreams of global forestry and biofuel domination.”

“New Zealand forestry company Rubicon as a third share holder in ArborGen is also implicated in the mad rush to plant large scale GE eucalypt plantations in the USA and Brazil. These commercial imperatives are blocking good science and precaution and New Zealand must take a stand against the risk of global ecological disaster.”

“Poor science with a New Zealand label also has the potential to ruin the clean green reputation that New Zealand’s primary production and tourism currently enjoys.”

“Considering overwhelming opposition to genetic engineering in New Zealand, field trials should be treated as a privilege and run to the highest level of precaution.”

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

————————————

(1) Heinemann, J.A., and T. Traavik. 2004. Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 22:1105-1109.

(2) The length of the field trial

The proposed field trials will last for up to 20 years, although individual trees will only be grown in the trial site for between three and ten years. The genetically modified trees will not be grown for the normal duration that can be expected in a commercial plantation. Consequently, the proposed field trials will not provide an opportunity for complete evaluation of the genetically modified trees over their expected life span.

Pollen escape
The most important risks with this application are those associated with the possible escape of pollen. Unless very strict containment is maintained, it would be prudent to assume that there are significant risks from cross pollination with trees outside of the trial. The risk is compounded from two factors. The first is the long duration of the trial (20 years) with the increased number of opportunities this represents for the inadvertent development and release of pollen. ERMA New Zealand considers that it is likely that some pollen may be inadvertently shed during the trials due to reproductive structures not being removed
(either by being missed or not being recognised) prior to maturity. The second is uncertainty about the viability and spread of the pollen once released, as little information is available on this. Other consequences of pollen release will depend on whether the genetically modified pollen has increased toxicity or allergenicity. Testing will be required to determine this.

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) to soil microorganisms
Given current knowledge about HGT, it is considered likely that some horizontal gene transfer to soil microorganisms may occur. HGT, if it occurs is unlikely to just involve the genetically modified material so that this issue needs to be considered in a broader context. The key issue in relation to HGT is the consequence of the gene transfer which depends on the function of the material transferred. There is considerable scientific uncertainty about the effects of such transfer and the proposed trial offers opportunities for further research in this area.

Unanticipated host-gene expression
It is possible that some unanticipated effects may result from the genetic modifications due to the method of introducing the foreign genetic material. The magnitude of such alterations are uncertain, although some may be detected during the laboratory phase, and some can be specifically tested for. Such unanticipated changes need to be considered in the context of the potential for natural variation in gene expression in plants due to the plant propagation techniques.

Wellington Regional Council’s independence compromised

/in ,

Toxic methyl bromide gas again wafted out from under a huge tarpaulin on Wellington’s waterfront under dangerous conditions last night from the Greater Wellington Regional Council’s (GWRC) majority owned CentrePort.

The independence of GWRC from CentrePort’s commercial focus is being questioned by the Soil & Health Association.

Soon after 7pm a cover over 15 shipping containers containing logs fumigated with neurotoxic and ozone depleting methyl bromide gas was removed in almost still conditions near Wellington’s busy Aotea and Waterloo Quays. Immediately after another row of containers was covered for fumigation.

“While hundreds of cars were going past, the gas would have been moving slowly in an invisible, odourless and tasteless poisonous mass and may well not have been detected due to monitoring inadequacies,” says Soil & Health Association spokesperson Steffan Browning. “GWRC and CentrePort’s increased monitoring will only prove anything if they chance to be at the ideal spot, but they cannot predict well, what or where that spot is.”

“GWRC states that the monitoring is independent, however last night Centreport staff were taking monitoring results. Centreport with its commercial focus favouring log fumigation is majority owned by GWRC and neither organisation can be truly independent.”

“Two Regional Councillors are on the Centreport board and the political pressure to delay stopping dangerous release of methyl bromide was evident at yesterday’s GWRC regulatory committee meeting when human health came second to business as usual. Some staff and councillors had discouraged Councillor Paul Bruce’s motion for an abatement notice from being served on the fumigator and port.”

“Soil & Health is impressed with the concern of some other Councillors, who could see that the strategy being supported yesterday was not going to quickly address the health risks to the community. Soil & Health urges the Councillors as representatives of the community to reconsider the abatement option.”

“It is doubtful that the same staff and business as usual councillors will want to stand at the Stadium carpark or on Waterloo or Aotea Quay or at the downwind ferry terminal, or be on a dragon boat or twilight sailing, when the tarpaulins come off today.”

“Last week’s event, when strong winds ripped tarpaulins and caused the fumigators to prematurely release hundreds of kilograms of toxic gas without controls, should be enough to ensure an abatement notice stops gas release until safe facilities that can capture the fumigant are installed.”

“Does Wellington want the same appalling statistics of motor neurone disease as is the case with Nelson Port workers? Have the Wellington authorities checked or will they try and fudge the data as Occupational Safety and Health and others did in Nelson, and blend the statistics across the whole community?”

“Soil & Health is committed to removal of ozone depleting neurotoxic fumigants from our clean green environment and aims for an Organic 2020.”

Photos available:
Photo 1 shows a yacht sailing less than 1 hour after gas was released last night with fumigated containers part hidden behind logs. The yacht / Waterloo Quay – Stadium / Ferry Terminal: which were the unlucky sites last night?
Photo 2 shows tarpaulin covered containers behind the log stack at Waterloo Quay. This is part of the huge tarpaulin that will be removed today in northerly winds. Who and where will be unlucky today?

Get diet drinks out of our schools!

/in ,

A petition requesting the removal of all products containing aspartame and other artificial sweeteners from schools will be presented to parliament on Thursday 17 April at 12.15pm. Free Phoenix drinks without aspartame will be distributed at the petition presentation on the parliamentary forecourt.

Abby Cormack, previously poisoned with aspartame products, will run 951 metres with a diet drink baton, to represent 951, the additive code number of aspartame, the artificial sweetener also labelled phenylalaline’, Equal and Nutrasweet.

The 8,000 signature petition, organised by the Safe Food Campaign and supported by the Soil & Health Association of NZ, also asks for warning labels on all aspartame products, and a programme to raise awareness of aspartame’s toxicity within the medical profession.

“Following agreement with Government, beverage manufacturers are taking sugar sweetened fizzy drinks out of secondary schools, but unfortunately the manufacturers are replacing them with the more dangerous
aspartame-containing drinks,” said Soil & Health Association spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“The isolated phenylalaline in aspartame has been shown to deplete serotonin levels and lower the seizure threshold. This can trigger mood swings, suicidal tendencies and behavioural problems – exactly
the sort of problems we want to lessen in our young people, not increase.”

“The alarming increase of obesity and type II diabetes can obviously be attributed to several factors, but several American medical experts are convinced that increasing the consumption of aspartame will accentuate these problems, maintained Alison White, Co-convenor of the Safe Food Campaign.

“Recent research has linked artificial sweeteners with carbohydrate cravings. As well, intake of aspartame worsens symptoms of diabetics and interacts with insulin.”

“Fizzy drinks sweetened with aspartame not only lack nutrients, but also contain a substance that is clearly linked to undesirable effects on health. It is irresponsible to expose our young people even more to such a
questionable substance,” concluded Ms White.

The Safe Food Campaign offers consumers information so they can make a more informed choice when buying food.

Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and promotes a diet free from synthetic additives.

NOTE:
Aspartame (951, Equal, Nutrasweet, ‘phenylalaline’) is an artificial sweetener found in over 6000 sugar free and diet products, including diet drinks, chewing gum, dietary supplements, sports drinks and medications.

Review shows that NZ is not ready for GE production – time for Organics to lead the way

/in , , ,

The Review of the Forty-Nine Recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification released today by Sustainable Future, reinforces the deep concerns recently expressed by the Soil & Health Association of NZ about GE decision making and field tests.

Sustainable Future Ltd is a sustainable research and think tank organisation that has undertaken an extensive review of the 2001 Royal Commission on Genetic Modification’s warrant and recommendations, and the government level of acceptance and implementation of the recommendations.

“Particularly significant is the Reviews finding that although recommended by the Royal Commission in 2001, investigation into potential adverse effects of GE in the environment has been at a low to zero level, and protection for beekeepers and co-existence systems between GE and non GE producers has not been devised,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“The poor implementation of the Royal Commission’s recommendations means that once again a crisis of direction for Aotearoa New Zealand’s future with genetic engineering has emerged.”

“The new knowledge of major shortcomings in GE production, coupled with huge increases in demand for organic and non-GE food and fibre, allows New Zealand to use this opportunity to stop GE in its tracks and maximise a GE Free, clean green and 100% Pure brand in the world.”

The Sustainable Future review noted that the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification in 2001 had taken a middle path of neither totally accepting GE, nor totally precluding GE, but took a position called ‘preserving opportunities’ and formulated 49 recommendations that included allowing for non-GE producers to be able to maintain production, organic or otherwise, without fear of GE contamination.

“Lack of implementation of the Commission’s recommendations means that cannot happen unless GE development stops,” says Mr Browning. “The Royal Commission failed to consider the GE Free option fully and Sustainable Future have shown today that that opportunity is once again here.”

“The Sustainable Future report findings, that only 41% of the Royal Commission’s recommendations have been fully implemented and none of the ‘Crops and other field uses’ recommendations were implemented, shows government disregard for the 70% of New Zealanders who do not want GE food production here.”

“The decision making process by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has meant granting of GE field trials without the prior research anticipated by the Royal Commission, and the current application by Crop & Food that would allow flowering of onion crops and no soil studies ahead of the trial, is so likely to be granted that making submissions against it is a likely waste of time.”

Soil & Health has repeated concerns about the legislative gaps and submission and decision making process directly to senior ERMA officials, just three weeks ago.

Two examples of the 29 recommendations by the Royal Commission not implemented are (1) that GE crops need to be excluded from regions where their presence would be a significant threat to an established non-GE crop and (2) that MAF provide a strategy to ensure that honey is not contaminated with GE pollen.

“If the proposed GE field trials on onion, garlic, leeks, shallots and spring onions go ahead, these plants will go to flower and seed. Even if the flowers are covered, it is possible that bees may get access to them and that honey be contaminated. This could potentially spell the end of New Zealand’s reputation as a producer of excellent quality, GE-free honey,” says Soil & Health Councillor and former Crop & Food GE scientist Elvira Dommisse.

“As the Sustainable Future team have found that with a lack of preparedness for full release of GE organisms, due to insufficient Royal Commission recommendations being implemented, there is also the possibility of New Zealand pursuing GE Free food production,” says Mr Browning.

“ What is now required is a government commitment that recognised the unique GE Free branding opportunities that our country could enjoy, with organics poised to maximise that economic benefit.”

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

Euthanase GE animals, don’t create more!

/in , ,

An application by AgResearch to trial many different genetically engineered animal types in its laboratories and farms is an ugly step in the wrong direction for brand New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure image, according to the Soil & Health Association.

“Kiwis don’t want GE. Our export markets don’t want GE. The GE trials we have already are being mismanaged. It is time to euthanase AgResearch’s current GE cattle, not add a macabre zoo to their unnatural and unwanted experiment,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

AgResearch is preparing an application to undertake genetic engineering research and development on a wide range of species including cattle, sheep, goats, deer, zebu, buffalo, horses, chickens and rabbits, and use genetic material from a wide range of donor species including human (synthetic) proteins.

The application is also to include a scaling up of current research and to undertake normal farm-scale activities so that sufficient numbers of animals can be maintained to enable pharmaceutical and nutraceutical production.

“The broad range of animals and recombinations envisaged by AgResearch comes when previous and existing experiments have still not been adequately managed and very real risks have still not been properly investigated,” says Mr Browning.

“On a site inspection at AgResearch’s Ruakura GE facility, Soil & Health saw non GE sheep and cattle grazing on land subject to drainage from the GE facility. There is a poor level of care and concern about the environment within and beyond this and previous GE experimental facility boundaries.”

“GE constructs and derivatives including antibiotic resistant genes have been located in the soil at current GE facilities yet further research and clean up has been minimal, and one retired GE sheep experimental property at Whakamaru is once again for sale with conventional animals grazing there without any follow up residues research.”

“AgResearch appears to act as a law unto itself, and in one example AgResearch breached conditions of its GE cattle consent by inserting a GE embryo into a GE cow. Its penalty was remonstrating with itself by a review of its procedures. The original consent had expressly disallowed such a procedure, and it is very difficult to imagine a science technician not being well aware of their actions.”

“Every ERMA approved field trial, whether plant or animal, has fallen down on its conditions and for AgResearch to be applying for a veritable zoo to play with, is both risky, unethical and goes against New Zealand’s point of difference in the world, clean green, 100% Pure and essentially GE Free.”

“Euthanasia of AgResearch’s current GE herd and elimination of all GE field tests will be better for New Zealand’s environmental and economic future,” says Mr Browning.

Soil & Health promotes an Organic 2020 with food and environment free from GE.

New GE onions trial a waste of resources

/in , ,

Crop & Food’s application for a new, riskier field trial of genetically engineered (GE) onions, plus shallots, spring onions, garlic and leeks is a waste of resources and expertise and will receive widespread public opposition, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

“Rather than continuing down the GE path, which is unwanted by consumers and export markets, Soil and Health would rather see research and trials into organic growing methods,” said spokesman Steffan Browning.

“The need of keeping the new GE trial’s site secret is understandable, considering the level of anger in the community at GE field trials and at the poor compliance of consent conditions.”

Crown research institute Crop & Food is applying for a 2.5 ha GE field trial in Canterbury using a wide range of genetic constructs in allium plants (onion, garlic leek). It intends operating in much less than international accepted standards for buffer zones of 1000 metres from possible non-GE onion growers. Crop & Food has previously trialled GE onions in a 400 sq metre plot with some difficulty.

Crop and Food Research now wants to plant onion seed directly in the ground and allow some onion plants to flower in the field in order to produce seed. The flowering onions would be caged in an attempt to prevent insects carrying pollen to non-GM onions outside the site.

“This field trial is too risky and must not go ahead. GE field trial operators have consistently failed to meet consent conditions, and the likelihood of human failure combined with climate and animal interference means that caged or otherwise, letting GE plants flower in the New Zealand environment is too risky. The community is unlikely to allow the trial to proceed,” said Mr Browning.

“The Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) negligence to insist on testing for adverse effects at field trials means that possible full commercial release might happen in the future without those tests having occurred. The submission process is a sham making submissions by the community practically pointless.”

“GE field test auditing and compliance enforcement by MAF Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) has also been proven to be poor as shown by the Scion GE tree field test. Scion GE trees still remain unpruned correctly risking GE pollen release.”

“Unless drastically improved, these gaps in care and enforcement are likely to be filled by the community.”

“There have not been adequate studies of known and potential adverse effects at the last Crop & Food GE onion field test site. This new trial has even more risks including cross contamination to other growers by proposing that some GE plants can set flowers for seed. Sowing small GE seeds directly in the ground also adds further risk of contamination.”

“Organic and conventional non-GE growers and gardeners must be able to have confidence in government agencies ability to protect them from GE contamination. Applications such as this and AgResearch’s intended menagerie of GE animals application makes a mockery of New Zealand’s clean green GE Free 100% Pure market branding, and threatens consumer confidence for the future.

“CRIs Crop & Food, AgResearch and Scion all make significant and valuable non-GE research and developments, but their GE portfolios bring them into disrepute.”

“Soil & Health suggests that CRIs join the drive to genuine sustainability and focus on clean progressive research and development. Stop wasting taxpayers’ money and give clean producers their best opportunities.”

Soil & Health is opposed to all GE field tests and has a vision of an Organic 2020.

NOTE: Photographs of successful GE Free onion seed crops available.

Food safety review lacks true independence

/in ,

Soil & Health is concerned that the review of some New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s (NZFSA) decisions including A1-A2 milk, artificial sweetener aspartame and campylobacter, lacks the independence required.

“In a fox in charge of the henhouse scenario, the NZFSA who was being criticised for its decisions, decided on a review, drafted terms of reference, and then effectively chose their reviewer, Dr Stuart Slorach,” said Soil & Health Association spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“This exercise is unlikely to be anything more than a deferral of the A1-A2 debate, a whitewash of NZFSA practices and a Trojan horse for even more harmonisation with international food standards regulator Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), with New Zealanders losing even more sovereignty and control of their food supply and its safety.”

“Dr Slorach as a previous chair of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and also chair of Codex, while heavily qualified in international food safety risk management, is far too close to the industry biased science decisions that NZFSA have used for their aspartame positioning, and he will struggle to objectively look at the issue.”

Aspartame has been implicated in a range of serious health effects and Soil & Health and Safe Food Campaign have lobbied NZFSA to step in and facilitate withdrawal of the compound from New Zealand foods.

“Due to Soil & Health’s particular interest in aspartame, and as a consumer representative, I was invited to meet with the reviewer,” said Mr Browning.

“However on questioning Dr Slorach’s ability to be objective on the subject of aspartame, considering the pro aspartame stance currently taken by EFSA, he showed a defensive bias towards his EFSA scientists’ report on the safety of aspartame, and Soil & Health will be very pleasantly surprised if he sees any problems with the NZFSA approach to the neurotoxin. NZFSA quoted EFSA reports in its responses to independent research and consumer concerns about aspartame safety.”

”Dr Slorach has interviewed a list of very appropriate people, however that should not lend authenticity to the review’s findings if the concerns of consumers, independent researchers and NGOs are not given practical weighting.”

“The terms of reference are about NZFSA’s decision making, compared with international best practice, and with a head of Codex doing the review we can expect recommendations to be focused on harmonisation with EFSA and Codex. NZFSA’s more obvious point of difference with other similar food safety authorities is that it uses a risk management framework and others use a risk assessment framework that incorporates the precautionary principle.”

“Regardless the decision making approaches, NZFSA, EFSA and Codex all share a history of being weighted towards economic benefits and trade imperatives. Soil & Health has long pointed out that New Zealand representation to Codex rarely represents New Zealand consumer concerns.”

“Harmonisation of food safety decision making processes will not relieve the very real distress that people in NZ and around the world were experiencing on a daily basis from aspartame poisoning. The challenge is with Dr Slorach.”

Soil & Health advocates for a food supply free of toxic synthetic ingredients and shares a vision of an Organic 2020.

Rotorua GE Tree Trial remains an environmental threat

/in , ,

The GE tree field trial at Rotorua, run by Crown research institute Scion, has an increasing risk of spreading GE pollen according to the Soil & Health Association.

“Scion, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ), and ERMA are continuing to allow GE pine trees to grow in a way that makes GE pollen dispersal all the more likely,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

According to research from Duke University’s Center on Global Change, which has studied pollen from GE conifer trees, the pollen from transgenic pines can spread more than a thousand miles, leading to as they put it, “substantial … subsequent colonization.”

Following the Soil & Health alert of Scion’s not meeting the conditions of ERMA’s consent, and following a breach by protestors of the GE field trial’s security fence and the cutting down of 19 experimental trees, Scion has taken some corrective actions, but it has left trees unpruned to approximately 4.5 metres.

The ERMA consent requires that the pinus radiata experimental trees are ‘hedged’ at two metres with the central leader allowed to grow to 5 metres. This was to allow detection of male pollen producing structures and the larger female seed bearing cones.

“At two metres most growing tips (where male pollen producing structures occur) would be visible by a Scion researcher or the MAFBNZ auditor. However with the trees now bushy and more than 4.5 metre tall, observation by use of a ladder is quite different from at standing level and makes pollen release just a matter of time.”

“ERMA regards the issue as one to be worked through by Scion and MAFBNZ, but we urge ERMA to ensure the consent requirements are being met. Not hedging at two metres is a clear and very risky breach of consent conditions.”

MAFBNZ have the audit function over GE trials and carried out the investigation of the cutting down of GE trees and of Soil & Health’s concerns.

Soil & Health had reported poor management and auditing of the field trial, of rabbits freely entering the trial, of tractor mowing of GE prunings with no equipment clean down, and of trees not being correctly pruned.

“The MAFBNZ investigation report showed complicity between the decision making agency ERMA, the audit agency MAFBNZ, and the researcher Scion. On the positive side, they have now dealt with the rabbit issues and have erected a fenced area to contain prunings and dead trees ahead of incineration, however what is probably the riskiest aspect, that of potential pollen dispersal, has not been addressed.”

“It must be asked, what is to happen when ERMA and MAFBNZ allow a GE researcher such as Scion to consistently breach the conditions of what must be regarded as a very privileged permission, to field test GE organisms in New Zealand? ”

Soil & Health is opposed to all GE field trials in New Zealand and has a vision of an Organic 2020.

GE brassica planting possibly illegal

/in , ,

Soil & Health is alarmed that Crop & Food has planted genetically engineered brassicas ahead of the March 31 Wellington High Court appeal against the ERMA decision granting permission last year.

The appeal by GE Free NZ was joined by Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ), BioGro, and the Biodynamic Association, and questions potential errors of process by decision maker ERMA.

The possibly flawed decision granted Crop & Food permission to field trial brassicas (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage and forage kale) genetically engineered with a toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis(Bt). However that decision was appealed by GE Free NZ within the allowable timeframe.

“Good process and natural justice should not allow an applicant to proceed with planting a GE field trial when the very basis of that decision is under appeal,” says Soil & Health Association spokesperson Steffan Browning. “Appropriately, if it was the RMA, not a sod would be turned until any appeals against decisions were resolved, as many appeals are upheld. What makes the HSNO Act any different?”

“This latest GE planting shows a cavalier attitude on behalf of Crop & Food’s GE team, as well as from the decision maker ERMA, and compliance agency MAF Biosecurity NZ.”

ERMA have confirmed that the Brassica trial was planted last December, although the High Court appeal is not to be heard until March 31.

Soil & Health’s submission at the ERMA hearing included concerns of GE contamination risks to organic and non-GE growers, resistance to the organic pesticide Bt, horizontal gene transfer, and the threat to New Zealand’s clean green image.

Soil & Health is committed to a GE free environment and food supply and has a vision of an Organic 2020.

New Zealand’s Fast Forward must be organic

/in ,

Yesterday’s government announcement of a new fund called New Zealand Fast Forward of $700 million for future research, development and innovation in the pastoral and food industries has overlooked the obvious need for organics, according to the Soil & Health Association.

“The vision is great but is too timid to say ORGANIC. The potential of this investment is massive if directed in a different direction from the past and it is encouraging that the Fast Forward Overview document says this is not about business as usual,” says Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Business as usual has had genetic engineering and soil life disruptors such as nitrification inhibitors touted as solutions to the mistakes of the past. Fast Forward with the same drivers is fast forward and out for New Zealand. Healthy vital soils and organic production is the way to a sustainable and vibrant future. With an organic focus we can future proof the economy as intended.”

As the Prime Minister’s statement said, “we heard late last year at the Primary Industries 20/20 Summit in Christchurch about the urgent need to lift economic and environmental performance across the primary sectors.”

“I also attended the summit, and the real message was not actually about the big lift in performance that would once again be unsustainable, it was a big NO to GE and a clear YES to ORGANICS, as the demographers who had identified market trends for the next two decades pointed out,” says Mr Browning. “Performance was pushed at the summit, but genuine sustainability was always part of the discussion. More does not necessitate better.”

“The Primary Industries 20/20 Summit identified the dominant market for New Zealand exports until 2030 as the first world baby boomers from North America, Europe and Japan, with discretionary cash who had a focus on ‘wellness’ and who wanted more and more of their food and fibre purchases to be sustainably and ethically produced. Good animal welfare practices, pesticide and GE free, carbon neutral, sustainable water use, and fair trade were identified as part of their preferences. Organics was identified as ideal.”

“So where is the organics in this $700 million equation? Where is the target of 10% organic production by 2012 with research and support to make New Zealand truly sustainable?”

“It appears that no one wants to upset the elephant in the room: the old guard of unsustainable primary production and the exploitive, unsustainable big corporates, with research institutes locked into the same mindset and a wasteful competitive funding structure.”

“The dollar for dollar government and industry arrangement doesn’t easily support the organic sector that has been economically disadvantaged in comparison with the conventional sector. The often unsustainable practices of the chemical-based conventional sector have externalised costs onto the community with pesticide residues, dirty waterways, land degradation and spoiling of our clean green market image. Comparative overseas countries seriously support organics for the benefits for environment, health and community.”

“Does organics only get a look-in if it is part of the giants in this new form of industry-government partnership? Can it be better than just intellectual property and nutraceuticals and GE?”

“Mr Hodgson yesterday quoted two R&D aims. The first was very positive on sustainability, and organics fits perfectly as a solution, however the second while sensibly advocating value adding, got lost in NEW ‘progress in new products, in food ingredients, functional foods, nutraceuticals, all the way to biologically derived pharmaceuticals’, and has missed what our markets actually want; natural, organic and GE free.”

“Mr Hodgson also discussed comparatives with Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands and Canada and extrapolated, “A primary production base can go hand in hand with a higher technology future.” However while none of those has quite the opportunities of New Zealand and its isolation to be a truly clean and green land, Sweden and the Netherlands have government initiated organic production targets already revised upwards. For environmental benefits, community health gains and to future proof our exports, it is time for government policy to have an organic production target,” says Mr Browning.