Landcorp behind the times on organics

/in , , ,

“While the Indian state of Kerala is moving to organics to correct its sustainability problems, it seems that Landcorp doesn’t understand sustainability and is looking for excuses to avoid lifting its game.”

A State Owned Enterprise, Landcorp Farming Limited is New Zealand’s largest agricultural enterprise running 1.5 million stock units – sheep, beef and dairy cattle, deer and goats – on 110 farming units totalling 383,033 hectares.

Landcorp’s Chris Kelly stated on National Radio’s Rural Report recently that organics finds the use of nicotine, arsenic and copper remedies acceptable, and that market premiums do not justify switching to organics. (Transcript below)

“Mr Kelly’s assertions appear to be taken directly from old agribusiness propaganda that is used to promote unsustainable chemical pesticide and fertiliser manufacturing and use. While chemical pesticide and feriliser use is hugely profitable to the agrichemical manufacturers, it is often harmful to environmental and community health. It is unfortunate that Landcorp swallows such misinformation,” said Mr Browning.

“Nicotine and arsenic remedies have never been accepted by organic certifiers. In the case of copper, certifiers like BioGro and Organic Farm NZ, are very careful about its use.”

“Copper is restricted to a few less aggressive formulations, with growers not permitted to use in excess of 3kg per hectare, and management plans showing a move to alternatives. Conventional agriculture doesn’t have such limits. Arsenic, contrary to Mr Kelly’s statement, is not allowed and is even being phased out of posts, with BioGro growers now moving to alternatives. Landcorp, instead of being misleading, would do well to do the same.”

“We also know that Landcorp was offered a 20% price premium by Fonterra, but to dodge moving to more sustainable organic dairy production said they needed 25%.”

“It is time for Landcorp to lift its game, lead by example and dump its archaic chemical regime of excess fertilisers, pesticides and soil degrading nitrification inhibitors, and instead move to soil building, carbon sequestering, animal-friendly, genuinely sustainable organic farming techniques.”

Due to soil depletion through ‘chemical farming’ the Indian state of Kerala is to begin moving its districts into ‘Organic Farming Zones’, in a bid to save the state from the entry of genetically
modified crops and the further use of chemical pesticides. (URL below).

Kerala State Agriculture Minister Mullakkara Ratnakaran, has said, “Irrespective of party affiliations, all the Assembly members will stand united on the decision to finalise Kerala’s organic farming policy.” Other southern Indian states are also developing organic policies in response to organic success and serious sustainability issues from conventional and GE cropping.

“Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020. Such a vision is already being grasped internationally as sustainability issues mount, and for New Zealand’s competitive clean green market reputation and advantage to be maintained, it is timely for Landcorp to show the sustainable organic way here,” said Mr Browning.

ENDS

Notes:

Transcript of Landcorp’s Chris Kelly’s National Radio comment.

“We have been approached by a number of players including Fonterra, to provide organic milk, and the fact is that it is just not justifiable to turn large parts of our properties organic, they can’t get the market premiums out of the market that justify switching to organics. The second point I’d make is around the environmental issues, in my view it is not right to necessarily say that organics are more economically sustainable and friendly than normal farming. An example I’ll give is many of the pesticides and drugs we use are very stringently tested for things like residues and others. Whereas, through organics, it is acceptable to use pretty nasty products such as nicotine, arsenic, and copper, which are very old remedies, and can be much more toxic than the more current remedies we use at present. So, on those grounds, I’m not convinced that organics is necessarily the way to go for us.”
Chris Kelly

Karela State Organic Policies

Clopyralid, a great start to ridding supermarkets of agrichemicals

/in , , ,

Following a reassessment process, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) announced yesterday that weedkillers containing the herbicide clopyralid will be taken off the retail market from 19 August 2008.

“Chemicals that require commercial operators to be trained in handling and use should not be available for retail sale where purchasers may have no experience or training,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “The urban home environment where most children live should be a toxin-free environment.”

Although better known in organic circles as compost killer, clopyralid is used in lawn sprays to maintain weed free lawns. Clopyralid residues do not break down in composting, and tiny amounts of contaminated lawn clippings could downgrade municipal composts, potentially damaging sensitive crops such as potatoes and tomatoes.

Chlopyralid is sold as: No Lawn Weeds, Clover and Prickle; Clopyd 300; Void; Tango; Vivendi 300; Multiple; Contest; Pirate 300; Cardo; Versatill Herbicide; Archer; AGPRO; Cloralid 300; Radiate; and Clout. Soil & Health recommends retail customers carefully look at labels to ensure that this chemical nuisance is removed as soon as possible.

Soil & Health has long lobbied for the removal of clopyralid because it limits the availability of municipal compost for organic vegetable growers, and the Association congratulates the eventual application to ERMA by commercial composter Living Earth, through the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, to have clopyralid taken off the market.

“ERMA’s continued allowance of clopyralid for agricultural weed control and commercial turf management use, means however, that there will still be composting piles of contractors’ grass clippings that are useless for growing vegetables,” said Browning, “Clopyralid requires UV sunlight to breakdown effectively and no matter how hot the depths of a compost heap, clopyralid persists.”

“Unfortunately ERMA hasn’t recognised that commercial and park operators were the original problem when contamination was first noticed in the United States about 20 years ago. Grass collected by contractors is still going into a heap somewhere. The still permitted use as an agricultural herbicide is also unnecessary as there are non-clopyralid options.”

“While the retail withdrawal is a very good move, ERMA needs to be taking bolder steps, by totally removing the risks associated with clopyralid for municipal composters and organic growers alike.”

Depending on the clopyralid product, labels will include, “The substance is not to be used on turf.” and “Treated vegetation shall not be disposed of at any green waste recycling centre.” “Ecotoxic herbicide. Not for use in home gardens.” “ Do not use for treating turf that will be mown and the clippings used for making compost; or made available for collection for, or deposited at, a municipal green waste recycling depot.”

Soil & Health however is concerned that ‘cowboys’ will still contaminate the compost and subsequent food chain. Regardless of warning notices, contamination has been a consistent feature for decades,” said Browning. “I have experienced it my previous glasshouse production several times and yet the composters were being assured by contractors that their material was ‘clean’.”

Soil & Health is also concerned that ERMA’s statement downgraded the very real experience of growers and composters when it stated, “The Agency considers that much of the information presented by the applicant on the effects of clopyralid contamination in compost only amounts to anecdotal evidence. This is because the methods used for the studies were not given or the methodologies used had significant shortcomings.”

“ERMA is rather narrow in its view around ‘expert evidence’, and fails to fully appreciate the experience of growers and composters. Chemical industry statistical science does not make anecdotal evidence any less valid. Precaution should not favour economics.”

Soil & Health has an Organic 2020 target for New Zealand where persistent chemicals such as clopyralid will not cause economic and health risks, and the environment and community health will always come first.

Food Safety Authority continues to shoot the messenger

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association is very concerned that New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) staff are hell-bent on ignoring scientific research that clearly shows the links between aspartame and cancer, especially in children when the mother consumes aspartame during pregnancy. Aspartame converts to formaldehyde when ingested.

Not only that but Food Safety calling the Soil & Health spokesperson a scaremonger is again shooting the messenger instead of attending to the health concerns of the New Zealand community.

“Evidence from award-winning scientific researchers and the increasing local evidence is being studiously ignored by the agency. Why?” asks Soil & Health spokesperson, Steffan Browning.

“The agency has nothing original in its material and is trotting out the same old industry pap. Why? Who are they beholden to? Is it commercial and trade imperatives, philosophical, attitudinal and institutional blindness and deafness? What ever it is, it needs to change very quickly. The information that substantiates the rising list of aspartame victims concerns exists, but the precautionary approach is not even considered unless it is for trade protection.”

“Although the NZFSA toxicologist is touted as an expert, with over 30 years experience, including serving on international expert consultations, he is ignoring mounting research from the international scientific community, such as the following:

“These are indeed extremely high levels for adducts of formaldehyde, a substance responsible for chronic deleterious effects that has also been considered carcinogenic…..
”It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts.” (Trocho 1998)

“It was a very interesting paper, that demonstrates that formaldehyde formation from aspartame ingestion is very common and does indeed accumulate within the cell, reacting with cellular proteins (mostly enzymes) and DNA (both mitochondrial and nuclear). The fact that it accumulates with each dose, indicates grave consequences among those who consume diet drinks and foodstuffs on a daily basis.” (Blaylock 1998)

Methanol from aspartame is released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounters the enzyme chymotrypsin (Stegink 1984, page 143). A relatively small amount of aspartame (e.g., one can of soda ingested by a child) can significantly increase plasma methanol levels (Davoli 1986a).

Clinically, chronic, low-level exposure to methanol has been seen to cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, ear buzzing, GI disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness & shooting pains, behavioral disturbances, neuritis, misty vision, vision tunneling, blurring of vision, conjunctivitis, insomnia, vision loss, depression, heart problems (including disease of the heart muscle), and pancreatic inflammation (Kavet 1990, Monte 1984, Posner 1975).

The methanol from aspartame is converted to formaldehyde and then formic acid (DHHS 1993, Liesivuori 1991), although some of the formaldehyde appears to accumulate in the body as discussed above. Chronic formaldehyde exposure at very low doses has been shown to cause immune system and nervous system changes and damage as well as headaches, general poor health, irreversible genetic damage, and a number of other serious health problems (Fujimaki 1992, He 1998, John 1994, Liu 1993, Main 1983, Molhave 1986, National Research Council 1981, Shaham 1996, Srivastava 1992, Vojdani 1992, Wantke 1996). One experiment (Wantke 1996) showed that chronic exposure to formaldehyde caused systemic health problems (i.e., poor health) in children at an air concentration of only 0.043 – 0.070 parts per million!

“Methanol is a metabolic poison which, in the absence of ethanol (such as in fruits) is unstable and breaks down into formaldehyde, a poison and carcinogen, and formic acid, also a poison and carcinogen,” said Browning.

“The NZFSA “expert” toxicologist quotes formaldehyde in fruit digestion as some sort of equivalent, yet in fruit the methanol does not break down at the same rate into formaldehyde, when bound by natural pectin and is balanced by the proportionately much greater ethanol.”

“Fruit has protective factors which help prevent chronic poisoning from methanol metabolites such as formaldehyde. A dose of aspartame is significantly different than that of a mouthful of fruit which has a range of enzymes and compounds in balance.”

“Some NZFSA staff are also choosing to ignore the very real experiences of New Zealanders who thanks to Abby Cormack, Betty Martini, Safe Food Campaign and Soil & Health have quit aspartame and have recovered from serious life altering health effects,” said Browning.

“For the NZFSA toxicologist to suggest that Soil & Health encouraging people away from a carcinogenic neurotoxic synthetic sweetener is in any way inappropriate because of obesity or diabetes, shows a lack of objectivity. Yes we are taken seriously and the Obesity Action Coalition Executive Director has changed her televised pro-aspartame view since meeting anti-aspartame campaigners Abby Cormack and Betty Martini, and hearing of the corruption and spin, and having the independent research produced in a public forum.”

“Soil & Health will produce research papers substantiating any of its aspartame claims and the supportive information has all been available to NZFSA. It is a matter of will to acknowledge that people in the community are being harmed by aspartame and then actually do something about it.”

“Soil & Health is committed along with Safe Food Campaign, ADHD Society, Mission Possible, many scientists and doctors, consumers and producers to have the toxic aspartame and its stablemates out of the food chain.”

Note:
www.dorway.com/formaldehyde.html

Formaldehyde in diet coke more dangerous than chinese pyjamas

/in , , ,

Formaldehyde is one of the synthetic sweetener aspartame’s by products, and is an even greater health threat than formaldehyde in imported clothing according to Soil & Health.

“Formaldehyde produced in childrens bodies from the aspartame in Diet drinks, some chewing gum and cereals and many processed foods, is likely to be an even greater health hazard than that in the unregulated clothing market,” according to Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning, “Cancer and many other health issues come from the junk additives that the regulated food industry is allowed to use.”

The Ministry of Consumer Affairs says it is urgently looking into the extent of the imported clothing problem and will soon begin analysing clothing samples. It is looking into whether the allegations are true and if stricter controls are needed at the border.

“However, the same sort of concern should be shown by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, the Prime Minister, Health and Food Safety Ministers, and the legions of scuttling bureacrats around the formaldehyde being swilled down in the schools and streets of New Zealand in Diet drinks and chewing gum,” said Browning.

The cancer causing, mostly genetically engineered chemical sweetener known as 951, Equal, aspartame and NutraSweet, is found in over 6000 products internationally including ‘Diet’ drinks, effervescent vitamin tablets, chewing gum, and sweets.

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 personality changes.

“Recently released European Ramazzini Foundation research (1), showed that offspring of rats fed aspartame, developed tumours much earlier than those fed the carcinogen later in life.

Earlier research from the University of Barcelona (2) showed clear evidence that formaldehyde when transformed from aspartame spreads throughout the kidneys, liver, eyes and brain.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington DD has now come out against aspartame and along with 12 prestigious Toxicologists they have asked that the precautionary Delany Clause be invoked and aspartame be removed from the American diet, due to its carcinogenicity. (3)

“Dr. Woodrow Monte Ph.D. retired Professor of Food Science, University of Arizona and early investigator of aspartame, often residing in New Zealand, has said, “Curiosity about the safety of Aspartame need go no further than the indisputable fact that each molecule of the sweetener turns into a molecule of Formaldehyde when metabolized in the human body. Enough said!” (4)

Dr Monte filed the first petition to ban aspartame from use in foods in the United States over 20 years ago, when corrupt political processes introduced the sweetener against the wishes of food safety scientists.

Formaldehyde in food, drink or clothing is dangerous and researchers, Cogliano VJ, Baan RA, Straif K, .(5) make particular mention of garment workers and other industrial users when discussing the cancer causing compound.

“Soil & Health want an immediate removal of aspartame from schools as is happening in other parts of the world where the harm of aspartame is recognised,” said Browning, “and for the hesitant, Soil & Health is also calling as a first step for school boards to pull aspartame from school canteens and vending machines for 60 days to test for behavioural and health improvements in pupils.”

“Should sugar be undesirable, Soil & Health recommends natural alternatives such as stevia, rather than the neurotoxic carcinogenic synthetic sweeteners such as aspartame.”

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

Notes:
(1) http://www.ramazzini.it/fondazione/pdfUpload/Environ%20Health%20Perspect…
(2) http://www.presidiotex.com/barcelona/SUMMARY/summary.html)
(3) http://www.cspinet.org/new/200706251.html
(4) http://www.sweetpoison.com/articles/dr-woodrow-monte4.html
(5) www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7542/7542.html

NZFSA fails food test, bring on the organics

/in , , ,

Soil & Health is looking forward to the Organics Aotearoa New Zealand Conference at Lincoln University, on Friday & Saturday, following release of NZFSA’s Total Diet Survey (TDS) results.

“NZFSA should reduce the spin it puts in its pesticide residue results and admit that it is pure good luck to find pesticide and heavy metal residue free food,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“The statement that of approximately 199,100 individual analytical agricultural compound residue results, 997 results (0.5%) represented detectable residues, was misleading. The majority of the tests were totally irrelevant to the foods tested and were in fact a by catch from a multi residue screen of 221 compounds, multiplied by about 121 tested foods in batches.”

“Of course most foods do not have anything like 221 pesticides near them and so there are numerous zero detections, but put around the other way, we find that numerous foods have one or more residues. Of 121 foods just 25 had no residues, and some of those would instead have dubious food additives also considered safe by the trade focused NZFSA,” said Browning.

“New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) also fails consumers with its food testing by using the spurious Maximum Residue Limit as a safety guide and takes no account of the cocktail effect of consuming multiple agrichemical residues.”

At Wednesday’s media conference, NZFSA staff downplayed the health risks of chemical cocktails, by saying the total volume of chemicals ingested was the appropriate measure, rather than accepting evidence that some pesticides heightened health effects at low residue levels when mixed in typical food combinations with other pesticides.

““Dose makes the poison,” was the repeated phrase as the NZFSA chemical apologist attempted to hoodwink yesterday’s strong media presence. Suggesting that synthetic agrichemical residues in New Zealand food were no worse than what occurs naturally, and that the Allowable Daily Intake (ADI) limits and MRL’s were all set at such conservative levels that meant that even the numerous non-compliances in the Total Diet Survey were absolutely safe.”

“Soil & Health has another view based on independent science (eg. Lodovici, M. et al 1994,1997) and the continuing withdrawal of agrichemicals when serious health effects are finally acknowledged. For example an organophosphate and also pentachlorophenol, will be withdrawn by the Environmental Risk Management Authority this year,” said Browning, “NZFSA should acknowledge that their ADI’s and MRL’s are just their tool in the absence of knowledge and serious precaution, and should stop fudging the residue figures.”

“Chlorothalonil the active ingredient in Bravo fungicide, is noted and down played in the NZFSA celery and spinach residue results. 16 and 13 results above the MRL respectively for 48 tests each, but the real fact is that celery only had 6 out of 48 tests chlorothalonil negative and 5 of those had other residues. The only one residue free celery sample of 48, would most likely be organic but was not differentiated.”

“Chlorothalonil, a carcinogen, mutagenic environmental toxin, was in all samples of conventional celery tested almost 3 years ago by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority and Soil and Health. However part of the change is use by growers of different fungicides.”

“Organic celery of course has no such pesticide residues and while not always looking like the nitrate and pesticide compromised supermarket versions, can still be attractive but more sustainably produced.”

“A fresh approach to food is needed in New Zealand and with massive growth in organics internationally, it is time that synthetic pesticide free organic production targets, such as in Soil & Health’s Organic 2020 vision, were taken on for the well being of New Zealand’s environmental and human health.”

Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People.

1080 A Dirty Green Poison

/in , ,

The decision by ERMA to allow ongoing aerial drops of 1080 for possum control leaves no real incentive for operators in so-called ‘clean green’ New Zealand to find an alternative, according to the Soil & Health Association.

“ERMA continues to base its decisions on economics, rather than on environmental precaution,” said Soil & Heath spokesperson Steffan Browning. “ERMA is choosing ‘dirty green’ over ‘clean green’. ERMA spin that TB control is part of our clean green image, is rubbish when it is by widespread aerial poisoning.”

New Zealand uses 80% of the world’s production of the often green-dyed pesticide 1080, which is a manufactured chemical compound called sodium fluoroacetate or sodium monofluoroacetate.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) said in its decision, “it does not give the aerial application of 1080 a green light so much as a flashing amber light – ‘proceed, but with caution.’”

Section 7 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act requires that those making decisions under it shall take into account “… the need for caution in managing adverse effects where there is scientific and technical uncertainty about those effects.”

“Soil & Health predicts there will be little change to the current aerial drops, which represent 94 percent of the 1080 toxins use.” Says Browning. “The ‘flashing amber light’ lacks the precautionary approach that is required under New Zealand’s international obligations. There is no amber light or sunset clause, just monitoring under economic imperatives.”

“The areas of uncertainty according to ERMA are to be further researched, but ERMA’s recommended studies are not inclusive enough, and the adage that lack of evidence does not constitute lack of effects, must be considered. Studies need to be designed by more than those following the current economic argument. DOC, Landcare, MAF and Forest & Bird all promote 1080 based on economic concerns.”

“Soil & Health strongly shares biodiversity concerns, but knows that very effective control can happen by ground control, and is concerned that those closely interested in biodiversity may be missing strong ecological points as they accept the current economic-based solution.”

“The decision is littered with cost-based comments against ground control and has failed to demand that ground-based control must be used in most instances although most areas are accessible. The current economic threshold used in decision-making must be changed to make ground-based controls financially feasible.”

“ERMA’s message that regular aerial scattering of huge amounts of poison on New Zealand’s picture postcard wilderness is better than employing people on the ground to manage pest control, does nothing for the clean green image that DOC, MAF, and Forest & Bird, the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition refer to when it suits,” said Browning, “Nor will the genetically engineered possum control alternatives (that Landcare Research is experimenting with) be good for the New Zealand clean green brand.”

“Soil & Health sees an organic future where decisions are made considering the full toxic cost, and decisions create economic incentives for solutions that we can be proud of.”o.nz

Soil & Health applauds pause on high lysine corn

/in , , ,

Soil & Health applauds Food Safety Minister Annette King’s pause on the approval of a GE animal feed corn (LY038), engineered to produce high amounts of lysine for maximum weight gain in pigs and chickens. Monsanto is seeking approval for its appearance in processed foods in New Zealand to avoid costly recalls that would occur if the animal feed was not approved for human consumption.

“However Soil & Health is concerned that Minister Annette King’s request for advice from the NZ Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) may be to sort out whether this GE corn was legal in NZ, rather than the real, more concerning issue of food safety,” said spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Some assurance that food safety is being investigated, would show New Zealand’s independence from the trans-Tasman agency FSANZ’s flawed assumptions and disregard for precaution.”

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) has rejected a detailed, scientific submission from a leading New Zealand authority on GE organisms, Associate Professor Jack Heinemann of Canterbury University’s Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety. Dr Heinemann wanted further, more rigorous testing of the LY038 corn.

Ms King, the sole New Zealand member of the trans-Tasman FSANZ Ministerial Council, had asked for the original review of an earlier FSANZ recommendation to allow the GE animal feed corn in human food. Ms King is now asking the NZFSA for more advice as to how appropriate it is for New Zealand to accept amendments for GE varieties intended for use as animal feed to join food standards.

To date Monsanto has only carried out feeding tests on chickens and rats eating raw corn, but the corn would be cooked when included in processed food for human consumption. When cooked, this corn produces toxic compounds that have been linked to several human illnesses, such as Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes mellitis and cardiovascular disease.

The high lysine corn (LY038) has not been compared with its equivalent non-GE corn, as is required under NZ law, but with another variety of GE corn that has NOT been approved for human use anywhere in the world. The comparator has NO history of safe use. In fact, it is the brother of LY038.

”Soil & Health supports Heinemann’s submission and it is encouraging to see that Minister Annette King might not be taking the flawed FSANZ recommendation at face value,” said Browning. “Soil & Health has called for New Zealand to undertake its own food safety assessments and studies following a lack of scrutiny of GE feeding test data by Australian government authorities.”

“Decisions based on inadequate and biased food studies are not acceptable, and New Zealand needs to reclaim control over food safety testing and its food supply.”

“Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020. Commitment by New Zealand’s leaders to a sustainable future and healthy community should target growth in organic production and reject risky GE foods such as LY038 high lysine corn.”

Aspartame: an inconvenient truth

/in , ,

Groups campaigning about the dangers of the artificial sweetener aspartame are disappointed that the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) is shooting the messenger rather than listening to the message.

The Soil & Health Association and the Safe Food Campaign have been hosting international aspartame expert Betty Martini at media and public meetings in New Zealand. Betty Martini has been researching the artificial sweetener for over 15 years and has the authoritative 1000 page medical text Aspartame: An Ignored Epidemic by Dr HJ Roberts dedicated to her.

“The NZFSA say they want to scrutinise evidence-based research on this controversial sweetener, yet they refused to meet Betty Martini who has every bit of evidence they publicly ask for, and who had already supplied relevant references to the authority, ahead of her New Zealand visit,” said Soil & Health spokesperson, Steffan Browning. “It seems NZFSA would rather dodge an inconvenient truth by attempting to discredit the expert.”

“Aspartame has never been proven safe,” stated Alison White of the Safe Food Campaign. “On the contrary, very reputable scientists and doctors have testified their grave concerns about the range of adverse health effects this dangerous and addictive neurotoxin is associated with. The corruption and scandal associated with the registration of aspartame in the US and UK is a matter of public record. It remains on the market today because of addiction, profit and greed.”

Aspartame was first registered in the US in 1981 because a political appointee overruled the objections of scientists. It was only registered in the UK in 1984 because the manufacturers made a deal with Professor Paul Turner of Food Standards, who pushed it through without approval. The subsequent eruption of a scandal in parliament did not, however, result in aspartame being withdrawn. Several of the EU panel of scientists reviewing aspartame in 2004 have connections to the manufacturers, and as a result, ignored many independent studies showing harm.

“NZFSA continues to claim that aspartame is one of the most studied substances in the world, yet they conveniently brush aside the fact that all industry-funded studies do not show a problem, but the overwhelming majority of independent studies do,” added Steffan Browning.

“Of 166 studies felt to have relevance for questions of human safety, 74 had Nutrasweet (an aspartame brand) industry related funding and 92 were independently funded. One hundred percent of the industry funded research attested to aspartame’s safety, whereas 92% of the independently funded research identified a problem.”

“Should sugar be undesirable, Soil & Health recommends natural alternatives such as stevia, rather than the neurotoxic synthetic sweeteners such as aspartame.”

“Because of the publicity given to Abby Cormack and her poisoning with sugar free chewing gum, many similar harrowing and heart-rending stories from other aspartame sufferers have come to light,” said Alison White. “All of them have noted a marked improvement in their health once they have come off aspartame. Because of our concern over the unnecessary suffering of people who are often unknowingly taking in this addictive drug, we have launched a petition that calls for restrictions and warning labels ahead of a ban.”

 

Notes:

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.

Betty Martini had responded to a July 5 NZFSA media release that expressed confidence in aspartame. Both are found athttp://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/73297/index.php

In this link there is also a UK Guardian article from 1984 detailing the industry links of Paul Turner of Food Standards.

NZFSA and New Zealand Nutrition Foundation short on credibility

/in , , ,

“It is time people retired or were fired from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) so New Zealanders might be given independent and reliable information about food safety,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning today, adding that, “the New Zealand Nutrition Foundation was also a food industry mouthpiece lacking credibility.”

“The information coming to the public from these two organisations is consistently big food industry based, while the real independent and credible research, that damns artificial sweetener aspartame’s safety, is consistently ignored or crudely glossed over.”

“Yesterday both agencies effectively used the Washington based food industry mouthpiece, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) for their media release wording and spin, while attempting to defend the use of the neurotoxin aspartame as a sweetener. However they failed to mention who is funding IFIC.”

Examples of IFIC supporters in 2002 were:

* Archer Daniels Midland Company
* Aventis CropScience
* BASF
* Burger King Corporation
* Cargill, Incorporated
* The Coca-Cola Company
* Dow AgroSciences, LLC
* DuPont Agricultural Products
* Frito-Lay, Inc.
* General Mills, Inc.
* Gerber Products Company
* Hershey Foods Corporation
* H. J. Heinz Company
* Kellogg USA, Inc.
* Kraft Foods
* McDonald Corporation
* Monsanto Company
* The Pepsi-Cola Company
* Nestle USA, Inc.
* Taco Bell Corporation
* The Procter & Gamble Company
* Syngenta
* Unilever Bestfoods

“Soil & Health challenges NZFSA and the New Zealand Nutrition Foundation to a public debate on the issue. Overwhelming evidence of corruption of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when it approved aspartame for the food chain, and the well documented deceit by then aspartame manufacturer, drug company G.D. Searle, is at odds with significant independent research showing serious health risks from aspartame use, and a public forum is warranted.”

“It is dismaying that organisations that should have the publics trust, are, despite what they say, not actually assessing the weight of sound, scientific evidence that surrounds aspartame,” said Browning. “Does the Deputy Chief Executive of NZFSA want the agony suffered by many New Zealanders from this poison to reach even greater proportions?

The protection of food industry aspartame pedlars makes the NZFSA and New Zealand Nutrition Foundation culpable for the harm that aspartame sufferers endure here.”

“Thanks to the research and the support of visiting international anti-aspartame expert Betty Martini, Soil & Health has further significant evidence to support its call for a ban on aspartame in New Zealand.”

“NZFSA refused to meet with Betty Martini, yet following publicity of Wellington woman Abby Cormack’s aspartame poisoning symptoms, and the information provided through public meetings and the media by Betty Martini, people already have benefited significantly by removing aspartame from their lives.”

“In the very first instance NZFSA and school boards should be removing aspartame from schools, as is happening in other parts of the world where the harm of aspartame is recognised. The majority of health professionals do not recommend the taking of aspartame when they become aware of the recognizable symptoms in affected patients.”

Soil & Health is grateful for the knowledge and enthusiasm that Betty Martini has contributed.

Toxins OK for Kiwi kids but not for export beef?

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association supports the New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s (NZFSA) tracing and successful prosecution of a farmer who misused the neurotoxic insecticide endosulphan on cattle, and now Soil & Health wants NZFSA to take the neurotoxic artificial sweetener aspartame out of schools.

“Both chemicals affect the human nervous system. One also affected New Zealand’s exports when misused, and the other affects the health of New Zealand’s children and community, but NZFSA is focused on supporting the economic base of the food industry and actual food safety comes a significant second best,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

An Auckland farmer was fined $15,000 yesterday for using endosulphan as a non-approved animal spray on cattle, following a breach of international standards of endosulphan in beef exports to Korea. The breach caused a suspension of exports to Korea.

NZFSA down played the health risks of endosulphan, which is banned in many countries, when the endosulphan residue was found, and yesterday said that there were no human health issues. NZFSA continues to defend endosulphan use in horticulture, although this highly toxic insecticide has been linked to breast cancer, hormonal disruption, mimicking oestrogen and producing infertility, as well as foetal, gene, neurological, behavioural and immune system damage even at very low doses.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) is to reassess the use of endosulphan in New Zealand within a year and has acknowledged a wide range of toxicities and the increasing banning and restrictions against the use of the pesticide. Significantly, agrichemical giant Bayer did not wish to provide data to support endosulphan’s continued use in New Zealand.

“Soil & Health accepts the importance of NZFSA in ensuring New Zealand exports meet overseas requirements, but wants the agency to lift its performance in protecting New Zealand’s citizens, especially children, from the synthetic and often toxic food additives and pesticides, such as aspartame and endosulphan,” said Browning.

“To achieve our children’s protection, NZFSA must work with Food Safety Minister Annette King to get aspartame away from schools, then phase these neurotoxins out of the food chain. This will require a change from the slavish reliance on automatic acceptance of overseas food safety agency decisions from industry-produced science. Reputable and independent science has shown the very real risks of aspartame and endosulphan, but to date NZFSA trots out acceptance of corrupted research, rather than rock big business’s toxic boat.”

Soil & Health and the Safe Food Campaign have been hosting Betty Martini, international anti-aspartame campaigner and expert from the USA, and Wellington aspartame sufferer Abby Cormack, to public meetings in Christchurch and Wellington, with Auckland’s Thursday 2nd August 7-30pm at the Auckland Medical School, 85 Grafton Road.

Soil & Health is also calling for school boards to pull aspartame from school canteens and vending machines for 60 days to test for behavioural and health improvements in pupils.

“The increasing incidence in obesity, depression, anxiety, and behavioural problems has been linked to aspartame use, and a range of negative health symptoms including headaches, rashes and cramps can be expected to reduce with an aspartame gap,” said Browning. “Diet drinks and sugar-free food products generally contain aspartame, and contrary to fighting obesity, are likely to aggravate the condition.”

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