GE food safety tests not up to scratch

/in , ,

Another GE corn has been recommended to be approved as safe for human consumption by Food Standards Australia New Zealand. But the food safety trials used were flawed,and new ones need to be developed, according to the Soil & Health Association. The high lysine corn (LY038) was compared not with regular corn, as should be the case, but with another variety of GE corn, on the basis that this was already approved.

The animal feed corn has been engineered to produce high concentrations of lysine,to promote animal growth. 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 associated with several human illnesses, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

A decision to either support or reject the FSANZ review recommendation is expected to be released on Monday by the Australasian Ministerial Council, including Food Safety Minister Annette King. The New Zealand Minister had requested the review following an earlier FSANZ recommendation.

“We call on the New Zealand Government to reject the decision. We do not need to follow poor Australian analysis and interpretation of research codes of practice as has happened on this occasion,” said Soil and Health spokesperson, Steffan Browning.

“Soil & Health is conscious of the anger in the community against this incremental moving of international food safety goalposts promoted by the very companies that in turn apply for the introduction of novel and risky foods,” said Mr Browning.
“New Zealanders are rejecting trans-Tasman decisions relating to food safety and health care as shown by opposition to previous FSANZ and Ministerial Council acceptance of GE foods, and also the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill,” said Mr Browning.

“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.”

NZFSA refuses to meet Betty Martini

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association and Safe Food Campaign are calling for the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) to meet with visiting aspartame expert Dr Betty Martini.

Dr Martini has been refused entry at NZFSA today, even though Alison White of Safe Food Campaign has an aspartame presentation along with aspartame sufferer Abby Cormack. NZFSA have also discounted any future possible meeting with senior staff or scientists by Martini, which calls into question the purpose of NZFSA,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“The carcinogenic, neurotoxin sugar alternative aspartame has been implicated in many serious illnesses and NZFSA is putting its head in the sand over this issue. Dr Martini has had access to top EU and UK officials so she should be able to get the same access in New Zealand.”

Martini who has the ear of all the main scientist players in the international anti-aspartame debate – Drs Soffritti, Roberts, Blaylock, Olney, and Cabot, is being hosted in New Zealand by Soil & Health Association and Safe Food Campaign.

Dr Martini was invited to New Zealand in the wake of Abby Cormack’s well publicised poisoning with sugar free chewing gum.

“Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) who set the actual food standard for aspartame in New Zealand have yet to respond to a meeting request. A meeting would show that these agencies are capable of considering resisting the influences of the international pharmaceutical and food giants, and their dubious food safety assertions,” said Alison White, Co-convenor of Safe Food Campaign.

“Dr Martini is able to refute the aspartame misinformation that NZFSA promulgates, and she has documented proof that the FDA (US Food & Drug Administration), which NZFSA slavishly accepts, knew of the cancer causing and other serious health properties of aspartame.”

Public meetings are planned in Christchurch, Wellington and Auckland.

Successful Therapeutics Campaign needs to push further

/in , , ,

The success of the community in stalling the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill needs to be extended to rolling back Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) decisions allowing risky additives in food, according to the Soil & Health Association.

The Government admitted yesterday that it currently could not get the Therapeutics Bill through Parliament. This comes at a time when there are big questions about the decision by FSANZ allowing the artificial sweetener Aspartame into the food chain, and when the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) is unable to control a baby food manufacturer’s use of un-assessed additives.

“Soil & Health congratulates the thousands of therapeutic products consumers and producers who signed our petition opposing a trans-Tasman agency that would have regulated natural products and supplements,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Agencies such as FSANZ and NZFSA appear to operate mostly to facilitate trade, and there is good cause for consumers to resist another such agency.”

“Soil & Health will this morning welcome international anti-aspartame campaigner Betty Martini to New Zealand, highlighting products such as Aspartame, NutraSweet, Equal, E951, Canderel and Benevia, that have been criticised for a range of serious health ailments but have been allowed through FSANZ into widespread New Zealand use.”

Food Standards Australia New Zealand sets food standards for both countries, and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority monitors food to those standards.

“Soil & Health is also concerned that another sweetener additive has been included in baby food by international company Nutricia without the required safety assessment. NZFSA is not even insisting on withdrawal of the product, which shows the legislative flaws,” said Mr Browning, “I expect that FSANZ will push the baby food additive (fructo-oligosaccharide -fos) through an assessment process, as the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in the USA has already given it a tick, and if the corrupted FDA says its fine, invariably so does the trans-Tasman agency FSANZ.”

“While ‘fos’ is often derived for supplement use from natural chicory root, large commercial operations like Nutricia often use the cheap and questionable genetically engineered form. New Zealanders need agencies that reflect deep caution over GE and baby foods and proven risky food additives.”

“The success of consumers against the Therapeutics Bill must be rewarded with a New Zealand regulatory system that reflects the low risk of most natural products, but uses effective precaution and genuine independent research, in decisions about the synthetic food ingredients that international big business pushes,” said Mr Browning.

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020, free of risky synthetic and GE food ingredients.

Time to ban aerial spraying here too

/in , ,

COMBINED MEDIA RELEASE:
Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa NZ
Soil & Health Association
Safe Food Campaign

“Congratulations to the European Union for their enlightened approach to protecting human health and the environment by progressing plans to ban aerial spraying of pesticides”.

That’s the message today from Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa NZ, the Soil & Health Association and the Safe Food Campaign.

The EU’s Environment Committee has endorsed plans by the European Commission for a ban on aerial spraying of pesticides as part of a wide-ranging strategy to cut down the use of pesticides.

“Its time now for New Zealand to also look at banning aerial spraying of pesticides” said Dr Meriel Watts of Pesticide Action Network. “Far too many people have had their lives blighted by aerial spraying in both rural and urban areas of New Zealand. Terrible health effects have resulted from the aerial spraying of the herbicide 2,4-D; and the adverse effects of the unnecessary spraying of West Auckland for the Painted Apple moth are still being felt.”

“Many horticultural growers have lost valuable crops to drift from the aerial spraying of 2,4-D” added Steffan Browning of Soil & Health. “Soil & Health often receives complaints of cross-boundary spray drift.”

“ The aerial spraying of highly toxic insecticides such as chlorpyrifos is still permitted in New Zealand, even though this insecticide is known to cause adverse developmental effects in children and has been restricted in the US” said Alison White of the Safe Food Campaign.

The three organisations, which have been trying to combat pesticide problems in New Zealand for many years, also welcome other initiatives by the EU and urge the New Zealand government to be equally proactive in reducing pesticide use here.

These initiatives include:

* A national pesticide use reduction target of 25% within 5 years, and 50% within 10 years, including non-agricultural uses
* A system of levies on pesticides to fund the reduction plan
* Ban on pesticides in all areas used by the general public (e.g. parks, school grounds, residential areas) and in “substantial no-spray zones” around them.
* A buffer zone of 10m around all water courses
* Using the ‘substitution principle’ whereby more dangerous substances will be removed from the market if safer alternatives exist

“These are all very good measures that will certainly contribute substantially to improved public health and environmental integrity”, said Dr Watts. “New Zealand has dragged its feet for many years on this issue, trying to shuffle it under the carpet and manage the problems by talking with industry. But progress has been too slow. Until this country is prepared to take a firm stand on pesticides the issue will not go away.”

”One of the major problems New Zealand has failed to deal with is the unregulated non-commercial uses.”

“Right now untrained home gardeners can access all kinds of toxic herbicides and are enthusiastically waging war on weeds, with no clue about the toxic effects of the herbicides they are exposing themselves and their neighbours, too – let alone the effects on the wider environment” said Dr Watts. This is simply no longer acceptable in so-called developed country.”

“Soil & Health has recently requested that ERMA reassess home gardeners access to pesticides,” said Steffan Browning.

The European Committee stressed that only quantitative use reduction targets in the national action plans will push governments to lower the amount of pesticides used. The Member States are urged to promote low pesticide-input farming and organic farming, giving priority to non-chemical alternatives.

New editor at Organic NZ

/in ,

New Zealand’s leading magazine on organics and sustainable living, Organic NZ, has a new editor.

Adelia Hallett joins the magazine this month and begins by producing the September/October issue.

Organic NZ is published by the Soil and Health Association, an organisation established in 1941 to promote sustainable agriculture and nutrition. Co-chair Steffan Browning said that Ms Hallett was a good fit for the magazine.

“Adelia has a strong background in journalism and the organics sector, and we are delighted to welcome her as editor of Organic NZ,” he said.

“New Zealand is at a critical point, where it must choose its path for the future. We believe that New Zealand can be organic by 2020, but can only be achieved through public pressure.”

“Organic NZ has a huge role to play in helping people to understand the vital link between healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.”

Ms Hallett has worked in newspapers around New Zealand, including the New Zealand Herald, and is now freelancing and specialising in environmental reporting. She lives with her family on a smallholding on the Kaipara Harbour and is involved in local organic organisations.

Mr Browning paid tribute to the work of previous editor Allan Baddock in building Organic NZ into the country’s leading magazine on organics and sustainable living.

“Organic NZ has a huge reputation for its credibility and authority, and we thank Allan for his role in developing that,” he said.

Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill Rethink Time

/in , , ,

The government has an ideal opportunity for a rethink of New Zealand’s health choices, with the placing of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill (TPMB) at the bottom of the Parliamentary Order Paper on Tuesday, according to the Soil & Health Association.

Community opposition to the Bill remains very high, and Soil & Health has received 1600 signatures through a modest appeal to members and friends over the last two weeks. Thousands have signed other petitions and hundreds attended last weekend’s Auckland rally against the TPMB.

Today, Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning presented Green Party MP Sue Kedgley with the indicative signatures. “We all understand the issues are complex,” he said, “but there is an overriding concern from our members that they do not want any regulatory system controlled from Australia and they do not want to lose the choice of the natural products that they have at present.”

“One signatory, a 71 year old great grandmother who has successfully used herbal products, vitamins and minerals since 1980, finished a message with, ’We are mature enough & dare I say it wise enough to keep it right in New Zealand.’”

“One method of achieving this may be through a New Zealand Office of Natural Health Products, such as proposed by the Natural Health Alliance,” said Browning. “Their draft concept has a regulatory structure for consumer protection while keeping compliance costs low for producers.”

“With nanotechnology and genetic engineering being used in the production of some so-called therapeutic goods, it is important that we have strict guidelines, but also that they have the support of and input from New Zealand consumers and natural therapists, through a structure such as suggested by the Natural Health Alliance.”

“Consumer choice is increasingly being removed and unwanted additives are being included because New Zealand bureaucrats are chasing free trade agreements and international harmonisation of food and health standards (through Codex, CER and FSANZ, WTO and others). Soil & Health suggests that each agreement maintains full domestic opt-out clauses, and has better local consumer input,” said Browning.

Please Find Below the Draft Proposal by the Natural Health Alliance.

TO ESTABLISH AN Office of Natural Health Products New Zealand (onhpnz)

Mission Statement

Our mission is to make New Zealand’s health care sustainable into the future by becoming a world leader in the regulation of Natural Health Products resulting in New Zealand being the country recognised as having the Healthiest People on Earth.

Goal for New Zealand

To develop and maintain a sustainable health policy based on a wellness paradigm. To establish an appropriate regulatory environment for Natural Health and dietary supplement products.

To establish a Centre of Excellence for Natural Healthcare that will optimise the health of New Zealand consumers; address the escalating costs of health care in an ageing population; maximise a New Zealand wellness brand and secure New Zealand’s place in the global market – all resulting in a sustainable, innovative Health and Wellness industry lead economy.

New Zealand Health in the Future

The Natural Health Alliance believes that optimised health and disease prevention through the use of Natural health products and health promotion can substantially improve the quality of life. One of the greatest concerns of the OECD countries is the escalating cost for health care in an ageing population, especially for medication resulting from fundamental weaknesses in the present illness model of Health policy. This model is predicted to cripple many countries and individuals. To this end, the Office should be committed to meeting the challenges of tomorrow by supporting research into the health benefit properties of low risk and low cost Natural Products (especially New Zealand herbs and flora)

Export Led Wellness Economy

New Zealand exports of natural products and ingredients have the potential to exceed imports. New Zealand due to its isolation has unique herbs and ingredients – some of which are recognised as world leaders. Having a unique Natural health Products (NHP) regulator will give New Zealand the opportunity to foster entrepreneurial companies exporting unique leading natural health products.

The Natural Health Alliance recommends that:

1. A separate Office of Natural Health Products New Zealand (ONHPNZ) be established that:

a) Is separate and independent from the Pharmaceutical Regulatory office,

b) Develops an appropriate risk-based regulatory framework that ensures consumers have freedom to choose quality natural health products and good information about those products to assist in making informed choices, whilst protecting philosophical and cultural diversity,

c) Is headed by a person with experience and expertise in Natural Health Products as the Canadians have done in appointing a Doctor of Naturopathy as head of the Natural Health Directorate of Health Canada; and

d) Is also staffed with personnel qualified and experienced in natural health products.

2. Twenty percent of ONHPNZ national health and medical research funding be directed towards research projects into natural health products.

3. A Centre of Excellence of Natural Healthcare be established with industry, Maori and consumers in partnership to focus on research, education and economics with objectives similar to those of the US Office of Dietary Supplements.

4. A cost-benefit study be conducted into the potential cost savings from greater use of natural health products be undertaken.

5. An on-line consumer information service be established in consultation with industry to provide consumers with balanced, factual information on natural health products.

6. A rebate for all natural health products and services be negotiated with private health insurance providers.

7. A Natural Health Products Advisory Committee be established to provide expert advice on natural health products and alternative health practices to the Minister and regulatory bodies.

8. An adverse event reporting system for NHPs to monitor trends and emerging safety issues and that such reports be assessed by a Committee of persons with knowledge and expertise in natural healthcare.

9. That the cost of the regulator be at least 50% subsidized by the New Zealand government as New Zealand will gain through the significant cost savings coming from a wellness health care system. Cost recovery system to recover only those costs that relate to regulatory services to the Industry.

10. Penalties and fines for breaches of the NHP standards to be set at appropriate levels that would be normal for this level of breach in accordance with similar used in the Food Industry in New Zealand.

11. Research into the health benefits of our Native Natural flora and fauna be sponsored by the Government to establish the active ingredients and confirm the benefits that have been discovered anecdotally over many years of use .The published research will help develop a good research based industry in New Zealand and the evidence to support the development of the New Zealand Natural Health Brand Internationally.

12. The government to promote the use of NHPs as a means of improving the nation’s Health and reducing the escalating cost of healthcare in an aging population.

Picton’s toxic gas use lacks consent

/in , ,

Methyl bromide fumigation at ports around New Zealand needs urgent reassessment, according to the Soil & Health Association, following the Marlborough District Council’s refusal to require their Port Company to apply for resource consent to discharge the toxic gas to the Picton environment.

“Port Marlborough has no idea where the gas is going after fumigation covers are pulled off the export log stacks’, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“The ozone depleting neuro-toxin methyl bromide gas is under contention as it is implicated in 6 Port Nelson workers deaths by motor neuron disease, yet Picton has far less controls than Nelson. Low temperature inversion layers in calm winter time conditions may be particularly dangerous, considering the findings in District Health Board reports for neighbouring Port Nelson gas dispersal modelling.”

“With no Picton air movement modelling to predict the contamination area of the highly toxic, odourless and tasteless gas, workers and tourists in the Port and ferry terminal area, and the greater Picton community may be at risk during every log shipment.”

“The Code of Practice in Picton has not been available to the media and on my inspection showed lack of substance and no community input. The Code of Practice has not been peer reviewed by the Labour Department or Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).”

“Conflicts of interest between councils with RMA regulatory functions, their council owned dividend generating port companies and the responsibilities of staff need scrutiny, especially Unitary Authorities as in the Nelson Marlborough region, which does not have a regional council”, said Browning.

“The problem however extends nationwide with capture and destruction of methyl bromide fumigant not used with export logs anywhere in New Zealand, and little truly independent monitoring .”

“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 banned CFC refrigerants.”

“Soil & Health want to see an urgent reassessment by ERMA of methyl bromide use nationally, and immediate precautions on discharge at Picton and other ports.”

“Clean alternatives to neurotoxin 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.”

Former Crop & Food Scientist says GE Brassica field test approval lacked scrutiny

/in , , ,

A former Crop & Food GE scientist, Dr Elvira Dommisse, said today that proper scrutiny by ERMA of evidence would have prioritised the need for food studies over fund-wasting field trials.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has once again approved an application to field test genetically engineered (GE) crops, namely GE brassicas – cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower and forage kale for stock feed.

This decision, which gives Crop & Food Research in Lincoln the go ahead, has angered groups with scientific and environmental safety concerns, who note the lack of scrutiny ERMA has shown in its decision.

At the public hearing in April this year, a number of scientific submitters with referenced evidence, stressed that it was important to first carry out rat feeding experiments with these GE crops to establish that they were safe to eat, according to Dr Elvira Dommisse of Soil & Health.

“One thing that needs to come through very clearly is the huge waste of public money if, at the end of ten years, rat feeding trials take place and the crops are found to be toxic or allergenic.”

“This is quite possible, given the past record of other GE crops. We only have to look to Australia, where GE peas modified with a harmless bean protein produced immunological problems in mice. The GE brassicas to be field tested at Lincoln are modified with a highly altered bacterial protein, which produces a pesticidal toxin. This is all the more reason to believe that such crops will be toxic or allergenic to mice or rats and ultimately humans and other animals.”

Yet when asked about rat feeding experiments on National Radio Dr Mary Christey, the leader of the GE brassica project said, “we do not think that food safety experiments are necessary.” [Our Changing World, Thurs 3,10 May, 2007]

“Apparently in support and bypassing solid food safety evidence ERMA have said, “She’ll be right Crop & Food, have your play at taxpayers expense, and we’ll worry about the real point of all this later,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Food safety scares in other parts of the world have increased the international demand for organically grown produce, which has much stricter criteria about what crop protection measures can be taken to deal with plant pests and pathogens.”

“Organic certifiers BioGro and Organic FarmNZ are receiving increased applications for organic certification with BioGro receiving a record number last week. This is indicative of the huge worldwide growth in consumer demand for safe, natural and nutritious produce. GE crops are excluded from that demand for good reason. It is time for ERMA and government to listen.”

GE brassica decision lacks justification

/in , , ,

Today’s Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) decision approving a Crop and Food application to field trial brassicas (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage and forage kale) genetically engineered with a toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis(Bt), lacks justification in New Zealand’s new era of sustainability, and is full of contradictions, according to Soil & Health’s spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“ERMA has yet to decline an application for a GE field trial, and appears to look for a way to approve, regardless of how shonky the application is. This shows that ERMA is biased towards genetic engineering in clean green New Zealand, regardless of the community’s opposition,” said Mr Browning, adding, “that not running food safety feeding trials ahead of field trials of GE crops is a nonsense.”

“Why grow a crop that is potentially toxic to humans and animals for ten years without first establishing if it is even potentially edible?”

The ERMA Committee states that “GM brassicas will be prevented from entering the human food chain and a further application to the Authority for a release approval would be necessary before effects on food safety and food choice would arise. Therefore, the Committee did not consider the effects on food safety and food choices further for this application.”

“That the GE Bt brassica’s are ultimately intended for commercial release, yet have not undergone feeding studies to ensure food safety, makes this trial a serious potential waste of tax payers money, said Mr Browning, ” Animals are sick and dying in India from eating cotton also modified with Bt toxins and cotton workers have health issues. Feed studies also show health risks from other Bt engineered crops.”

“The ERMA decision appears to be predicated heavily on upskilling of scientists and increasing experience in working with gene technology in the field. The decision expects marginal public benefit however, and ERMA states, “This beneficial effect will accrue to the applicant and the staff involved in this field test and is considered to be of minimal value. A public benefit accruing to the wider scientific community when papers are published describing the research and its results (particularly in the area of impacts on the soil biota of GM plants) would be of minor value. However, this may be very unlikely to be realised.”

“Despite ERMA receiving 941submissions of objection, many advocating an organic alternative for New Zealand and the overwhelming desire for a clean green country, the ERMA decision merely states, “Given the contained nature of this field test, the Committee did not identify any significant adverse effects on society and community.”

“New Zealand’s markets are already concerned with food miles, and will not like the signals that clean green NZ is intending commercial production of GE vegetables sometime”, said Mr Browning.

ERMA’s decision in considering alternatives, states, “The Committee considers that the primary goals of this field test are to assess the agronomic performance of these GM plants under natural environmental conditions, the resistance of GM brassicas to insect pests, and to assess the environmental impacts of these GM brassicas.”,

and after suggesting the field test, “provides a valuable opportunity for experimental work to assess the impacts of GM brassica plants on the soil biota, non-target organisms, and the persistence of DNA sequences and Cry proteins in the soil.”,

then states, “The Committee notes that there is some uncertainty regarding the potential for meaningful information on the environmental impacts of growing GM brassicas to be obtained given the limitations of scale inherent in this field test.”

Soil & Health points out however funding was uncertain for the limited work that ERMA notes as valuable, that other Crown Research Agencies would be required to assist in, and spokesperson Steffan Browning, adds that, “it would be wasting resources considering public opposition and the unlikely commercialisation of the brassicas, if the current level of security required to protect GE trial crops was to be continued.”

In considering the potentially significant adverse effects on the market economy, ERMA states, “that since this application is for a small-scale contained field test with a fixed time period after which all plants will be removed, the potentially significant adverse and beneficial effects associated with this application are not economic in nature.”

However New Zealand farmers, the community and customers of the riches of a clean green land may see it differently according to Mr Browning and the ramifications of field tests trialling GE food crops, although at risk of sabotage, will send messages contrary to that of Prime Minister Helen Clark’s desire for New Zealand to be the worlds first truly sustainable country, and National’s John Key a week ago, “New Zealand’s clean green environment is vital to the Kiwi way of life and vital to the image New Zealand sells to the world,” both messages that Soil & Health agrees with.

Soil & Health will be discussing with other groups, potential further action against the field trial, as it is committed to true sustainability and a GE Free future.

Organic Means Certified Organic

/in , , ,

Soil & Health is celebrating that the Fair Trading Act is being interpreted to mean that products called organic should be certified organic, following the release last night of Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s Review Report, again recommending the introduction of folic acid fortification to all but organic bread.

“The recommendation appears to mean that foods labelled ‘organic’, but not certified to be organic, will not be exempt. FSANZ has said that foods labelled ‘natural’ will not be exempt as they are not subject to certification criteria. However organic foods are to be exempt, as there are certification criteria against which they can be checked”, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

The FSANZ Review states;

Exemption of wheat bread-making flour represented as ‘organic’ will allow the organic milling and bread industry to comply with fair trading legislation[1], which takes precedence over the Code.

Approach:

* FSANZ consulted the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on the status of products labelled ‘organic’ and ‘natural’ under mandatory fortification in relation to fair trading legislation.

Conclusion:

* Under fair trading legislation mandatorily fortified foods would not be able to be labelled as ‘organic’ or ‘all natural’.
* It is proposed that foods represented as ‘organic’ be exempt from mandatory fortification.

Foods labelled ‘natural’ will not be exempt from mandatory fortification as there is no certification criteria for ‘all natural’ foods, and manufacturers are able to use labelling descriptors which indicate the type of product without misleading consumers.

“This is a long awaited and clear message that anything from pork to pickles, if it’s to be called organic, it is on the premise that it is certified organic”, said Browning. “This is significant for consumers who are too often sold products as organic, even though the producer is not subject to any checks that their claim is authentic, and comes at a time when access to organic certification has never been easier.”

“The recently launched Organic Advisory Program, managed through Organics Aotearoa New Zealand, is currently assisting producers with a subsidised consultancy to convert to organics. BioGro New Zealand, Organic FarmNZ, Demeter, Agriquality, or Te Waka Kai Ora, can all give consumer assurances not available with uncertified produce,” said Browning. “ The potential use of Standards New Zealand’s National Organic Standard as the minimum requirement for organic production also needs exploring,” he added.

The proposed changes to the draft variations to the Food Standards Code

a) require the mandatory addition of folic acid to wheat flour for bread-making;
b) exempt wheat flour for bread-making represented as ‘organic’ from this requirement;
c) retain the voluntary permissions that allow voluntary fortification of non-wheat breads and flours;
d) allow a transition time of two years for implementation.

This is expected to reduce the number of Neural Tube Defect (NTD)-affected pregnancies by a further 14-49 (or up to 14%) in Australia and by 4-14 (or up to 20%) in New Zealand. NTD’s often present as spina bifida.

“ Soil & Health is hopeful that the folic acid education program, to educate about spina bifida risks and prevention, also recommended by FSANZ, will put significant emphasis on a complete and preferably organic diet. Certified organic food disallows pesticides linked with birth defects, and nutritional properties including folate are generally superior”, said Browning.

Soil & Health had submitted to the FSANZ Issues Paper;

“Soil & Health has some degree of concern that foods labelled ‘natural’ may not be exempt, however unless those foods are reasonably certain to be pesticide and additive residue free, as expected with organic foods, the ‘natural’ claim may be spurious.

Foods labelled ‘natural’, are without the benefit of standards and certification processes as in the organic sector, however should a food supplier be able to provide evidence of the ‘naturalness’ of its product, for example wild harvested and organic ingredients with no synthetic additives, Soil & Health would expect that it should also be exempt.”

The exemption for organic bread will give all consumers a choice of a fortification free product while still accessing a healthy option.

[1] In Australia, Trades Practices Act 1974; In New Zealand Fair Trading Act 1986.