Safe to eat? Not for kids!

/in

Media release for immediate release 5.6.18

 

Children are being exposed to a cocktail of pesticides every time they eat non-organic raisins and sultanas. The latest Total Diet Study, released by the Ministry for Primary Industries, showed residues of 26 pesticides in just one sample, and all eight samples tested contained pesticides.(1)

 

Every five years or more, the New Zealand Total Diet Study (TDS) assesses our exposure to pesticides, contaminants and nutrients. A coalition of groups (2) keen to improve food safety in New Zealand is urging action from the government to reduce pesticide residues and encourage organic agriculture.

Portrait of a little boy eating dried fruits. Children eating healthy food concept.

Some features of the survey include:

  • Foods with the greatest number of pesticides: raisins/sultanas (33), grapes (23), strawberries (18), bran flake cereal (16), nectarines (11), frozen mixed berries (10).
  • Less sensitive methods of analysis used for pesticide detections – up to 100 times.
  • 8 pesticides detected in baby food, in 22% of 32 samples.
  • Very high levels of aluminium in muffins, scones, cakes and slices.
  • Neonicotinoid insecticides (known to harm bees) measured for the first time.
  • Glyphosate, an active ingredient in weedsprays such as Roundup, is a probable human carcinogen and potential reproductive toxin, the most common herbicide in the world, but was not included in TDS.

 

“It is extremely concerning that 22% of baby foods tested had pesticides detected,” said Alison White of Safe Food Campaign.

 

“We urge the government to have zero tolerance for pesticide residues in baby food, and to carry out a national surveillance programme of pesticide residues in baby food. We expect the safety of baby food to be a priority for our government to focus on.”

 

“Certain pesticides found in baby food in this study have been found to be linked to cancer progression and endocrine or hormonal disruption,” said Dr Heli Matilainen, cancer researcher and Safe Food Campaign Co-convenor.

 

“Small children, due to their actively developing nervous, endocrine and immune systems, are much more vulnerable to these residues than adults. This means that it is not the dose which is critical, but the timing of exposure, because doses thousands of times lower than those normally considered toxic may interfere with children’s development.”

 

Ms White advises bakers and consumers to be careful when baking and buying baked goods, as high levels of aluminium were detected in these products. This could be due to an aluminium compound in baking powder, or the use of aluminium tins and trays.

 

“Given the fact that WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)has classified glyphosate as ‘Probably carcinogenic (cancer causing) to humans’ (3), we would expect no glyphosate residues should be accepted in food – at all. There is generally no ‘safe level of intake’ for cancer-causing substances, such as glyphosate,” said Dr Matilainen.

 

“We are pleased that MPI has assured us they are going to conduct their own targeted glyphosate testing, but it must be on all foods sprayed with glyphosate, especially genetically engineered foods,” said Claire Bleakley of GE Free NZ.

 

“Glyphosate residues have been found in a large variety of foods, including genetically engineered soy, corn, oilseeds and sugar products, and New Zealand honey.” (4)

 

Jodie Bruning of Rite-Demands agrees: “In other New Zealand monitoring, glyphosate has been found in wheat over 50 times our permitted maximum residue level. (5) We know glyphosate can be applied to all cereals. Glyphosate must be included in the TDS in future.”

 

“Levels of reporting for pesticide residues in cereals and animal products have been reduced up to 100 times in the TDS. This makes it seem like MPI are detecting fewer pesticide residues when this is probably not the case,” said Mrs Bruning.

 

“Public health professionals as well as parents deserve to know the actual levels these chemicals are detected at, and not be obscured because of a less sensitive test.”

 

“Is MPI’s change to less sensitive chemical analysis to lessen the public and exporters’ concern about residues?” asked Steffan Browning of Soil & Health.

 

“We do applaud the new inclusion of neonicotinoids, which are neurotoxic to people as well as bees, but consumers deserve to be better informed about which brands of food are more likely to contain residues. What parent wants to give raisin and sultana products with 23 or 26 different chemical residues to their children when another product tested had only two?”

 

“Unfortunately some of the foods most liked by children – raisins, sultanas, grapes and strawberries – are the ones with the most pesticides in them, and parents can lessen pesticide intake in their children by giving them organic food,” said Dr Meriel Watts of Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand.

 

“Nobody actually has any real understanding of the effect of 26 different pesticides together in one small box of raisins, because pesticides in mixtures such as this can behave very differently to the single pesticide assessed by MPI,” said Dr Watts. “It is unconscionable for the government to assume this cocktail is safe when they have never tested it.”

 

“The best way to lessen all these residues and contaminants going into our bodies is to eat organic food, and this is especially important for children,” concluded Mr Browning.

 

The five organisations are calling for:

  1. Zero tolerance to pesticides in baby food
  2. Support for transition to organic production
  3. A cross-party pesticide reduction strategy
  4. Urgent reassessment of glyphosate, and its inclusion in the TDS
  5. Greater and more sensitive pesticide residue testing
  6. Less spin and more transparency with reporting

 

[ENDS]

 

Notes:

  1. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-safety/food-monitoring-and-surveillance/new-zealand-total-diet-study/
  2. Coalition: Safe Food Campaign, Soil & Health Association of New

Zealand, Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand, GE Free NZ and RITE: a Safer System for Pesticide Assessment.

  1. Glyphosate: http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/mono112-10.pdf
  2. See, for example: Rubio F, Guo E, Kamp L (2014) Survey of Glyphosate Residues in Honey, Corn and Soy Products. J Environ Anal Toxicol 4: 249.
  3. The 2015/2016 Report on Pesticides in Fresh and Frozen Produce

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-safety/whats-in-our-food/chemicals-and-food/agricultural-compounds-and-residues/glyphosate/

 

 

Media contacts:

 

 

Soil & Health celebrates: Federated Farmers drop legal action around GMOs

/in

25 May 2018
MEDIA RELEASE

Soil & Health celebrates: Federated Farmers drop legal action around GMOs

Following years of court action for a precautionary approach to genetically modified organisms (GMO), the Soil & Health Association today welcomed Federated Farmers’ decision to drop legal challenges to several local council resource management plans controlling their outdoor use.

Federated Farmers has run a number of cases before the courts challenging the rights of communities in Auckland, the Far North and Whangarei to manage the outdoor use of GMOs within their own districts and regions. The courts continued to find that territorial authorities have the right under the Resource Management Act (RMA) to set their own policies and rules controlling GMO use, a finding that Federated Farmers repeatedly challenged.

 

Marion Thomson, Soil & Health National Council Member, today welcomed Federated Farmers’ decision and congratulated the organisation for seeing the sense in dropping further litigation, allowing Councils to get on with making GMO policies and plans that reflect the needs of regions and communities.

“Soil & Health has held grave concerns about the potential impact of GMO land use on regions dependent on an agricultural export sector increasingly reliant on non-GMO requirements of key trading partners.

“This affects both the traditional agricultural sector and New Zealand’s growing organic sector. There are significant premiums for producers who can provide non-GMO certification. It takes hard graft and time to obtain certification, and accidental contamination of a non-GMO farm would have significant long-term economic consequences for a no GMO exporter,” says Ms Thomson.

“The New Zealand environment and our local communities should not be guinea pigs for GMO land use, and therefore we welcome the news about Federated Farmers’ back-down.

“This is about allowing regions and districts to regulate potential GMO land use in a way that protects existing agricultural sectors and reflects community preferences. Soil & Health supports farmers and communities across the country who want to keep New Zealand clean, green and GE-free and today is a huge step towards allowing our communities to do this,” says Ms Thomson.

Auckland Council, Far North District Council and Whangarei District Council all prohibit the general outdoor release of GMOs and made field trials a discretionary activity with performance standards in place, whilst Northland Regional Council adopted a precautionary approach in its regional policy statement.

“The controls these Councils have introduced under the RMA help to protect New Zealand’s biosecurity, our economy and our environment by requiring additional local protections that are not currently required by the national legislation under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

“There is real potential for serious economic loss to regions exporting their products and attracting tourism under New Zealand’s clean, green brand if GMO land use were permitted, as well as there being uncertainty around the potential adverse effects on our natural resources and ecosystems,” says Ms Thomson.

Soil & Health, representing organic and GE-free farmers, primary producers, home gardeners and consumers across New Zealand, has long campaigned against Federated Farmers in each case.
“This back-down by Federated Farmers is a significant milestone in our fight for a precautionary approach to the outdoor use of GMOs in New Zealand. Soil & Health’s members, as well as a number of other individuals and support groups, have contributed a significant amount of financial investment in to this cause, as well as giving their time to publicly voicing their concerns, and we whole heartedly thank them for their efforts,” says Ms Thomson.

ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT:
Marion Thompson
National Council Member
Soil & Health Association
027 555 4014

Save the bees – Ban neonics

/in

2 May 2018

 

The Soil & Health Association welcomes the Environmental Protection Authority’s announcement to review the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in New Zealand but wants them to act now and ban their use immediately.

 

The EPA’s announcement, made yesterday, is in response to the European Union member states’ decision last week to ban the outdoor use of three types of neonicotinoid (clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam) due to the serious danger they pose to bees. The ban is expected to come into force by the end of 2018 and will mean they can only be used in closed greenhouses.

 

“Neonics are just as toxic in New Zealand as they are anywhere else in the world – they’re bee-killing compounds,” says Soil & Health chair Graham Clarke.

“While concentrations of use might differ, its use as an insecticide spray is widespread and over huge areas, and the majority of commercial seeds sold in New Zealand are treated with neonicotinoids.”

New Zealand regulations currently prohibit the spraying of neonicotinoids when crops are in flower. However, neonicotinoids can persist in the soil, meaning subsequent crops or weeds flowering can express the toxic chemical. Use is also limited by label requirements, but that’s not the reality of how people are using them. Seed treatments also mean that they are used over huge areas in New Zealand.

“Organic producers don’t use neonics, so we know that they’re not absolutely necessary,” says Clarke.

 

In the last decade bees have been dying at a staggering rate in many parts of the world due to colony collapse disorder. Research has shown that neonicotinoids are highly toxic to a range of insects, including bees and other pollinators. Bees and other insects are vital for global food production as they pollinate three-quarters of all crops. New Zealand’s bee population contributes about $5 billion to the economy annually, including to our agriculture, horticulture, and high value mānuka honey production. The use of neonicotinoids puts these industries at risk.

Neonicotinoids are also cause for concern for human health, including via spray drift and occupational exposure, and for the wider environment.

 

Soil & Health welcomes moves by retailers to stop selling the harmful chemicals. Placemakers and the Warehouse took them off their shelves after Steffan Browning, former Green Party MP and Soil & Health life member, requested them to. Earlier this year hardware store giant Bunnings announced its decision to stop selling controversial pesticides known to be harmful to bees. EU supermarket chains have increasingly been banning the sale of products that have been grown with the use of neonicotinoids.

 

New Zealand’s EPA however has a history of being slow to remove dangerous pesticides from use. The Soil & Health Association campaigned tirelessly, along with other organisations, for the banning of endosulfan, a controversial pesticide that was already banned in over 50 countries. The EPA only banned its use after it was discovered that a beef shipment to Korea contained traces of the toxic chemical, resulting in enormous costs for exporters.

 

“What this tells us is that the EPA are prioritising economics over human and environmental protections,” says Graham Clarke.

 

Soil & Health wants the EPA to remove these bee-killing pesticides now instead of waiting until trade implications force them to.

 

“By deeming neonicotinoids safe and allowing for their continued widespread sale and use in New Zealand we believe the EPA is failing in their statutory obligation to recognise and provide for the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems,” says Clarke.

 

“This is not just a trade issue. These pesticides are dangerous now whether in France, Germany, the US or New Zealand.”

 

The Soil & Health Association, founded in 1941, is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world. It promotes safe, healthy, organic and nutritious food. The Association campaigns against harmful chemicals in agriculture through Organic NZ magazine and other media, by submissions to Parliament, by collaborating with other groups, and by standing up in court for community rights to retain a GE-free environment.

Contact: Graham Clarke
Chair, Soil & Health Association
027 226 3103

Another win for GE-Free New Zealand

/in

 

The Soil & Health Association welcomes a decision released today by the Environment Court declining Federated Farmers’ attempt to challenge regulation of genetically modified organisms under the RMA.

 

In the latest case before the Environment Court, Whangarei District Council appealed the Northland Council’s Regional Policy Statement, asking to delete one word – ‘plants’ so that the policy would require a precautionary approach to be adopted towards introducing genetically engineered organisms generally – not just plants – to the environment.

 

“The court’s decision is a victory for common sense and for the interests of all Northlanders concerned about the possible introduction of GMOs into the environment, whether they be plants, animals, insects or microorganisms,” said Graham Clarke, Soil & Health’s chair.

 

Federated Farmers appeared as an interested party and continued to present the argument they used in the cases they previously lost – that the Northland Regional Council does not have jurisdiction to regulate GMOs, because that is the sole prerogative of authorities under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. However, the rulings to date have stated that regional councils DO have jurisdiction to regulate GE in their regions, under the RMA.

 

Judge Newhook in his decision labelled Federated Farmers submissions as “curious to say the least” and agreed with Soil & Health’s legal counsel that they were rather difficult to follow in logic.

 

The upshot of this case was in favour of Whangarei District Council, and therefore Northland Regional Council’s policy is not restricted to just GE plants, but applies to GMOs generally.

 

“It’s been shown worldwide that once GMOs get into the environment, there’s no way to effectively prevent their spread. All Northlanders should be grateful for the court’s decision and for our team standing up for their democratic rights,” said Mr Clarke.

 

“We have advocated for the limitation of GMOs to protect the environment and the food chain.”

 

“This is another win. If GMOs were to be released into the environment, they would be very difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. There is also potential for serious economic loss to regions marketing their products and tourism under New Zealand’s ‘clean green’ brand, if GMO release were permitted.”

 

The Soil & Health Association, founded in 1941, is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world. It promotes safe, healthy, organic and nutritious food. The Association campaigns against harmful chemicals in agriculture through Organic NZ magazine and other media, by submissions to Parliament, by collaborating with other groups, and by standing up in court for community rights to retain a GE-free environment.

Media contact
Marion Thomson
027 555 4014

Community support for a GE-free New Plymouth

/in ,


Media release: Soil & Health Association of NZ
14 March 2018
The Soil & Health Association is encouraging the New Plymouth District Council to adopt precautionary provisions in the New Plymouth District Plan for any genetically engineered (genetically modified) organisms that may be trialled or used commercially.
The Proposed Draft New Plymouth District Plan as currently drafted fails to regulate or make any mention at all of GMOs. It is now open for feedback, and Soil & Health is calling on New Plymouth district residents to make submissions by Friday 16 March at 5 pm.
“We want to ensure that the Council adequately protects the district from the significant adverse effects posed by GMO use by including strong precautionary or prohibitive GMO policies and rules into its District Plan,” says Soil & Health National Council member Marion Thomson.
“We call on the New Plymouth District Council to follow the lead of the other councils around New Zealand that have already adopted precautionary provisions and banned the outdoor release of GMOs via their local policy statements and plans,” says Marion Thomson.
Auckland Council, Far North District Council and Whangarei District Council have all prohibited the outdoor release of GMOs and made field trials a discretionary activity with performance standards regarding liability and the posting of bonds.
GMOs threaten the economic sustainability of a wide range of agricultural activities that benefit from having GE-free status. This includes organic and non-organic primary producers in the New Plymouth District, including dairy, honey, forestry, horticulture and other producers.
“Markets around the world don’t want dairy products, honey and so on that are contaminated with GMOs. There are no benefits to farmers or consumers in planting GE ryegrass for example on pastoral farms,” says Thomson.
“New Zealand has already seen several GE field trials breach the conditions of approval. No matter how carefully conditions are crafted, there inevitably remains a risk that they may be breached by poor management, human error, natural events such as severe storms or even sabotage,” says Thomson.
Current laws are inadequate to properly protect communities from the potential adverse effects of GE. There is no provision under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act for financial liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO, meaning those people or companies responsible for causing harm may not be held liable.
Once GMOs have been released into the environment, they would be very difficult if not impossible to eradicate. In the case of a food product, the GE-free status of a district would likely be lost permanently, along with the market advantages of that status.
Fortunately, under the RMA, requirements for bonds for remediation and to cover the costs of contamination can be included in district plans if local councils choose to implement them.
Soil & Health’s submission can be viewed at organicnz.org.nz/submissions/submission-draft-district-plan-new-plymouth-district-council. Submissions can be made to enquiries@npdc.govt.nz by Friday 16 March 2018, 5 pm.
ENDS
Media contact
Marion Thomson
027 555 4014

Community Support for a GE free Waikato – submissions needed by Monday 22nd January 2018

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association is encouraging the Waikato District Council to adopt precautionary provisions in the Waikato District Plan for any genetically engineered organisms that may be trialled or commercially produced.

The plan as currently drafted fails to regulate, or make any mention at all of GMOs.

“We want to ensure that the Council adequately protects the district from the significant adverse effects posed by GMO use by including strong precautionary GMO policies and rules into its District Plan,” says Soil & Health National Council member Marion Thomson.

“We call on the Waikato District Council to follow the lead of the other councils around New Zealand that have already adopted precautionary provisions and banned the outdoor release of GMOs via their local policy statements and plans,” says Marion Thomson.

“Provisions in the Waikato District Plan should be the same or similar to those in the Auckland Unitary Plan to ensure a consistent approach across Auckland and the Waikato and eliminate cross boundary issues,” says Thomson.

Auckland Council, Far North District Council and Whangarei District Council have all prohibited the outdoor release of GMOs and made field trials a discretionary activity with performance standards regarding liability and the posting of bonds.

GMOs threaten the economic sustainability of a wide range of agricultural activities that benefit from having GE-free status. This includes the many organic operations in the Waikato District, as well as non-organic dairy, forestry, honey, horticulture and other producers.

GE animal trials have been undertaken at AgResearch’s Ruakura research centre for several years, making the potential for GE escape or contamination of ongoing concern to Waikato residents.

“New Zealand has already seen several GE field trials breach the conditions of approval. No matter how carefully conditions are crafted, there inevitably remains a risk that they may be breached by poor management, human error, natural events such as severe storms or even sabotage,” says Thomson.

Current laws are inadequate to properly protect communities from the potential adverse effects of GE. There is no provision under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act for financial liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO, meaning those people or companies responsible for causing harm may not be held liable.

Once GMOs have been released into the environment, they would be very difficult if not impossible to eradicate. In the case of a food product, the GE-free status of a district would likely be lost permanently, along with the market advantages of that status.

Fortunately, under the RMA, requirements for bonds for remediation and to cover the costs of contamination can be included in district plans if local councils choose to implement them.

The Proposed Draft Waikato District Plan is now open for feedback, and Soil & Health is calling on Waikato residents to express support for precautionary and prohibitive GMO provisions, policies, and rules.

Submissions close on Monday 22nd January at 5pm.

Submission Template on Draft Waikato District Plan

Media contact

Marion Thomson, Soil & Health National Council

027 555 4014

Councils retain right to regulate GE trees

/in

The Soil & Health Association is thrilled that newly released standards for forestry no longer include a controversial clause that would have allowed the planting of genetically engineered (GE) trees across New Zealand.

Released by MPI last week, the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry (NES-PF) provides regulations to manage the environmental effects of forestry. Soil & Health made a submission on the proposed policy document and, along with nearly 16,000 others, opposed the clause that would have permitted the planting of GE trees.

“We are thrilled by this result and congratulate all who submitted against the clause, and MPI for listening to us. They have done a great service to New Zealand in doing so,” said Soil & Health chair Graham Clarke.

The removal of the GE clause means that there will be no blanket approval for GE trees anywhere in New Zealand. Applications for GE trees to the Environmental Protection Authority must be assessed on a case-by- case basis, like all GE applications, with the opportunity for the public to make submissions. Any approvals are subject to regional and district plan provisions which may require additional conditions, or ban the planting of GE trees altogether.

“Including the GE clause would have jeopardised local authorities’ ability to manage the outdoor use of GMOs, and put at risk the economic sustainability of a wide range of agricultural export activities reliant on GE-free status,” said Mr Clarke.

Last year the High Court upheld the landmark Environment Court decision that regional and territorial authorities can manage the outdoor use of genetically modified organisms in the same way as any other land use in their regions, under the RMA. Soil & Health, which was a party in the High Court decision, considered the ruling a win not only in the fight against GE, but also for democracy in allowing local communities to have a say in the GE policies in their areas.

“The decision to remove the GE tree clause from the NES-PF confirms the ability of councils to respond to community concerns about the planting of GE trees and other crops in their region,” said Mr Clarke.

The Soil & Health Association of NZ is the largest membership organisation supporting sustainable, organic food and farming in New Zealand, and is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. Our aim is to empower people and communities to grow, buy and support locally based sustainable, safe, GE-free and organic food in Aotearoa NZ.

Organic farmer new chair of Soil & Health

/in

8 August 2017

A fourth-generation farmer has been selected as the new chair of the Soil & Health Association, following its AGM. Until 2014 Graham Clarke was a sheep and beef farmer for over 30 years in South Otago at Marama Farm, which was certified organic by BioGro for close to 10 years. “I’m passionate about sustainable food production and see organic food as being essential to getting better quality nutrition to New Zealanders,” says Graham Clarke.

Mr Clarke, who was first elected onto the National Council of Soil & Health in July 2016, brings experience and enthusiasm for organics to the council table. He has had governance experience with Federated Farmers, the Beef Council and the Animal Health Board.

“I have now chosen to serve Soil & Health in the hope that this can mean more farmers can be supported to grow great nutrition for New Zealanders, and more people can achieve good health through their food. Organics needs to go mainstream,” said Mr Clarke.

Having experienced huge health improvements himself through eating well, Mr Clarke is now a certified Integrative Nutrition health coach and helps people improve their health and their lives through what they eat and other lifestyle choices. In his spare time, he leads a team of caregivers who look after a young man with disabilities caused by a car accident, with nutrition one of the key planks in his greatly improved health.

Graham Clarke paid tribute to outgoing chair Marion Thomson: “Marion has dedicated a huge amount of energy to Soil & Health for many years, particularly championing the rights of communities to control or ban GE in their areas, via several court cases. The Association is lucky to have her stay on as a member of the National Council and continue our important work,” said Mr Clarke.

“Times are changing locally and globally and the weight of evidence concerning the challenges of many of the current farming methods and the consequences of some of them continues to grow. This is both a health and environmental concern. Soil & Health is aiming for a fully organic New Zealand to address these concerns.”

 

Contact: Graham Clarke
Chair, Soil & Health Association
027 226 3103

Health not herbicides: time to phase out glyphosate

/in , , ,

Our public agencies must protect human health and ecosystems, and use rigorous independent science rather than industry data, says the Soil & Health Association. Soil & Health welcomes the release of a paper by the Green Party that exposes many flaws in an Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) report on glyphosate-based herbicides (such as Roundup).

The EPA commissioned a report last year that found glyphosate to be safe and unlikely to be carcinogenic.   Only months before, the world-leading authority International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate was a ‘probable carcinogen’.

The paper released by the Green Party last week revealed that the EPA’s conclusion was based on flawed science and data provided by industry. The paper dispels the so-called safety claims made by the EPA and highlights the urgent need to reassess the authorisation of products like Roundup that contain glyphosate.

“Many countries have banned the use of glyphosate due to its toxicity,” says Soil & Health chair Graham Clarke, who is a fourth generation farmer. “Even exposure to very low doses, below the risk analysis guidelines, creates a very real risk to human health. This paper raises serious concerns about the adequacy and quality of the EPA’s hazardous substances assessments.”

“Roundup in particular has been a cornerstone of chemical agriculture in New Zealand for decades but as each day goes by new compelling evidence emerges showing the downside of this product,” says Clarke.

“Soil & Health congratulates organic farmers, home gardeners and others who are using safe and effective ways to grow food and to control weeds, with no need for harmful herbicides. We’d like to see more government support for research into non-chemical alternatives to glyphosate as demonstrably the high chemical input system is not serving anyone in New Zealand well except the marketers of said products.”

Glyphosate is sprayed on numerous crops, including about 80% of genetically engineered crops that are bred to be tolerant to the herbicide. It is also used in New Zealand and overseas as a pre-harvest desiccant, so crops such as wheat are uniform at harvest time, and to make crops like potatoes easier to harvest. Residues of glyphosate (or its metabolites) are likely to be in many foods that Kiwis are eating every day, with the notable exception of organic foods. Buying certified organic foods is the best consumer guarantee to avoid residues of harmful chemicals such as glyphosate. The herbicide is also widely used in home gardens and public places including roadsides, parks and playgrounds.

“By deeming glyphosate safe and allowing for its widespread sale and use in New Zealand we believe the EPA has failed in their statutory obligation to protect the health and safety of people and communities, by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances,” says Clarke.

Soil & Health believes that glyphosate should be phased out immediately.

“The use of glyphosate in public places, home gardens and for pre-harvest desiccation should cease immediately as these are the routes that expose most people to glyphosate. Other uses should be restricted and phased out as soon as possible,” says Clarke.

 

Links

Soil & Health’s policy on pesticides:

https://soilandhealth.org.nz/policies/pesticides/

Green Party paper:

https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/Published%20Paper%20-%20Why%20did%20the%20NZ%20EPA%20ignore%20the%20World%20Authority%20on%20Cancer%20-%20July%202017.pdf

IARC report:

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

EPA report:

http://www.epa.govt.nz/Publications/EPA_glyphosate_review.pdf

GE free

GE potatoes set to sneak into our food

/in , , , ,

The Soil & Health Association has serious concerns about another GE food line being approved in New Zealand – this time for six food lines derived from potatoes.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), the organisation that controls food approvals for New Zealand and Australia, is calling for submissions on an application to permit GE potatoes for human consumption. The potatoes have been genetically engineered to reduce bruising, to reduce acrylamide formed during cooking, and to protect the potatoes from a type of blight.

Soil & Health is concerned about the growing number of genetically engineered foods approved for sale in New Zealand and the long-term and cumulative health effects of consuming them. While New Zealand does not grow any GE crops or animals, there are many imported GE ingredients in food for sale here.

“Since 2000 FSANZ has approved every single application for GE food lines, and there are now a staggering 71 different GE food lines approved for sale in New Zealand,” says Soil & Health chair Marion Thomson.

“An estimated 70% or more of processed non-organic foods for sale in New Zealand contain genetically engineered ingredients, but consumers have no idea because our labelling laws mean that almost all GE ingredients don’t have to be listed on the packaging.”

“In addition to human food, New Zealand imports large quantities of animal feed that is almost certainly genetically engineered, but again, not labelled as such,” says Marion Thomson.

While a FSANZ safety assessment on the GE potato application has not identified any public health and safety issues, previous FSANZ assessments have been shown to be incomplete, with an absence of biological studies on the impacts of the foods when eaten. Further, assessments have largely been reliant on industry assurances of safety, with no independent science to back up industry assertions.

“One of the main concerns about eating GE foods is that many have been grown with dangerous levels of pesticides,” says Thomson. “Many GE crops are designed to be resistant to pesticides. These crops are designated ‘safe’ for human consumption by FSANZ and the Ministry for Primary Industries, despite not having undergone adequate safety tests independent of the companies developing them.”

The best way to avoid consuming GE foods is to grow, buy and eat certified organic food, says Soil & Health.

The GE potatoes application is open for public submission until 7 July 2017.