Nitrogen fertiliser: the elephant in the room

/in , ,

High nitrate levels recently measured in the Tasman’s Waimea Plains signal yet another alarm bell for the health of our waterways, and the urgent need to reduce or eliminate the use of soluble nitrogen fertilisers, says the Soil & Health Association.

“Fencing off waterways and riparian planting is all well and good, but it’s not enough on its own to reduce the nitrogen leaching through soils to groundwater. We need to stop the problem at its source, namely the soluble nitrogen fertilisers being used by many farmers. It’s the elephant in the room,” says Marion Thomson, chair of the Soil & Health Association.

“The introduction of a resource consent for fertiliser use is a step in the right direction, but what is ultimately required is a transition to more sustainable methods of farming and cropping that do not rely on soluble nitrogen fertiliser applications,” says Thomson.

“We applaud the Freshwater Rescue Plan launched last week, and would like to see taxpayer money diverted from the Government’s irrigation fund put towards helping farmers transition towards high-value, climate-friendly organic and sustainable farming practices.”

“Healthier fresh water is achievable by shifting to organic and biological fertilising regimes and it’s heartening to see increasing numbers of farmers adopting these sustainable practices. Organic farming methods improve the soil biology and soil structure, which means better water retention and less nutrient leaching. Organic and biological farmers also make use of natural fertilisers, instead of soluble nitrogen fertilisers that are more prone to leaching.”

The soil is not a lifeless medium to pour nutrients into, according to Soil & Health. Organic farming encourages healthy living soils teeming with a biodiversity of species that all play their part in the ecosystem and the food chain, helping to make nutrients available to plants and animals.

Demand for organic food is growing exponentially as consumers seek out produce that is residue-free, tasty, nutritious and better for the environment and waterways.

https://www.freshwaterrescueplan.org

Take off the blindfold and eat!

/in ,

Kiwis want to take off the blindfold we have when it comes to buying food. That’s the message of the Soil & Health Association, which welcomes the Consumers’ Right to Know (Labelling of Country of Origin of Food) Bill currently before a parliamentary select committee. The Bill requires all single component foods, packaged and unpackaged, to display their country of origin.

Soil & Health has been campaigning for mandatory country of origin labelling for over a decade, since the government opted out of joining Australia in mandating country of origin labelling under the Food Standards Code on the grounds it would be an impediment to trade. With the exception of wine, country of origin labelling is only voluntary in New Zealand.

“All of New Zealand’s major trading partner countries have country of origin labelling including Australia, the US, the UK, countries in Europe and many Asian countries,”  says Karen Summerhays, spokesperson for Soil & Health.

“While footwear and clothing is required to identify where it comes from, food isn’t. This bill aims to extend that requirement to fresh fruit, meat, fish and vegetables, and other single component foods such as grains, nuts, bulk flour and oil.”

“It’s becoming more common that New Zealanders are wanting to avoid genetically engineered food, food with pesticide residues, or food coming from countries with poor labour conditions, poor environmental and animal welfare standards, but cannot easily choose to avoid products from those countries when shopping here.”

“Pesticide residues in imported food and the health effects of them are an urgent consumer and health issue. Although good labelling exists in some supermarkets, voluntary labelling is often either not working or is poorly utilised, and is definitely not enforceable under the law.”

“Consumers must be able to make their own, informed food choices. Mandatory country of origin labelling is a step towards allowing consumers to do this,” says Summerhays.

There has been widespread support in New Zealand for country of origin labelling. A recent survey conducted by Consumer NZ and Horticulture NZ found that 71% of Kiwis want mandatory country of origin labelling and 65% said they looked for country of origin labelling when they were shopping.

The submission period for the Bill closes this Thursday the 18th of May at 5pm.

Soil & Health is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world and advocates for the consumer’s right to have fresh, healthy, organic food free of GE, pesticides and additives, and the right to know what is in their food and water.

Contact:  Karen Summerhays
Spokesperson, Soil & Health Association
021 043 7858

Food Sovereignty policy

GE-Free Zones partially protected in RMA amendments

/in ,

5th April 2017

The Soil & Health Association welcomes a change to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill regarding genetic engineering, but says it still does not go far enough.

Yesterday the controversial RLA Bill passed the committee stage, meaning that amendments can no longer be made to the Bill. The Bill is now expected to have its third and final reading on Thursday.

However the controversial section 360D – known as ‘the dictator’ clause – has not been removed from the final version of the RLA Bill. This clause allows the Minister for the Environment to bypass parliament and make fundamental changes to the law if he deems council plans duplicate or deal with the same subject matter as central Government laws. Instead section 360D now contains an exemption that prevents the minister from imposing GM crops on regions that want their territorites to remain GM Free.

“We are pleased that the Maori Party has stood strong on their promises not to support the changes that would have allowed the Minister to strike out GE-free zones. We commend the Maori Party for this,” says Soil & Health chair Marion Thomson.

While section 360D is still in the final version of the Bill, the exemption means that the Minister cannot strike out GE-free zones.

“The word ‘crop’ has a wide definition and we understand that the Maori Party secured the amendment on the basis that the term also covers grasses and forestry, while the term ‘growing’ could also cover field trials and releases,” says Thomson.

Of concern for Soil & Health however is that the exemption does not apply to animals, meaning the Minister could override local authorities on any decisions about GE animals if he chose to.

“We have been kept on the edge of our seats through this long process and have had to keep faith in the Maori Party that they would do the right thing and not support the amendments that would abolish GM-free zones,” says Thomson.

“Ultimately we are happy with this result, while animals are not covered, GM grasses, forestry, field trials and releases are.”

 

Contact:  Karen Summerhays
Spokesperson, Soil & Health Association
021 043 7858

GE Free Field NZ

Maori Party says no way to Nick Smith’s power grab

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association congratulates the Maori Party for standing up for New Zealanders who want to live in a GE-Free community and saying no to Nick Smith’s attempt to ride roughshod over local democracy.
“Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox has told the Environment Minister they will not support his attempts to regulate genetically modified crops nationally through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),” says Soil & Health Association spokesperson Karen Summerhays.
“This spells the end for Nick Smith’s attempts to control what is grown in New Zealander’s neighbourhoods and available at their local markets.
“Local Authorities won the right to regulate the planting of genetically modified crops in their territories after years of legal battles over whether they could introduce GMO-Free zones through district plan rules.
“By standing up to Nick Smith, the Maori Party has protected this hard-fought democratic right. The Government doesn’t have the numbers to make this change without their support.
“The Environment Minister insists that genetic modification should be regulated on a national level by the EPA under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, not under the Resource Management Act. Nick Smith’s view has now been found wrong by both the Environment Court and the High Court.
“Clause 360D of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill – also known as the ‘dictator clause’ – would have allowed the Government to step in if it deemed council plans duplicated central Government laws.
“Soil & Health would like a sub clause introduced to the Bill prohibiting this power being used in relation to council plans which contain a GMO-free zone.
“Otherwise local food producers – and economies – face being hit in the pocket when they lose the lucrative advantage of being able to market their products “GE-Free” alongside those from the world’s premier GE-Free territories; Tuscany, Provence and Burgundy.
“It’s time for Nick Smith to concede defeat and acknowledge that communities should continue to decide whether GMO crops are grown in their districts,” Karen Summerhays says.

Contact – Soil & Health spokesperson Karen Summerhays on 021 043 7858
GE Free Field NZ

Court ruling highlights the dangers of RMA reforms

/in , , , ,

A new court ruling highlights how the Government’s RMA reforms will ride roughshod over public participation in resource management and the power of councils to regulate the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within their territories, says Soil & Health Association chair Marion Thomson.
On Friday the High Court rejected Federated Farmers’ bid to oppose court costs for its failed challenge to members of the public and councils that seek to manage the outdoor use of GMOs under RMA plans. Costs have now been awarded against Federated Farmers for a second time.
“Not only has Federated Farmers now been ordered to pay court costs of more than $10,000 to the Whangarei District Council and the Soil & Health Association, but the High Court found it was not acting in the public interest.
“In fact Justice Peters noted Federated Farmers ‘brought these proceedings because it was in its members’ interest to do so’.
“The National-led Government’s Resource Legislation Amendment Bill will jeopardise local authorities’ ability to manage GMO land use by giving the Environment Minister new powers to override council planning rules.
“These reforms threaten the economic sustainability of a wide range of agricultural export activities reliant on GMO-free status, and would override the ability of councils to respond to community concerns about the planting of GMO crops in their area.
“Friday’s ruling further entrenches the legal rights of councils and communities.
“Environment Minister Nick Smith believes genetic modification should be regulated on a national level by the Environmental Protection Authority under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO), not under the Resource Management Act.
“He is no doubt under pressure from Federated Farmers who choose to ignore the fact that while HSNO controls the introduction of new organisms (including GMOs), it is the RMA which oversees the environment new organisms are introduced into.
“Nick Smith is being mischievous in suggesting the management of genetically modified organisms under the RMA will stop access to the development of GMO medicines. He conveniently overlooks the fact that GMO veterinary vaccines are already permitted under the Auckland Unitary Plan.
“The Minister’s claims that GMOs were only ever intended to be regulated under HSNO have now been found to be wrong by both the Environment Court and High Court.
“Nick Smith must protect the ability of councils to act in the best interests of their ratepayers and local producers by amending his Bill to explicitly exclude using these new powers to regulate the release of GMOs.
“There are huge uncertainties around the adverse effects of GMOs on natural resources and ecosystems. The risks are large and consequences irreversible.
“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,” Marion Thomson says.

Comprehensive New Review of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Underscores Urgent Need for Global Action

/in , , ,

In a “state of the science” review released today, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International presents a large body of research documenting the adverse human health and environmental impacts of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides and underscores the need for these to be phased out globally. Environmental and health advocates say the monograph on the world’s most widely used herbicide, commonly known as Roundup, should serve as a wake up call for regulators, governments and users around the world.

Adverse human impacts detailed in the review include acute poisoning, kidney and liver damage, imbalances in the intestinal microbiome and intestinal functioning, cancer, genotoxicity, endocrine disruption, reproductive and developmental reduction, neurological damage, and immune system dysfunction.

Aggressive public relations and marketing by glyphosate’s developer, Monsanto, has resulted in the widespread perception that the chemical is ‘safe’. Registration processes continue to allow its use without raising concerns about its safety even as new data identifying adverse effects emerge.

This review dispels the so-called safety claims and highlights the urgent need to re-examine the authorization of products containing glyphosate. A full chemical profile is presented, along with the regulatory status of products containing glyphosate in many countries and information on viable alternatives.

Glyphosate is included in PAN International’s “List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides” (1) targeted for global phaseout. The global network is calling for the herbicide to be replaced by agroecological approaches to weed management in diversified cropping systems and non-crop situations.

Glyphosate is currently sprayed on numerous crops and plantations, including about 80% of genetically engineered (GE) crops. It is also used as a pre-harvest desiccant, so crops such as wheat have a uniform moisture content at harvest time. This practice results in high glyphosate residues in foods. It is also widely used in home gardens and public places including roadsides, and semi-natural and natural habitats. Due to its widespread use, residues are now detected in different types of foods, drinking water, wine and beer; and even in non-food products derived from GM cotton. The extent of human exposure is confirmed by the presence of glyphosate in human urine wherever it has been tested, principally in Europe and North America. It has also been found in breast milk in the USA.

The 2015 classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen has resulted in widespread concern about its continued use, especially pre-harvest and in public places.

Some countries, including Sri Lanka, Italy and France have imposed a partial ban and/or phase out of the spraying of glyphosate in agriculture and in public areas. The European Union has extended approval for glyphosate for only 18 months instead of the usual 15 years.

Environmental impacts detailed in the monograph are no less concerning, and include adverse effects on ecosystem functioning, pollination services, biological controls, soil fertility and crop health. Residues are widespread in the environment, including in rainwater, surface and ground waters, and the marine environment. Glyphosate can persist in some soils for up to 3 years; and there is some evidence of bioaccumulation.

Resistance to glyphosate is now recorded in 35 weed species and in 27 countries, mostly caused by the repeated use of glyphosate in GE crops, no-till agriculture, and amenity use.

Soil & Health NZ Inc. past co-chair Dr Elvira Dommisse points out that, “the monograph also contains a useful section on alternative weed management and provides information on a wide variety of non-chemical approaches to weed management in various situations. These are people-friendly and environmentally-friendly, resulting in weed management that is benign or even beneficial to ecosystems. We can and should embrace such methods to preserve and restore our soils and waterways and to minimise health risks to human and animals.”

MEDIA CONTACT

Dr Meriel Watts

PAN New Zealand

+64-21-1807830; merielwatts@xtra.co.nz

Dr Elvira Dommisse

021 0575 123 elvira@clear.net.nz

References:

The full Monograph review can be accessed here:  https://pan-international.org/wp-content/uploads/Glyphosate-monograph.pdf 

Supporting document:

(1)  PAN International’s “List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides”

https://pan-international.org/wp-content/uploads/PAN_HHP_List.pdf

Quotes from PAN International representatives:

Keith Tyrell, Director, PAN-UK:

“This new study from PAN International’s team of scientists clearly shows that glyphosate can cause a multitude of health and environmental problems. Our regulators need to wake up and ban this chemical now.”

Dr Meriel Watts, PAN New Zealand:

“The time has come for global recognition of the widespread harm caused to people and the environment from the constant use of glyphosate. For too long regulators have ignored the mounting evidence of damage, hiding behind unpublished studies by Monsanto, which not surprisingly paint a picture of a benign chemical startlingly at odds with reality.”

Fernando Bejarano, PAN Mexico (RAPAM)

“The intrinsic hazards of glyphosate and their use in tolerant transgenic crops are unacceptable if we want to achieve a sustainable food system, so we need a global phase out and a shift in policies promoting instead agroecological alternatives for weed control and crop rotation in diversified crop systems.”

Dr. Peter Clausing, PAN Germany:

“In 2017 the European Chemicals Agency has to decide whether it accepts the compelling evidence for glyphosate’s carcinogenicity and declares it a carcinogen. This would be an overdue acknowledgement of the reality.”

Dr. Emily Marquez, staff scientist, PAN North America:

“The glyphosate mess illustrates the problems with industrial agriculture. Farmers are again trapped on a pesticide treadmill, as widespread adoption of Monsanto’s genetically engineered “Roundup-Ready” crops resulted in glyphosate-resistant superweeds. And yet again, human health impacts of the chemical come to light after years of widespread use. It’s time to shift away from this failing cycle of chemical reliance.”

Jayakumar Chelaton, PAN India

“Every month we get a new story of how glyphosate is harming people in the farms and off farms in rural India. It is clearly damaging people and planet.”

Sarojeni V. Rengam, PAN Asia and the Pacific

“Glyphosate is a highly hazardous pesticide. There are other ecosystem based non-chemical alternatives that do not require the use of such hazardous herbicides.  We therefore urge Monsanto and other agrochemical corporations to stop the production and marketing of glyphosate in order to ensure the health of people and the environment.”

Dr Angeliki Lyssimachou, PAN Europe

“This remarkable compilation of scientific studies reveals that glyphosate-based pesticides -despite what their manufactures’ claim- are far from ‘safe’. Hundreds of non-industry funded studies show that these products are gradually poisoning our people, our environment and its ecosystems. Regulators must stop playing blind and take action to ban all uses of glyphosate.”

GE Free from the Bombays to Cape Reinga

/in , , , , ,

GE Free Northland and the Soil & Health Association are celebrating the Far North and Whangarei District Councils’ decisions to retain precautionary and prohibitive genetically modified organisms (GMOs) provisions in their new District Plans.  This follows Auckland Council’s recent decision to retain similar precautionary and prohibitive GMO provisions in the new Unitary Plan.  The result of which is a GE Free northern peninsula from the Bombay Hills to Cape Reinga.

Whangarei District councilors voted unanimously last week to protect the community, local economy, and environment from the risks of outdoor uses of GMOs.  Their neighbours in the Far North voted a week earlier to introduce similar rules to their District Plan.

“These decisions, and our recent victory in the High Court, represent a huge win for Northland.  Our elected representatives are to be congratulated for their tenacity and commitment in supporting the aspirations of their constituents and protecting our biosecurity,” said Martin Robinson, spokesperson for GE Free Northland.

In June this year, GE Free Northland together with the Soil & Health Association gathered a panel of expert witnesses, mana whenua, and community representatives, to present evidence to the independent commissioners at the councils’ hearings on GMOs.  Both groups offered strong support for the District councils’ proposed precautionary approach to outdoor GE experiments, strict liability provisions, and outright ban on the release of GMOs.

“This is necessary because of serious deficiencies in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act).  Government agencies have a poor track record in containing outdoor GE experiments, and the law has very limited liability provisions for damage” said Soil & Health Chair Marion Thomson.  “The GMO policies they have now adopted are a sophisticated, collaborative, and fiscally prudent response.”

For more than a decade the Far North District and Whangarei District Councils have worked with the Auckland and Northland Regional Councils to plot a path that works for farmers, the wider community, and the environment.  The councils’ decisions to adopt the independent commissioners’ recommendations help protect the Northland region’s GM Free status, biosecurity, economy, and environment by requiring additional local protections that are not required by the national regulator, the Environmental Protection Authority, under the HSNO Act, with an outright prohibition of release of GMOs.

“Environment Minister Nick Smith has tried to portray local bodies as anti-science and anti-progress.  His claims are untrue, unjustly attempting to denigrate the robust course that our councils have charted,” said GE Free Northland’s Chair Zelka Grammer.

Despite the minister’s statements, the global Non-GMO food market is currently valued at US$250 billion, and trends show this is only going to grow.  It is clear that New Zealand producers benefit from access to this huge non-GMO market.

Soil & Health and GE Free Northland combined represent more than 10,000 members and supporters, including primary producers and consumers, both organic and conventional, who want to avoid genetically modified organisms and products made from them.

CONTACT

Marty Robinson

Spokesperson, GE Free Northland

022 136 9619

Marion Thomson

Chair, Soil & Health Association

027 555 4015

Zelka Linda Grammer

Chair, GE Free Northland

022 309 5039

GMO COURT RULING PROTECTS ENTIRE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

/in , , ,

New Zealand’s biotech industry is not under threat as a result of a High Court ruling upholding an Environment Court’s decision to give regional councils control over use and release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their district, says the Soil and Health Association.

The High Court ruling on Wednesday was based on an appeal by Federated Farmers, which argued the release of GMOs was already regulated by the Environmental Protection Authority and regional councils were not qualified to make such decisions.

Donald Nordeng of BioGro New Zealand says the ruling protects GMO use in healthcare and in agriculture as a whole.

“This ruling confirms that under the Resource Management Act, regional and territorial local authorities can manage the use of GMOs in the same way as any other land use. This does not impact on GMOs used in medicine or the treatment of people.”

“This will not impact on our health industry. A hospital will not need a local consent to undertake its medical work.

“This landmark ruling is about having clarity about the distinction between GMO areas and non-GMO areas and allowing local communities to have a say in the GMO policies in their areas.

“There is no economic or technical reason why outdoor use of GMOs should not be subject to regional and district plans – like everyone else. GMO use, even when approved by the EPA still is not risk free. For example, management accidents could wipe out a neighbouring organic or non-GMO producer’s livelihood, or lead to the loss of GE free status for wider areas.

“This ruling benefits everyone in New Zealand. The global organic food market is currently valued at US$80 billion, with the global Non-GMO market at US$250 billion, and trends show this is only going to grow. All New Zealand farmers benefit from access to this massive non-GMO market, not just organic farmers. This ruling protects our valuable organic export market (worth approximately NZ$240-250 million in 2015) and provides a safe source of supply to the two-thirds of New Zealanders who choose organic products at least some of the time,” Nordeng said.

For more information: Effie Lochrane 027 433 6373 / Anna Kominik 027 472 4293

High Court ruling on GE a win for democracy

/in , , ,

The High Court has today upheld the ruling that regional councils do have the right to decide on the provisions, policies, and rules regarding the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their region.

 

The Soil & Health Association (Soil & Health) celebrates this landmark decision as a win not only in the fight against genetic engineering (GE) and keeping a clean green Aotearoa, but also for democracy as it allows community values and concerns about GMOs to be taken into account when drafting regional policy instruments.

 

Judge Mary Peters ruled in favour of the Whangarei District Council (WDC), Northland Regional Council (NRC), Soil & Health, GE Free Northland and others, dismissing the appeal on all questions raised by the appellants Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Federated Farmers).

 

“We welcome this landmark ruling,” said Soil & Health chair Marion Thomson. “It confirms the ability of all local councils to determine GE policies in their areas. We support communities around the country who want to keep Aotearoa New Zealand clean, green and GE-free.”

 

The decision comes after Federated Farmers appealed the Environment Court’s ruling in May 2015 that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act (RMA) for local councils to control the use of GMOs via regional policy instruments.

 

Federated Farmers challenged that decision in the High Court in February this year where they argued that local government “has no role” in legislating about GMOs and that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO), not the RMA, is the overarching legislation that governs how GMOs are used in New Zealand.

 

Judge Mary Peters however stated in her decision today that the Environment Court “was conscious of the overlap between the RMA and HSNO but it was not persuaded that overlap required a conclusion that GMOs (and other new organisms) are required to be excluded from consideration in the promulgation of a regional policy statement or plan.”

 

Background:

Much of the New Zealand public today is still under the impression that New Zealand is a GE-free nation. The truth however is more complex.

1.     GE in the environment: The moratorium on GE organisms (such as crops and animals) in the environment was lifted in 2003, but since then no applications have been made for commercial release, although there are and have been GE field trials.

2.     GE in food and animal feed: While we do not grow any GE crops or animals, there are many imported GE ingredients in our food. As of July 2012 Food Standards Australia New Zealand has approved 53 applications of 71 different GE food lines into our country, and an estimated 70% or more of processed non-organic foods for sale in New Zealand contain GE ingredients. In addition to human food, New Zealand imports large quantities of animal feed which is almost certainly genetically engineered.

 

Significant gaps exist in the law around GMOs in New Zealand. There is a lack of strict liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO, and no mandatory requirement for the Environmental Protection Authority to take a precautionary approach to the outdoor use of GMOs. Under the HSNO Act there is no requirement for ‘polluter pays’ to ensure companies causing unintended or unforeseen adverse impacts from GE crops of GE animals are held responsible. Due to these gaps in the law, a number of councils around New Zealand have been moving to protect their primary producers and communities by introducing precautionary or prohibitive policies.

 

The Northland Regional Council is one such council which, after receiving hundreds of submission from Northland ratepayers, district councils, Northland Conservation Board, iwi authorities, hapū and community groups, choose to adopt a precautionary approach around the outdoor release of GMOs in the proposed Northland Regional Policy Statement. The Northland Regional Council also identified GMOs as an issue of significance for Northland tangata whenua and an issue of concern for Northland Communities in their Regional Policy Statement.

 

Federated Farmers of New Zealand lodged an appeal with the Environment Court in 2015 opposing these precautionary GMO provisions in the Northland Regional Policy statement. Principal Environment Court Judge L. Newhook however found that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act for regional councils to make provision for the outdoor use of GMOs through regional policy statements and plans. Since comprehensively losing the appeal (which it initiated) on all points of law, Federated Farmers filed a second appeal against the Environment Court’s decision with the High Court.

 

Soil & Health, GE Free Northland, Taitokerau mana whenua, Far North District Council and several other groups and individuals joined the appeal in the High Court as section 274 (interested) parties pursuant to the RMA, in support of respondents Northland Regional Council and Whangarei District Council. Soil & Health was represented by Dr. Royden Somerville QC and Robert Makgill.

 

Dr Somerville argued that Environment Court Judge L. Newhook was correct in his decision that the RMA and HSNO Act hold complementary and not overlapping roles. The two Acts offer different purposes and functional responses to the regulation of GMOs in New Zealand. Thus, regional planning documents can control the use of GMOs as part of promoting sustainable management under the RMA, taking account of regional needs. This argument has today been confirmed by High Court Judge Mary Peters.

 

Soil & Health and GE Free Northland combined represent more than 10,000 members and supporters, including consumers and producers, both organic and conventional, who want to avoid GE. Soil & Health believes that there is no economic, health or environmental case for GMOs. There are huge uncertainties around the adverse effects of GMOs on natural resources and ecosystems. The risks are large and consequences irreversible. If GMO’s 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 land use were permitted.

 

CONTACT

Marion Thomson
Chair, Soil & Health Association
027 555 4014

 

Auckland to stay GE Free under new Unitary Plan

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association congratulates Auckland Council on its decision to retain the valuable precautionary and prohibitive genetically modified organisms (GMOs) provisions in the new Auckland Unitary Plan, which protect the Auckland region’s GE-free status.

Auckland Council is now the second local authority in New Zealand to officially become GE-Free in its local plan, after Hastings District Council decided last year to ban all outdoor use of GMOs in their district plan. Auckland food producers, like those in Hastings, can now brand their products as grown in a GE-Free food producing area.

“GE crops pose a serious threat to the investment made by primary producers in their GE-free enterprises,” says Soil & Health Chair Marion Thomson.  “GMOs are not allowed in food or farming according to organic certification standards, and there have been numerous overseas examples of farmers losing their GE-free or certified organic status because of contamination from GE crops.”  Non-GE crops carry a specific market-based premium that GE crops do not command.  According to the 2016 Organic Market Report, New Zealanders are eating and growing more organic produce than ever before.  Award winning Hawkes Bay sheep and beef farmer Simon Beamish recently stated: “As a farmer, exporter, I can confirm that consumers want GM free produce and that market demand is growing.”

Soil & Health, which has advocated for a GM-free New Zealand on behalf of its members and supporters for many years, joined with 26 other submitters to present expert witnesses, mana whenua, and community voice evidence to the Independent Hearings Panel at the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan hearing on GMOs last September.  Soil & Health supported the proposed precautionary approach to GMOs, and in particular outright prohibition of GMO releases.  “Including strong GMO policy and provisions in the final Auckland Unity Plan provides an important acknowledgement of community views and concerns,” says Thomson.

Auckland Council has decided to allow GMO research in controlled environments and the use of veterinary vaccines that contain GMOs as permitted activities, but outdoor field trials and the use of vaccines by people who are not veterinarians are discretionary activities.  Release of GMOs into the environment is a prohibited activity, which would require a plan change before being undertaken.

The new Auckland plan also contains a strict liability provision whereby consent holders for outdoor field trialling of GMOs will be held financially accountable for any adverse effects associated with the activity, for example through contamination, including clean up costs and remediation.  The Council, through the plan, further requires consent holders to provide a bond that would be made available for any costs of adverse effects associated with the activity.  This is important given there are limited liability provisions under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, as identified by Local Government NZ and a large number of councils.  The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is responsible for approving the outdoor use of GMOs in New Zealand; there is, however, no requirement for the EPA to take a precautionary approach to outdoor use of GMOs. One of the most important Environment Court decisions of last year was the finding that councils have the right to control the use of GMOs in their area under the Resource Management Act.  Federated Farmers since appealed that decision to the High Court.  The case was heard in Whangarei in February this year.  The decision from the High Court is yet to be released.

 

CONTACT

Marion Thomson

Chair, Soil & Health Association

027 555 4014