Monsanto A Threat to NZ’s Homeland Security

/in ,

“Biotech companies are still trying to push their flawed and failed genetically engineered technology onto New Zealand farmers despite markets around the world not wanting to buy it” says Debbie Swanwick, Spokesperson for Soil & Health – Organic NZ.

The XII conference for International Biotechnology, being held at the Energy Events Centre in Rotorua from 2-6 September, signals a significant threat to New Zealand’s future. “One of the key issues these companies will be espousing at this event is genetic terrorism against our food supply, economy and natural assets” says Swanwick.

Monsanto’s VP Biotechnology, Prof Robert Reiter, is one of ten keynote speakers at the conference which also includes representatives from Du Pont and Swiss-based investment firm Festel Capital.

Monsanto has a worldwide reputation as the Darth Vader of agriculture. Despite industry propaganda from this sector, touting GE crops as safe and promising that cross contamination of organic and conventional crops will be prevented, experience overseas shows quite the opposite.

Some Australian farmers lured into the promise of a safe product returning high revenues, are finding their GE crops harder to sell even at lower prices than GE-free crops.

“The only profits from the Australian farmer experience went straight back to Monsanto. Cross-contamination of farms has pitched neighbour against neighbour and Monsanto is now dictating terms of how farmers grow their crops and run their farms – they are, so to speak, Monsanto farmers,” says Swanwick.

This month two Australian farmers, Julie Newman and Bob Mackley, toured New Zealand with Green MP Steffan Browning, to warn against GE and educate farmers and the public on the subject.

Monsanto has purported, in the past, the safety of Agent Orange, PCBs, and DDT. Now they are promoting GE food crops designed to be sprayed with 2,4 D, an ingredient of Agent Orange.

“This hui (meeting) is happening in one of the most beautiful regions of New Zealand that all kiwis consider a taonga (treasure), yet the introduction of GE crops would damage our clean green image and tourist industry. The General Manager of Scion recently suggested Rotorua could benefit from GE crops, but the only benefactor from GE crops are corporate bottom lines,” says Swanwick.

Scion is one of the conference sponsors and one of the two Crown research institutes still conducting GE trials (with GE pine trees).Millions of New Zealand taxpayer dollars have been sunk into GE trials, with absolutely no benefits. Soil & Health wants such funding to go into researching and developing truly sustainable organic farming and forestry systems.

“As a group we are not anti biotechnology – we are pro consumer and the commercial release of GE in New Zealand would destroy our choice to eat healthy, GE-free food and denigrate the mana whenua of our people. It could also compromise our exports and $20 billion tourism industry born of our clean, green image – which many people in Rotorua and Aotearoa rely on,” says Swanwick.

GE crops reduce biodiversity and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems and soil organisms.

Soil & Health – Organic NZ will be holding a public vigil at the XII International Biotechnology Conference from 12 noon on Saturday 1st September to 4pm Sunday 2nd September.To register your interest in attending this event please contact 09 419 4536 or email, advocacy@organicnz.org.nz.

New Spokesperson for Soil & Health Association – Organic NZ

/in ,

The Soil & Health Association – Organic NZ have announced the appointment of Debbie Swanwick as their new spokesperson.

The Association has been in operation for seventy years advocating  “Healthy Soil – Healthy Food – Healthy People” to create an organic New Zealand. It is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand.

“Speaking out for Organics is a key role for our organisation, which is why our three thousand members so generously supported funding this position last year. We’re thrilled to have someone as gutsy and knowledgeable as Debbie to take on the task of advocating for an organic Aotearoa/New Zealand and to know that the organic movement is behind her 110 per cent,” says Soil & Health Association Co-Chair Dr Matt Morris. “Debbie will be taking the role to new levels, operating through social media as well as more regular media channels and of course through face to face contact.”

Swanwick has fifteen years experience working in not for profits in marketing, communications and advocacy for better social solutions.  Throughout this time she has been a strong supporter against environmental degradation.  In late 2003 she was very active against the lifting of the GE moratorium and most recently has fought tirelessly against a proposed industrial development that will compromise one of Auckland largest floodplains, in South Auckland.

“Over $572 million USD has been spent in campaign contributions and lobbying expenditure, since 1999, by the 50 largest agricultural and food patent-holding companies and two of the largest biotechnology and agrochemical trade associations.  It says something in itself that so much money is needed to push the argument for GE food.  I am privileged to be able to represent the voice of the masses in New Zealand, who don’t want GE food on their plate” says Swanwick.

Swanwick’s predecessor, Steffan Browning was spokesperson for Soil & Health – Organic NZ since 2003 and left to take up the position as Member of parliament for the Green Party in February of this year.

Organics Organisation Gets An MP For Its Seventieth

/in ,

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, which has just turned seventy, is hailing the election of Steffan Browning to Parliament as a great leap forward for New Zealand’s primary production sector.

Mr Browning, Soil & Health’s spokesperson, was elected to Parliament last weekend at number 10 on the Green Party’s list.

“We are delighted with Steffan’s victory,” said Soil & Health’s co-chair Dr Matt Morris. “This is a huge moment for organics in this country and one that we can justifiably be very proud of. It’s an amazing seventieth birthday present for our organisation.”

“Steffan has done a huge amount of work for the organics sector over the years, and now the organics sector is right behind him. Without Steffan’s tireless efforts, New Zealand may well have been littered with GE mad experiments gone wrong, a long time ago” Dr Morris said.

“Soil & Health wants to see Steffan on the Primary Production Select Committee, where he can have a real influence in shaping the organic future of our nation.”

“Steffan’s vast experience and campaigning in food issues such as aspartame, GE components, pesticides and toxic additives will fill a gap left by food safety champion Sue Kedgley, who has retired from Parliament.”

“We’re hoping he can bring about the change in land management practices and safe food our organisation was born for.”

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, founded seventy years ago in 1941, is the world’s oldest organic farming and gardening organisation and has 3000 members.

Green MP Sue Kedgley Applauded By Safe Food and Organic Community

/in ,

Green Party MP Sue Kedgley’s valedictory speech at 5-45pm today marks the coming retirement of this country’s most committed food safety focused Member of Parliament ever, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

“Sue Kedgley has been the Member of Parliament who for 12 years has consistently pursued on behalf of New Zealand’s consumers, effective food labelling, a reduction in pesticide and food additives use, improved residues testing, removal of genetically engineered foods, and the MP who has achieved improvements to animal welfare codes, “ said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“A very effective campaigner who could both educate and draw on community support for issues, Sue Kedgley MP has worked closely in support of NGOs, affected industry and consumers, campaigning successfully for phase outs of sow crates, and controls on pesticides such as endosulfan and methyl bromide.”

“In a naïve or short-sighted Parliament, Sue Kedgley MP has strived to bring practical limits to the excesses of the New Zealand food safety bureaucracy, whose main focus is in facilitating trade rather than consumer choice or small producers viability.”

“Sue’s 37,000 signature petition on Country of Origin Labelling of food showed the overwhelming support for the issues that Sue stands for, and campaigns that will be continued.”

“Sue has been one of Parliament’s most avid organic sector supporters, someone who was always seen as an ally in an often indifferent environment. Sue is able to see the full environmental and social benefit of organic production and was never shy to promote those advantages.”

“Soil & Health – Organic NZ and many many consumers are pleased to know that Sue will still be working on the issues important to her following her retirement from Parliament, at the November 26 election.”

“Sue Kedgley MP has successfully promoted the values of Soil & Health, as expressed in our motto, Oranga nuku – oranga kai – oranga tāngata, Healthy soil – Healthy food – Healthy people.”

Soil & Health – Organic NZ will be represented at Sue’s valedictory speech today by our spokesperson, National Councillor, Patron and many members and Organic NZ readers.

CONTACT:

 

The Soil & Health Association of NZ – Organic NZ

Spokesperson

 

Steffan Browning

Declaration; Steffan Browning is also a Green Party candidate.

021 725655

campaign@organicnz.org

AgResearch misinformation corrected by independent scientists

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association was disturbed yesterday when meeting with MAF-Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ) to find an official supporting the misinformation that AgResearch had stated in a Radio NZ Rural Report program. Soil & Health and GE Free NZ met with officials from MAF-BNZ to discuss the possible leakage of genetically engineered (GE)organisms from the AgResearch Ruakura GE animal facility.

AgResearch and MAF-BNZ  have suggested that micro-organisms in the AgResearch offal pits could not be subject to gene transfer from the genetically engineered cattle disposed there, and had stopped ensuring that studies used samples from within the soil surrounding the decomposing GE cattle, as expected by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).

The Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) has issued a media statement correcting AgResearch’s factually incorrect statement.  (1)

A report by INBI evaluating horizontal gene transfer experiments at AgResearch’s facility had been published in the Journal of Organic Systems last week. (2)

“Soil & Health is concerned that independent studies designed to test for gene transfer are not being carried out at AgResearch’s Ruakura GE animal field trial facility. This allows for possible contamination of the wider environment and risks to human safety, and in the absence of appropriate gene transfer research, the AgResearch GE animal research must be discontinued,” said Soil & Health Association spokeperson Steffan Browning.(3,4)

 

References

(1) Media Release 10 May 2011 of Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety

Setting the record straight on monitoring gene transfer from GM animals

The spokesperson for AgResearch made factually incorrect statements to Radio New Zealand’s “Rural Report” on 9 May 2011. He was challenging the peer-reviewed and published results from the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) which found fundamental flaws in the monitoring of horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified animals disposed of in offal pits. Of concern to us was this statement:
“…soil bacteria are normally only found in the top soil layer which is several centimetres in depth which actually contains oxygen and biological matter so we focussed our sampling at a depth to which soil bacteria are actually found and were there any transfer it would take place in that zone where the bacteria were.”

Our response:

1. Soil bacteria and other microorganisms can be found many metres below the soil surface. Microorganisms have been detected in oil reservoirs 3000 metres deep, with metabolically active bacteria found well over 1000 metres deep (Mason et al., 2010). Notably the statement above is contradicted by AgResearch’s own research. In 2004 AgResearch detected over a million aerobic and culturable bacteria per gram of soil at its single deepest sample of 5.5 metres.

2. While the numbers of cellular microbes does decrease with depth, microbes are not absent but are still found in substantial numbers. The number of microbes in topsoil near the surface reaches an estimated 2 billion per gram of soil (Heinemann et al., 2011, Heinemann and Traavik, 2004). At depth, the population reduces by as much as 2/3rds (Fierer et al., 2003) but remains just under 1 billion per gram of soil. Indeed, an estimated 35% of the microbial biomass in the top 2 metres of soil resides below 25 centimetres (Fierer et al., 2003), and thus it is especially poignant that AgResearch mainly sampled at only 15 and 30 cm, thus ignoring a significant proportion of the potential recombinant population.

3. Microbes on and inside the discarded carcasses would have seeded populations of bacteria and other microbes at depth, at numbers that potentially exceed those at surface. These microbes would have been of the highest priority to sample because they would have been in longest contact with the animals.

4. The kind of microbes at depth may differ in proportion from those near the surface. It is again noteworthy that AgResearch restricted their survey to only bacteria, only bacteria that can be cultured, only bacteria that can be cultured in an oxygenated environment, and only those in the top soil layers not in contact with the animals, and thus AgResearch actively excluded from consideration an estimated 99-99.9% of all other kinds of bacteria and 100% of all other kinds of microbes.

5. There is no evidence to support the contention that transfer would be restricted to the top soil layers. It is in fact probably impossible for transfer to take place in the top 30 cm when the genes being monitored were at least 1.7 vertical metres lower. This equates to approximately 1.7 million bacterial body lengths away. With the exception of one self-described “preliminary experiment” in 2004, AgResearch sampled for gene transfer in soil that essentially could not contain the target genes.

Prof. Jack A. Heinemann
Dr. Brigitta Kurenbach
Ms. Nikki Bleyendaal
Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety
University of Canterbury
Fierer, N., Schimel, J. P. and Holden, P. A. (2003). Variations in microbial community composition through two soil depth profiles. Soil Biol. Biochem. 35, 167-176.
Heinemann, J. A., Kurenbach, B. and Bleyendaal, N. (2011). Evaluation of horizontal gene transfer monitoring experiments conducted in New Zealand between 2004 and 2009. J. Org. Sys. 6, 3-19.
Heinemann, J. A. and Traavik, T. (2004). Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 22, 1105-1109.
Mason, O. U., Nakagawa, T., Rosner, M., Van N., J. D., Zhou, J., Maruyama, A., Fisk, M. R. and Giovannoni, S. J. (2010). First investigation of the microbiology of the deepest layer of ocean crust. PLoS Biology 5, e15399.

(2) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/pdf/6(1)-Heinemann-pp3-19.pdf

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/index.html

EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER MONITORING EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN NEW ZEALAND BETWEEN 2004 AND 2009. Jack A. Heinemann1,2*, Brigitta Kurenbach1,2 and Nikki Bleyendaal1  1Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety and the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch New Zealand  2GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway.  Corresponding author. Phone +64 3 364 2500 email jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz  03 3642926   021 0239 7321

(3) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/1261/should-agresearch-be-charged-with-fraud/

(4) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/1260/erma-swallowed-genetic-bull-from-agresearch/

 

 

CONTACT:

The Soil & Health Association of NZ – Organic NZ
Spokesperson
Steffan Browning
021 725655
campaign@organicnz.org

Should AgResearch be charged with fraud?

/in , , ,

Government must cancel all genetic engineering (GE) field trials by the government funded Crown Research Institute’s, AgResearch, Scion and Plant & Food Research, now that AgResearch has been shown to intentionally avoid critical safety research required of it, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.(1)

Soil & Health also believes charges relating to false pretences or fraud should be considered in relation to AgResearch’s activities.

“Concerns about the risk of new viral and prion diseases, and the potential loss of antibiotic effectiveness, from AgResearch’s GE cattle activities, led to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) 2002 approval including limits on the genetic material to be used in the GE cattle experiments, and requiring all reasonable efforts to monitor for adverse effects,” said Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning. (2)

“However AgResearch has followed a dishonest path of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) research sampling, reporting and media responses’ that has put the public and environment at risk. Scion and Plant & Food Research have previously also misled the government and public about their field trials environmental effects and monitoring practices.”

“AgResearch has more seriously exceeded even Plant & Food’s blatant misreporting of its GE brassica field trial in 2008. The Plant & Food Research GE trial was closed down following Soil & Health and GE Free NZ’s identifying risky approval breaches including illegal flowering of the GE brassicas.” (3)

AgResearch’s genetically engineered (GE) animal field trial site was approved by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) with a control requiring research to try and find evidence of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), transgenes or genetic material from GE cattle carcasses transferring to micro-organisms, at the Ruakura offal pit site.

ERMA in 2002 considered the GE cattle research would have “significant uncertainty as to the magnitude and likelihood of the adverse effect arising,” and “If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted.”

“As soon as AgResearch saw any hint of HGT in 2004 from samples near the buried GE carcasses, they modified their subsequent sampling to avoid that possibility, and annually reported over at several years to ERMA that there was no evidence that HGT was occurring,” said Mr Browning. (4)

“It must be asked, that if by intentionally avoiding detection of HGT from their offal pit, should AgResearch be charged with fraud.”

The Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) at the University of Canterbury has reviewed AgResearch’s reports of its monitoring efforts, as released to GE Free New Zealand (in Food and Environment) under the Official Information Act. (5)

The INBI report published in the Journal of Organic Systems states, “By design of experiments, AgResearch ignored up to an estimated 99.9% of bacteria and all other kinds of microbes.”

“Not only was the sample selection incredibly small but sampling was nearly always taken a considerable distance away from where HGT would be best sampled,” said Mr Browning.

“ERMA required carcasses be buried to a depth of at least 2 metres yet samples were mostly taken at a depth of just 30cm, and as the peer reviewed INBI Report states, “and were so far away on the scale of microorganisms as to have been equivalent to sampling in an arbitrary location hundreds of kilometers from the pits.”

“Further, when considering the AgResearch monitoring reports to ERMA, the INBI Report states, “By repeating the claim that there was no relationship between resistance and depth in multiple years, AgResearch potentially creates the false impression that the 2004 results were replicated when there is no indication that they were.”

Graphics from the Journal of Organic Systems published INBI Report showing annual sample depths relativity to genetically engineered cattle carcasses.

(A) AgResearch sampled soil from offal pits (cylinders in figure) at varying distances from the surface (depth, in metres). The reports did not specify the how close the carcasses came to the surface in the actual pits sampled. The carcasses may have been between 5.8 and 2 m from the surface (they had to be a minimum of 2 m deep to comply with ERMANZ control 1.4). There was no indication of whether any soil sampled was in contact with the carcasses, but it is possible that it was for samples taken in 2004. Depth and year at which samples were taken are shown as black bars.

(B) Soil (grey) subsidence in the pits over time was compensated through the addition of fresh soil (dark grey). The reports made no mention of whether soil was added to pits prior to sampling. Since subsistence takes time, samples taken before the addition of fresh soil to the pits were in most years both likely to have been well above the interface with carcasses (which were about a minimum of 1.7 m lower than sample depth) and to have provided too little time for the appearance of a target population of detectable size. Samples taken after the pits were topped up would have been in fresh soil never in contact with the carcasses.  AgResearch reports a variety of sampling depths. But only in the 2004 report was sampling beyond 30 cm, and in the 2009a report, sampling was to the depth of only 15 cm (Figure 2A).

“All GE field trials in recent years have been involved with major non-compliance of approval conditions, and with AgResearch involved with them all and extremely misleading in its representation of HGT research, safety of GE field trials is in complete doubt and should be stopped immediately,” said Mr Browning.

“AgResearch is now also misleading the media as to its knowledge of the INBI Report and its contents, and an AgResearch spokesman told Country 99TV that AgResearch had only just received the report and could not yet comment.”

“We’ve only just got it ourselves so we’re still putting a response together,” the AgResearch spokesman said.

However, the Journal of Organic Systems – INBI report says AgResearch was provided with a draft copy of the final report nearly 7 months ago on 23 November 2010. (6,7)

“AgResearch has also undertaken HGT research at the Plant & Food Research and Scion GE field trials, with resultant claims of no environmental effects. However that research has also been heavily criticised by independent scientists, and it is time for the government to stop pouring tens of millions of dollars into these risky field trials until the risks are independently studied,” said Mr Browning.(8)

Environment Waikato should reassess its RMA consent to AgResearch to discharge up to 16 cubic metres per day of dairy shed waste water and milk to land from a transgenic cattle containment facility, and any subsequent discharges to air until 20th March 2039. Environment Waikato needs to consider the surface water, leaching and drainage to neighbouring property and Waikato waterways from the AgResearch GE facility, especially now that horizontal gene transfer research has been shown to be effectively non-existent and unknown risks persist. (9)

Soil & Health has a vision of a GE Free Organic 2020, with no risk of novel GE disease organisms or cruel animal experiments, and with government research targeting genuinely sustainable organic systems.
References

(1) http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/pdf/6(1)-Heinemann-pp3-19.pdf

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/index.html

EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER MONITORING EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN NEW ZEALAND BETWEEN 2004 AND 2009. Jack A. Heinemann1,2*, Brigitta Kurenbach1,2 and Nikki Bleyendaal1  1Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety and the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch New Zealand  2GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway.  Corresponding author. Phone +64 3 364 2500 email jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz  03 3642926   021 0239 7321

(2)    http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/Documents/GMD02028-decision.pdf  “There are potentially non-negligible risks to the environment that are not related to the ability of the cattle to escape. These risks include unintended insertion of viral cell receptors and creation of new viral reservoirs, and adverse effects arising as a result of HGT” (p. 47 ERMANZ, 2002,). …

“significant uncertainty as to the magnitude and likelihood of the adverse effect arising” (p. 21 ERMANZ 2002).  …

“The Committee’s view is that every reasonable opportunity should be taken to monitor developments such as this for the occurrence of adverse effects and for information on the significance of pathways such as HGT” (p. 21 ERMANZ, 2002).

“Micro-organisms shall be tested for the presence of the introduced genetic modifications at the disposal sites. If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted” (p. 58 ERMANZ, 2002, Bold added). …

(3) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/1097/plant-and-food-research-needs-to-drop-ge/

(4)    Journal of Organic Systems – INBI Report page 7 as in (1).

(5)    GE Free New Zealand (in Food and Environment) Claire Bleakley 06-3089842 / 027 348 6731  Jon Carapiet 021 0507681

(6) http://www.country99tv.co.nz/news/latest-news/2011/5/6/canterbury-scientists-slam-agresearch-ge-testing

(7)    Journal of Organic Systems – INBI Report page 5.  As part of our public service and specifically our formation mission, INBI accepted this task pro bono. Work was initiated in April 2010. On 20 April 2010, INBI submitted supplementary questions to AgResearch (Supplementary Material) with a promise to provide AgResearch with an advanced draft of our final report, to allow AgResearch to register with us any errors of fact before the report was released. AgResearch accepted and released answers to our supplementary questions under the Official Information Act. A draft of this report was then provided to AgResearch on 23 November 2010.

(8)    Heinemann, J.A., and T. Traavik. 2004. Problems in monitoring horizontal gene transfer in field trials of transgenic plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 22:1105-1109.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0805/S00015.htm

(9)    Copy of Resource Consent Certificate No: 110731 Discharge Consent to discharge up to 16 cubic metres per day of dairy shed waste water and milk to land from a transgenic cattle containment facility, and any subsequent discharges to air.   Expiry 20th March 2039.

ERMA swallowed genetic bull from AgResearch

/in , , ,

ERMA has swallowed a lot of genetic bull from AgResearch. GE Trials Must Stop Immediately!

A Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) report published yesterday shows that AgResearch may have intentionally misled the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and allowed risky genetic contamination in the Waikato Region, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. (1)

Because of the biosafety risk of significant adverse effects to people or the environment, AgResearch was required by ERMA to monitor soil microorganisms for the uptake of transgenes by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) at the offal pits where genetically engineered (GE) cattle were disposed. (2)

“If AgResearch detected HGT, an immediate stop to genetic engineering and the disposal of cattle was required, but AgResearch has sampled in such a way as to avoid any real likelihood of that happening,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.(3)

The INBI report (page 4) states, “The Authority allowed AgResearch to design, conduct and supervise the monitoring of HGT, and this latitude created a potential conflict of interest for AgResearch when set against its funding criteria and overall goal of delivering commercially applicable research results from the development of GM bovine.”

“By using research in such a way to avoid finding the result that they were required to, AgResearch have cheated ERMA and New Zealand, and their genetically engineered (GE) animal trials should be halted immediately,” said Mr Browning.

“ERMA has aggravated the situation by failing to analyse or even sight some AgResearch reports, and accepted AgResearch statements of safety, and then determining that new approvals would not need HGT monitoring.”

“We have consistently called for independence of risk analysis and research monitoring. This situation shows yet again that GE field trial environmental safety monitoring in New Zealand is corrupted.”

Five years of AgResearch monitoring reports, released to GE Free New Zealand under the Official Information Act, have been reviewed by the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI) at the University of Canterbury. Following peer review by international experts the INBI report has been published in the Journal of Organic Systems.

“AgResearch has not only breached its approval conditions by not testing as required, but continues to spread  effluent including milk, blood and foetal tissue from GE animals onto its pastures, which are frequently flooded and drain through adjacent farmland, waterways and under Hamilton to the Waikato River.” (4)

“Is the Waikato to be the next site of a new environmental disaster?”

“The INBI Report states that HGT includes the movements of gene vectors such as plasmids, viruses and transposable elements that are observed in both prokaryotes (e.g. bacteria) and eukaryotes (e.g., animals, plants and fungi), however AgResearch has effectively avoided any chance of finding this potentially risky movement and ERMA has allowed it,” said Mr Browning.

“The INBI report states, “By design of experiments, AgResearch ignored up to an estimated 99.9% of bacteria and all other kinds of microbes.””

“Not only was the sample selection incredibly small but sampling was nearly always taken a considerable distance away from where HGT would be best sampled. The INBI report (page 13) graphically portrays the avoidance of sampling where HGT may occur.”(5,6)

“The HGT science undertaken by AgResearch, a leading Crown Research Agency, is a national disgrace and follows breaches at all other CRI GE field tests in recent years.”

“This field trial must stop immediately. The risks of new genetic material leaking into the wider environment is too high and because AgResearch have lapsed professionally to such a degree, while cruelly experimenting with animals unnecessarily, and using considerable amounts of tax-payers money to try and produce pharmaceutical products that are already being produced in a much safer manner.”

Soil & Health – Organic NZ is grateful for the diligence of GE Free NZ in identifying the breach and applying to ERMA for a reassessment of the AgResearch approval, and commends Professor Jack Heinemann and the INBI team in producing such a robust report, and for the Journal of Organic Systems for its publication of independent research of this calibre.

References and diagrams.

(1)    http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/pdf/6(1)-Heinemann-pp3-19..pdf

http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/Vol_6(1)/index.html

EVALUATION OF HORIZONTAL GENE TRANSFER MONITORING EXPERIMENTS CONDUCTED IN NEW ZEALAND BETWEEN 2004 AND 2009. Jack A. Heinemann1,2*, Brigitta Kurenbach1,2 and Nikki Bleyendaal1  1Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety and the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch New Zealand  2GenØk – Centre for Biosafety, Tromsø, Norway.  Corresponding author. Phone +64 3 364 2500 email jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz  03 3642926   021 0239 7321

(2)    http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/Documents/GMD02028-decision.pdf  “There are potentially non-negligible risks to the environment that are not related to the ability of the cattle to escape. These risks include unintended insertion of viral cell receptors and creation of new viral reservoirs, and adverse effects arising as a result of HGT” (p. 47 ERMANZ, 2002, emphasis added). …

“significant uncertainty as to the magnitude and likelihood of the adverse effect arising” (p. 21 ERMANZ 2002).  …

“Micro-organisms shall be tested for the presence of the introduced genetic modifications at the disposal sites. If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted” (p. 58 ERMANZ, 2002). …

INBI Report -Journal of Organic Systems page 4 ; The Authority concluded that “[w]ith these controls in place, the combined non-negligible risks referred to above are considered to be low, even after taking account of uncertainty” (p. 48 ERMANZ, 2002). The Authority directly tied monitoring of soil microorganisms to its risk assessment, and encouraged monitoring to be “as extensive as possible” (p. 21 ERMANZ, 2002), saying of many additional controls that “[i]n general, these restrictions are aimed at removing classes of risk associated with HGT, viral and prion diseases, and antibiotic resistance” (p. 46 ERMANZ, 2002).

(3)    2. “Micro-organisms shall be tested for the presence of the introduced genetic modifications at the disposal sites. If HGT is detected, genetic modification and disposal of cattle shall be immediately halted” (p. 58 ERMANZ, 2002).

(4)    Attached photographs of offal pits, flooding, drains and drainage sump. All photographs available at a higher resolution. Photographs of GE cattle and goats also available.

(5)    From the INBI Report – Journal of Organic Systems page 13. Therefore, for all but one sampling exercise, the soil was a minimum of 1.7 m from contact with the microbes that would have been in contact with carcasses (Table 1). Because of compensation for subsidence and because AgResearch may have buried the carcasses much deeper, the samples could have been up to 5.8 m from the soil layer in first contact with carcasses11. If the average soil bacterium is about 1 µm (1 one millionth of a metre) in diameter, within the time between filling the pit and sampling, a recombinant bacterium would have to migrate a minimum distance 1.7 million times its size in a dry pit, or the gene would have to transfer a minimum of 1.7 million times, against gravity directly toward the surface in order to have the potential to be detected.

(6)    From the IMBI Report – Journal of Organic Systems Figure 2. Sampling depth and effect on experimental findings.

(A) AgResearch sampled soil from offal pits (cylinders in figure) at varying distances from the surface (depth, in metres). The reports did not specify the how close the carcasses came to the surface in the actual pits sampled. The carcasses may have been between 5.8 and 2 m from the surface (they had to be a minimum of 2 m deep to comply with ERMANZ control 1.4). There was no indication of whether any soil sampled was in contact with the carcasses, but it is possible that it was for samples taken in 2004. Depth and year at which samples were taken are shown as black bars.

(B) Soil (grey) subsidence in the pits over time was compensated through the addition of fresh soil (dark grey). The reports made no mention of whether soil was added to pits prior to sampling. Since subsistence takes time, samples taken before the addition of fresh soil to the pits were in most years both likely to have been well above the interface with carcasses (which were about a minimum of 1.7 m lower than sample depth) and to have provided too little time for the appearance of a target population of detectable size. Samples taken after the pits were topped up would have been in fresh soil never in contact with the carcasses.  AgResearch reports a variety of sampling depths. But only in the 2004 report was sampling beyond 30 cm, and in the 2009a report, sampling was to the depth of only 15 cm
(Figure 2A).

Soil & Health joins Federated Farmers opposing biosecurity plans

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand has come out in support of Federated Farmers in criticism of government Biosecurity funding plans.

“Biosecurity risks are predominantly through importing and that is where the costs should lie,” said Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Certainly exporters and industry have a lot to lose through biosecurity incursions, but biosecurity incursions affect everyone from consumers through to indigenous biodiversity”

“Reduction of biosecurity to only economic importance, with a user pays approach to just those economically affected misses the full environmental and social cost of many new organisms.”

“Biosecurity New Zealand needs better resourcing by Government to enable better border protection and if Government wants to insist on a purely economic base user pays system then charge the importers that incur the dominant risk.”

“Inspections need to be far more thorough without trust in overseas agencies.”

“Both Soil & Health and Federated Farmers members recognise the huge economic impact of biosecurity breaches. Government knows that there are risks to all primary production , biodiversity and tourism through poor biosecurity controls, and that importers are the primary risk.”

“Soil & Health promotes environmental sustainability and supports the validating of New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure brand, including pesticide reduction. Less pests, less pesticides.”

Visiting Professor on GE sales mission misrepresents reality

/in , , ,

Agmardt and Pastoral Genomics Attacking Organics

Visiting Professor on GE sales mission misrepresents reality.

New Zealand biotech interests are attempting to attack New Zealand’s organic sector by funding University of California, Davis, Professor Pamela Ronald on a duplicitous public relations tour, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

Professor Ronald, has co-authored with her husband, a book that suggests that genetic engineering (GE) and organic production can co-exist, has been brought to New Zealand by Agricultural and Marketing Research and Development Trust (Agmardt) and Pastoral Genomics who are increasingly dominated by pro- GE interests.

“Pamela Ronald’s presentation at the Royal Society today misrepresented both the reality of GE and organics in the world and avoided the dangers of GE to New Zealand’s primary production and tourism branding and markets”, said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Suggesting that GE crops could be sustainable and fit within or alongside organic management systems is the ultimate untruth, yet that was Ronald’s key message.”

“Ronald’s suggestion that GE was needed to feed the world, flies in the face of the many reports showing the organic and biological GE free systems have significantly superior results exactly where the food is needed.”

“It is clear that the vested interests of the biotech and seed industries lodged in Agmardt and Pastoral Genomics do not mind misleading politicians, farmers and the New Zealand public to further their own interests.”

“Ronald has been discredited by the international organic community and fellow University of California academics, yet Agmardt and Pastoral Genomics have paid her to come to New Zealand.”

“Organic consumers worldwide want 100% GE free food regardless the acceptance of contamination by some governments overwhelmed by GE contamination.”

“Organic certification standards such as those of New Zealand’s BioGro have zero tolerance to GE seed, inputs or contamination and that is what consumers want.”

“New Zealand is well suited to maintain its GE free reputation in both organic and conventional exports as demand for GE free food is increasing internationally as the unsustainability of GE production and evidence of health risks from consumption of GE foods grows,” said Mr Browning.

“At yesterday’s Royal Society presentation, organic consumers, producers and certifiers were amazed at Ronald’s intentional mixing of the terminology of conventional breeding techniques and GE techniques to suggest they were essentially the same. Ronald also misrepresented the statistics in pesticide use in GE cropping internationally, focusing on just one insecticide equivalent.”

“Massive pesticide use is associated with GE production and infiltrating organics with GE plants, is neither needed nor wanted.”

“Ronald’s presentation totally avoided the significant failures of GE crops in many parts of the world, the collapse of rural communities, and emerging evidence of risks to health following independent animal feeding studies with GE foods.”

Ronald’s visit continues the pressure from the biotech industry and United States trade interests for New Zealand to relinquish its market advantage of being 100% free of GE crops, in a world increasingly contaminated by GE material.”

“United States seed interests dominate world production of genetic engineering and it is the seed that Ronald is so focused on getting into organics, “It is just a seed,” she disingenuously insisted.”

Ronald’s GE sales pitch follows a US Department of Agriculture international biotech policy specialist Terri Dunahay being hosted in the New Zealand’s science policy ministry (MoRST) and environmental regulator (ERMA), culminating in a 2010 report suggesting that resistance to GE contamination by the organic sector was a major impediment to GE forage plants being introduced into New Zealand pastures.

US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s Science & Technology advisor Nina Federoff visited early in 2010 hosted by MoRST with a similar misinformation pitch as Ronald’s, through Science Media, Listener magazine and key radio interviews. Wikileaks has shown the United States embassy here to be maintaining pressure on New Zealand to relax its regulations on GE.

Big US GE forestry and pharmaceutical interests are involved with GE field tests by AgResearch and the Forest Research Institute (Scion) and US GE seed interests currently have no market in New Zealand.

“Ronald is just the next misleading US sales rep attempting to infiltrate our clean green nuclear free, GE free, 100% Pure NZ reputation,” said Mr Browning.

“Considering the growth in demand for organic and genuinely sustainable, animal friendly and residue free foods that fit with New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure market image, why would we do anything else?”

Soil & Health – Organic NZ and the New Zealand organic sector remains resolute in its opposition to genetic engineering in food and the environment.

Picton’s residents face gas for Nelson’s logs again

/in , ,

Tonnes of neurotoxic and ozone depleting fumigant methyl bromide gas will again be released from the 169m ship Eastern Star’s hold at Picton’s Shakespeare Bay wharf tonight, and tomorrow evening (28 January) more tonnes of the gas will be released from under the 13 wharf side tarpaulins covering approximately 9000 tons of logs destined for India. (1)

Methyl bromide gas is used as a phytosanitary control for import-exports, with log fumigations primarily targeting two pine beetles.

Port Nelson has stringent rules that would mean logs fumigated there would need the fumigant gas recaptured, as happens for some other cargos such as sawn timber. However because it is cheaper to avoid setting up a log fumigant recapture facility there, Nelson logs are being shipped to Port Marlborough’s Shakespeare Bay facility for fumigation with Marlborough logs, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

“To make matters worse, Marlborough sawn timber for other markets but previously fumigated using the recapture system in Nelson, are being trucked to Port Lyttelton where it is cheaper to fumigate and release to the Lyttelton environment,” said Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Port Nelson methyl bromide fumigation was subject to an Environment Court hearing that studiously looked at the exposure risks of the invisible, tasteless and odourless gas. There is nothing different from Nelson in the risk profile of Picton or Lyttelton.”

“The New Zealand timber industry is stalling from its global ozone hole responsibility and releasing a neurotoxic, carcinogenic gas next to port communities throughout New Zealand.”

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) following a reassessment of methyl bromide use and controls last year decided that methyl bromide use to be subject to recapture within a decade, although finding that recapture would only be a cost of 2.7% of current log values.(2)

This was in part due to large scale recapture facilities not being trialled in New Zealand, but Europe has banned the release of methyl bromide gas and most of the world is quickly finding alternatives to meet the Montreal Protocol agreement in reducing ozone depleting gases. ERMA were clear that local authorities may require more stringent safeguards than in their decision, but none have seriously actioned any proposals for change. (3,4)

Export log fumigations account for more than 80% of the methyl bromide used in New Zealand. Although originally aiming to phase out the use of methyl bromide gas by 2010 as part of the ozone-focused Montreal Protocol, New Zealand is now using more than 10 times the amount of methyl bromide gas than it was in 2001, and expects to be exporting 3 times the current log volumes in 5 years.

“The spike in New Zealand logs in 5 years will be an international disgrace if fumigation gases are not recaptured by then,” said Mr Browning.

“Is this another reason why Prime Minister and tourism Minister John Key’s Christmas present to New Zealand was the dropping of the very successful 100% Pure New Zealand branding that we were all so proud to be striving to make real?” (5)

“Local communities subject to toxic methyl bromide drift, and the global community that is fighting against climate change, need New Zealand industry and government to establish recapture facilities immediately, or stop using methyl bromide all together.”

Soil & Health – Organic NZ have a vision of an organic Aotearoa New Zealand where sustainably grown timber and other exports use environmentally benign phytosanitary measures fitting with a strategy for a clean green 100% Pure New Zealand.

Notes:

(1)      Photograph included in this post available for media

(2)    http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/methylbromide/index.html
http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/BertDocs/HRC08002_Methyl%20Bromide%20decision.pdf

(3)    New Zealand has an obligation under the Montreal Protocol to: refrain from use of methyl bromide and to use non-ozone-depleting technologies wherever possible. Where methyl bromide is used, Parties are urged to minimise emissions and use of methyl bromide through containment and recovery and recycling methodologies to the extent possible;

(4)    The Committee notes the concerns of Nelson City Council which suggested that the minimum buffer zones proposed in the reassessment application may conflict with local requirements under the RMA. It is very important to emphasise that these minimum buffer zones do not preclude regional councils, unitary authorities or port authorities from setting more stringent controls (e.g. larger buffer zones) if they deem them necessary because of local conditions. The Committee notes that section 142(3) of the Act specifically envisages situations where a local authority may choose to impose more stringent requirements on the use of a hazardous substance than that required under the Act.

http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/news-and-features/news/tourism-new-zealand-unveils-100-percent-pure-you
http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/news-and-features/news/new-zealand-third-strongest-brand

100% Pure New Zealand has been used to promote New Zealand as a tourism destination since 1999. Last November, New Zealand was ranked the third strongest country brand in the world by FutureBrands Country Brand Index.