Bethells Spraying Risks Environment and Community Effects

/in , ,

The intended helicopter spraying of crack willow with herbicide over 23 ha of wetland at Te Henga, near Bethells Beach, is another example of New Zealand’s use of crude chemical solutions without deep understanding of environmental risks, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“At a time when aerial spraying of chemicals is now banned in Europe, the so called Eco City of Waitakere intends to spray a wetland with strong dose glyphosate herbicide, in a secret formulation, that is a known aquatic toxin,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Spraying in the Te Henga environment, it is not possible for Council staff to determine where drift may go, or with the formulation confidential, the level of environmental impact from the spraying.”
“It is ironical that the backdrop wallpaper on the Council web-page for the spray program has insect, frog and lizard motifs, when they are just some of the type of species adversely affected by the AGPRO Green Glyphosate 510 intended to be used.” (1)
The highly referenced Glyphosate monograph prepared by New Zealand scientist Dr Meriel Watts for Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (PANAP), quotes several research documents showing damage to reptiles, amphibians and insects. Glyphosate affects species right down to the ecological base of the environment with algae and bacteria also affected. (2)
The monograph also says that the human exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides, even at very low doses may result in reproductive and hormonal problems, miscarriages, low birth weights, birth defects, and various cancers—especially haematological cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and hormonal cancers such as breast cancer.
The formulation of AGPRO Green Glyphosate 510 was kept as confidential during the Environmental Risk Management Authority consent application process for its use in New Zealand, however Soil & Health –Organic NZ point out that formulation ingredients are often more toxic than the glyphosate itself.
“Just as with previous aerial spraying in the Auckland region, the public are not fully informed of what is to be sprayed in their environment,” said Mr Browning.
“The watershed of Bethells is at risk from the cavalier approach to biodiversity.”
“It is urgent that Waitakere Eco-City, Auckland Regional Council, Rodney District Council, the landowners and the spraying funders, the Department of Conservation Biodiversity Condition Fund, put the brakes on the intended February 8 spraying, consult with the community and independent experts, and rethink how management of the Waitakere ecosystem should take place.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 in which aerial spraying of toxins has no place.
(1) http://www.waitakere.govt.nz/cnlser/pw/greennetwk/tehengawetland….asp
(2) http://www.panap.net/uploads/media/monograph_glyphosate.pdf
Some extracts pasted below.
Glyphosate monograph, http://www.panap.net/uploads/media/monograph_glyphosate.pdf
Page 2
Long-term Toxicity
Recently scientists have found harmful effects on human cells at levels of glyphosate too low to have a herbicidal effect, some at levels similar to those found in food. These effects are amplified by the adjuvants in the Roundup formulation, which assist penetration of the cells by glyphosate. Several researchers have reported that glyphosate appears to accumulate in human cells.
Cancer, genotoxicity, endocrine disruption, reproduction
The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) have declared that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans. The US EPA originally classified glyphosate as a Group C “possible human carcinogen”, then re-classified it as Group D “not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity”, then as Group E “evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans”, and then in 2006 rephrased this as “Group E carcinogen with no evidence of human carcinogenicity”.
Yet there is substantial laboratory and some epidemiological evidence that points to the opposite conclusion. Some researchers have concluded that glyphosate and its formulations clearly present a risk of carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reproductive effects on human cells.
Numerous laboratory studies have shown that glyphosate and the Roundup formulation can be genotoxic and endocrine disrupting. One study summarises these effects occurring at doses substantially lower than those used in agriculture, or permitted as residues: at 0.5 mg/kg (40 times lower than levels permitted in soybeans in the US) they were anti-androgenic; at 2 mg/kg they were anti-oestrogenic; at 1 mg/kg they disrupted the enzyme aromatase; at 5 mg/kg they damaged DNA, and at 10 mg/kg there were cytotoxic. These effects can result in crucial outcomes for sexual and other cell differentiation, bone metabolism, liver metabolism, reproduction, development and behaviour, and hormone dependent diseases such as breast and prostate cancer (Gasnier et al 2009).
Studies have demonstrated that glyphosate and/or Roundup cause genetic damage in human lymphocytes and liver cells; bovine lymphocytes; mouse bone marrow, liver, and kidney cells; fish gill cells and erythrocytes; caiman erythrocytes; tadpoles; sea urchin embryos; fruit flies; root-tip cells of onions; and in Salmonella bacteria. Oth­er studies have shown that it causes oxidative stress, cell-cycle dysfunction, and disruption to RNA transcription, all of which can contribute to carcinogenicity.
Laboratory studies have shown that very low lev­els of glyphosate, Roundup, POEA, and the me­tabolite AMPA all kill human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells. Roundup can reduce sperm numbers, increase abnormal sperm, retard skel­etal development, and cause deformities in am­phibian embryos.
Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides, even at very low doses may result in reproductive and hormonal problems, miscarriages, low birth weights, birth defects, and various cancers—especially haematological cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and hormonal cancers such as breast cancer.
Several epidemiological studies have linked exposure to glyphosate with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, hairy cell leukaemia, multiple myeloma, DNA damage; and one study with spontaneous abortions and pre-term deliveries.
Neurological
Glyphosate is assumed by regulators to have no neurological effects—the US EPA did not require neurotoxicity studies to be carried out for the registration of Roundup. However there is emerging evidence that glyphosate can affect the nervous system, and in particular areas of the brain associated with Parkinson’s disease. In one case study glyphosate exposure was linked to ‘symmetrical parkinsonian syndrome’. An epidemiological study of children identified a link with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Other effects
Glyphosate damages liver cells and interferes with a number of enzymes important in metabolism.
Page 2-3 (Summary)
Environmental Effects
The environmental effects of glyphosate of greatest concern are those that occur at a subtle level, and can result in significant disruption of aquatic and terrestrial eco-systems, including the agro-ecosystem.
Aquatic effects
Glyphosate is water soluble, and is increasingly found in the environment at levels that have caused significant effects on species that underpin the entire aquatic food chain. Glyphosate and/or Roundup can alter the composition of natural aquatic communities, potentially tipping the ecological balance and giving rise to harmful algal blooms. It can have profound impacts on microorganisms, plankton, algae and amphibia at low concentrations: one study showed a 70% reduction in tadpole species and a 40% increase in algae. Insects, crustaceans, molluscs, sea urchins, reptiles, tadpoles, and fish can all be affected, with vulnerability within each group varying dramatically between species. Effects include reproductive abnormalities, developmental abnormalities and malformations, DNA damage, immune effects, oxidative stress, modified enzyme activity, decreased capacity to cope with stress and maintain homeostasis, altered behaviour, and impaired olfaction that can threaten their survival. Amphibians are particularly vulnerable. Roundup is generally more toxic than glyphosate, especially to fish.
Page 16
Most recently a leading Argentinean scientist, Professor Carrasco of the University of Buenos Aires Medical School, demonstrated significant consistent and systematic malformations in amphibian embryos resulting from very low dose exposure to glyphosate, and warned that comparable effects can happen in humans. In the first part of the study amphibian embryos were immersed in a solution of the herbicide 1,500 times weaker than that used in agriculture: the embryos suffered head deformities. In the second part, the embryos were injected with glyphosate, also at 1,500 times dilution: the impact was even more severe, demonstrating that it is the active ingredient, not the adjuvants that are the problem. Effects included reduced head size, genetic alterations in the central nervous system, increased death of cells that help form the skull, deformed cartilage, eye defects, and undeveloped kidneys. Carrasco also stated that the glyphosate was not breaking down in the cells, but was accumulating. The findings lend weight to claims that abnormally high levels of cancer, birth defects, neonatal mortality, lupus, kidney disease, and skin and respiratory problems in populations near Argentina’s soybean fields may be linked to the aerial spraying of Roundup (Valente 2009; Trigona 2009; Ho 2009).

Global Research Alliance In New Zealand At Risk Of Unsustainable Outcomes

/in , ,

The New Zealand lead at the Copenhagen United Nations Climate Change Conference, by contributing $45 million to the Global Research Alliance on agriculture greenhouse gases, has all the hallmarks of a sustainability sham and pseudo science according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“Unless the Government’s Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research, which is to be the New Zealand hub of the Global Research Alliance, makes a rapid switch towards organic research and development, the most immediate and sustainable solutions to agricultural greenhouse gas emissions will be wasted,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
At Copenhagen the Round Table on Organic Agriculture and Climate Change (RTOACC) (1) was also established and including the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) it has an immediate focus on soil carbon with principle objectives to;
* Initiate, support and facilitate research on organic agriculture and climate change,
* Advise the international community on organic agriculture and climate change issues,
* Develop a measurement method to enable reliable quantification and certification of carbon sequestration in organic agriculture.

“Currently our government shows no sign of assisting the further development of the New Zealand organic sector, which has the most to offer for genuinely sustainable solutions in primary production, yet $10 million has already been earmarked towards unsustainable chemical attempts at dealing with nitrous oxide emissions from the over fertilized and intensive conventional farms.”
“Compared with trading partners and progressive farming focused countries such as Denmark which actively encourage growth of their organic sectors, New Zealand appears to be more strongly focused on vaccines, genetic engineering and more chemicals.”
At Copenhagen, the Danish minister of food, agriculture and fisheries, Eva Kjer Hansen, said her country had reduced greenhouse gas emission from farming by 23 per cent since 1990, while boosting food production by 16 per cent over the same period.
Earlier this year, the Danish Food Minister also said, “Organic farming is Green Growth – a combination of green production and production with a sound economy. We are now making it possible to double the area used for organic production through a massive effort amounting to almost DKr 350 (95 million NZD) a year. This will result in a greater Danish organic production of apples, carrots, milk and salami, to name a few products. And this will benefit consumers, exports, the environment, nature and animal welfare.” (2)
However in New Zealand the group behind the Government’s AgResearch hosted Agriculture Greenhouse Gas Centre, the Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium has said that it wants any investment to stay with them and be for new technologies.
The Consortium in its submission to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee in February said, “Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions from livestock are the result of a complex interaction of biological activities. They are the product of natural systems that have evolved over millions of years and are therefore very robust and stable. Intervening in these systems through science needs to be done in a careful and deliberate manner to ensure that there are no unfortunate circumstances.” (3)
“Soil & Health – Organic NZ agrees, but we must point out that the current path of the Consortium using risky nitrification inhibitors, methane dumbing vaccines, and animal rumen intervention is not necessary due to the proven and sustainable options provided through organic agriculture,” said Mr Browning.
“New Zealand’s farming environment and clean green 100% Pure reputation will be better served by diverting from the environmentally damaging and animal welfare unfriendly path AgResearch and its hungry partners are taking.”
“With more than $200 US million pledged by the Global Alliance of ~22 countries including $125 US million over 4 years by the United States, and an early 2010 meeting here in New Zealand, it will be tempting for AgResearch and company to try and look technologically clever while completely missing the obvious.”
“For example, proven management tools such as animal feed changes and better soil drainage can reduce nitrous oxide in livestock farms, and reducing stocking rates and breeding from naturally low methane emitting stock can make significant emissions reductions.”
“Organic farming’s higher levels of soil carbon can offset significant emissions while ensuring greater resilience for farmers during adverse climate events.”
British research shows that on average, organic farming produces 28% higher levels of soil carbon compared to non-organic farming in Northern Europe, and 20% higher for all countries studied (in Europe, North America and Australasia). A worldwide switch to organic farming could offset 11% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. Raising soil carbon levels would also make farming worldwide more resilient to extremes of climate like droughts and floods, leading to greater food security. (4)
At the recent Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) conference Dr Manfred Bötsch, the Swiss equivalent of the Minister of Agriculture explained how organic farming is now fully integrated into Switzerland’s high quality management of its agriculture, environment, and landscape, and how the public benefits arising from this high quality management is paid from the public purse. The growth of organic farming now representing 11% of Swiss agricultural land has been significant in reducing excess nitrogen levels there by 25% since 1985, surplus phosphorous by 65% since 1990/92 while cutting use of pesticides by 35% since 1990. (5)
Dr Urs Niggli, Director of the world’s largest organic research institute, FiBL, also a member of the Round Table on Organic Agriculture and Climate Change (RTOACC), spoke about how long-term field experiments indicate the ability of organics to increase the soil’s capacity to store carbon, and its ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and energy use, even when calculated per food unit. (6)
“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, expensive research investment should steer away from that which uses undesirable technologies such as genetic engineering, chemical soil interventions and vaccines that compromise animals normal metabolism,” said Mr Browning.
Soil & Health – Organic NZ has a vision of an Organic 2020 using technologies that do not compromise sustainability or animal welfare.
References:
(1) http://www.fibl.org/en/service-en/news-archive/news/article/round-table-on-organic-agriculture-and-climate-change-established.html
(2) http://www.fvm.dk/Default.aspx?ID=18488&PID=169747&NewsID=5558
(3) http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/D33A8624-BAA4-448C-AB37-F47353FA8ED5/103621/PastoralGreenhouseGasResearchConsortium_192_.pdf
(4) http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=BVTfaXnaQYc%3d&tabid=574
(5)http://www.oanz.org.nz/events/conference09
(6)http://www.oanz.org.nz/uploads/events/2009_organic_sector_conference/urs_niggli.pdf

Organic Sector Firmly Opposed To Genetically Engineered Animals

/in , , ,

Organic sector members opposed to AgResearch’s continuing efforts to experiment on genetically engineered (GE) animals have taken a look at the facility that threatens to further tarnish New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure branding. (1)
With the knowledge that the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) was both consenting non-notified applications for GE cattle and goats within the AgResearch Ruakura containment buildings, and was to consider further outdoor field trials there, attendees at the Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) conference in Hamilton in November took a spontaneous look at the current GE cattle grazing nearby.
The group including OANZ annual award winners James Millton of Millton Vineyard and Colin Ross, Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning, organic farmers, consultants, certification staff, writers and consumers expressed disappointment that inhumane and risky GE science was being government funded, although threatening the advantages of clean and sustainable production such as organic.
“While the GE cattle grazing at Ruakura looked healthy, they were the few GE experimental animals that had survived the less than 5% embryo success, still births, and gross birth deformities that AgResearch don’t want to be open about,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
Current GE cattle are from previously consented AgResearch GE field trials that ERMA have allowed to remain pending new applications for GE experiments to be processed. The expectation that ERMA would tick the AgResearch applications through, regardless of public and scientific concern, was not met when an appeal to the High Court by GE Free NZ had the applications declared invalid in June this year. Although AgResearch has, in turn, appealed the High Court decision, to be heard on 25 January, AgResearch and ERMA have continued to try and allow the AgResearch contractual obligations with overseas GE companies to be met, and both non-notified indoor applications and another outdoor GE field trial application including cattle, sheep, and goats have been lodged. (2,3)
“While the High Court process is still running, it is a mockery of the judicial system for ERMA to allow further applications for essentially the same purpose, and to have the public excluded from decisions allowing GE experimental animals to the mercy of scientists already proven to fail the animal welfare and ethical standards expected by the community.”
“With no public consultation, ERMA has also now allowed indoor GE goats to become bioreactors at Ruakura, in direct contradiction of the findings of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification (RCGM) that recommended food-animals not be used as ‘bioreactors’. The ethical considerations have also been marginalised.”(4)
Groups such as the Soil & Health Association (5), GE Free NZ, Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR), Sustainable Future, and many individuals, including organic farmers, have also submitted to ERMA against AgResearch’s latest notified application for GE animal experiments on cattle, sheep and goats. Submissions closed on Friday 18 December.
“Genetic engineering of plants or animals is one of the biggest threats to our organic producers and New Zealand’s rapidly growing international trade in organic products.” said OANZ Chair Derek Broadmore.
“The growing organic sector presents the best possible image for New Zealand primary production overseas and leads in sustainable practices, yet it has to compete for funding with risky science that promotes products that consumers the world over have firmly rejected.”
“New Zealand and overseas consumers appreciate our clean green 100 % Pure NZ certified organic foods, why would we compromise that by allowing GE plants and animals into the New Zealand environment?”
In his submission opposing AgResearch’s current application, an organic farmer Mr Peter McPartlin said, “We farm, organically, 2000 acres in Marlborough producing prime Angus beef for the Asian markets and prime venison for the restaurant trade in Europe. Our marketing exploits the government funded “New Zealand Pure” brand and we have a heavy reliance on being perceived as clean, green and natural and GE free. None of our consumers in these markets ask for GE products in preference to natural ones – any scientist telling you otherwise is lying!”
“AgResearch GE field trial animals, milk and effluent is disposed of at the Ruakura site, with risk of contamination into surrounding land, stock and waterways,” said Mr Browning.
“Organic standards and production rules such as BioGro, have zero tolerance for GE, and any risk of contamination by GE animals or plants should be eliminated.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that includes a clean green and 100% Pure GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand.

Notes:

Links accessed May 2009
(1) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/focus/gm-cattle-amend.html

(2) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/BertDocs/ERMA200223%20Application%20summary%20-%20FINAL.pdf

(3) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/find/WebResults.aspx?search=GMD09016&submit.x=31&submit.y=11&submit=Search

(4) http://www.organicnz.org/ link at; Read the Soil & Health Association submission to ERMA requesting this application be declined !

Clean Up Lincoln Countryside and Clean Out NZs GE Labs

/in , , ,

Leakage of GE material from a Plant & Food Research containment facility should come as no surprise, but be a wake up call to Government that a major GE catastrophe is just a matter of time, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.

It was reported on Monday that Plant & Food Research was aware of another possible breach of containment at one of its Lincoln glasshouses, as Arabidopsis plants testing GE positive were found outside the glasshouse.

“GE containment facilities are only as good as human error or the structure allows,” said Steffan Browning spokesperson for Soil & Health.

“Plant & Food have been aware of such leaks for a long time and the Lincoln science community is well aware of previous containment ruptures.”

“With many GE experiments taking place in risky containment throughout New Zealand, also involving the genetic engineering of microbes such as E. coli or salmonella, it is also just a matter of time before new strains of those will escape containment.”

“MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ), now investigating the latest Lincoln GE breach, played down GE contamination risk at last summer’s Plant & Food GE Brassica flowering event, even though they found that the scientist in charge, Dr Mary Christey, had allowed flowering on more than one occasion.”

“Incredibly MAFBNZ then chose to say that pollen would not have blown more than 2 metres and was unlikely to have been moved by insects due to a lack of flowering plants, when in fact the renown Canterbury nor’ wester had blown over an adjacent tree and the flowering GE Brassica was amongst a sea of flowering plants.”

“Soil & Health wants testing of organic brassica seed saved from the Lincoln area last summer, to be included in independent testing for GE contamination. MAF wouldn’t last summer, so it is good to see some possible change in attitude as they actually get to test the surrounds of the latest GE breach.”

“If contamination exists, there is opportunity to clean up, but MAF keeping its genetically engineered head in the sand, just aggravates the risk to non-GE producers such as high value organics, from loss of markets,” said Mr Browning.

“New Zealand consumers and overseas customers like our clean green 100 % Pure Brand NZ. The risky unwanted GE products that Plant & Food, AgResearch and others keep pushing, fly in the face of clean, safe and desirable organic and sustainable production that the researchers could be putting so much more effort into.”

“GE field trials don’t fit and it is clear that GE containment laboratories don’t either.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that includes a clean green and 100% Pure GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand.

GE Food and Environment Regulators Need Changing

/in , , ,

New Zealand’s food and environmental safety regulators need either some major staff changes, political policy push or a culture change, if public safety is to be considered properly, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

The latest revelations showing that Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) distorted research results in 2000 from studies of animals fed with soy that was genetically engineered (GE) to produce high amounts of the amino acid lysine soybean. FSANZ has also failed to take the feeding studies into account when approving a similarly GE high lysine corn, now rejected by European governments.

The study referenced in the FSANZ approval documents showed that some pigs required 66% more feed to grow as well as pigs on a normal diet. This indicates that the GE feed is having an anti-nutrient or toxic effect.

Dr Elvira Dommisse, a former GE scientist for Crop & Food and now an advocate of GE-free organics said, “FSANZ have not actually understood the animal feeding studies, because if they had, there is no way they could have approved such GE food crops for human or animal consumption.”

“This will be another regulatory example for my presentation on GE mis-regulation in New Zealand tomorrow at the Organics Aotearoa New Zealand conference being held at Waikato University,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Following the series of non-compliances at GE field trials, the complicity between the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), MAF-Biosecurity NZ (MAF-BNZ), science funders and research institutes such as Plant and Food, AgResearch, and Scion, has been outstanding and needs exposure.”

“The culture of economics first and complicity to avoid public scrutiny, or precaution pervades ERMA, MAF, the Crown Research Agencies in terms of environmental risk, but it is also rampant in terms of the food supply in FSANZ and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA).”

“FSANZ has ticked through 61 GE plant lines as safe for human consumption with NZFSA standing right behind them, although feeding studies have shown increasing serious health concerns.”

“Each of ERMA’s granted GE field trials have had consent conditions breached, and along with MAF inspection and enforcement teams, have effectively assisted those involved to dodge meaningful penalty. AgResearch is being assisted by ERMA to dodge both public processes and meaningful precaution with new GE animal applications that either dodge public process or have unintelligible information to technically circumvent the findings of GE Free NZ’s successful High Court outcome.”

“Organic production, as highlighted in the Innovate – Go Organic titled conference 13-15 November in Hamilton, avoids the risks of GE and requires no backroom complicity for it to succeed. A Clean Green 100% Pure New Zealand will support the market preferred safe and sustainable organics, and shun dodgy unsafe GE technologies,” said Mr Browning.

Soil & Health has a vision of a GE Free NZ in an Organic 2020.

ERMAs Chemical Cowboy Approach To Methyl Bromide Branded Reckless

/in , ,

ERMA’s methyl bromide control recommendations, released yesterday, are among the most reckless in the world with little regard for human and environmental safety, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. (1)
“Releasing a gas that seriously depletes our ozone layer and is a known neurotoxin, and allowing bystanders to be as close as 50 metres from the release of up to 1000kg of that gas is outrageous. This has to be one of ERMA’s worst,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.(2)
Tonnes of methyl bromide fumigant gas are released to air from under tarpaulins or ships holds following each log fumigation, with smaller amounts being released from containers used for fumigation of imported and export goods.
“With no mandatory air modelling recommended, monitoring is useless and fumigators are only making assumptions of where this invisible, odourless and dangerous fumigant will go. It should be asked why ERMA puts restrictions on anything. This report has to be one of the clearest examples of how New Zealand’s environmental, health and safety regulatory bodies are failing the community.”
The recommendations are part of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) current reassessment of methyl bromide. The reassessment comes at a time when log exports are soaring. 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 next year as part of the ozone-focused Montreal Protocol, New Zealand is now using close to 10 times the amount of methyl bromide gas than it was in 2001.
“The dominant focus of ERMA’s report is on effects to the market economy. This means ERMA is functioning more as an Economic Risk Management Authority. The environmental and human safety hazards are clearly secondary to New Zealand’s big business interests,” said Mr Browning.
“Soil & Health is not opposed to the use of methyl bromide for fumigation for biosecurity purposes either, but the release of hundreds of tonnes of the extremely toxic gas near local communities and its inevitable effect on climate change is unacceptable.”
“Recapturing the gas, as is done in Nelson and overseas, should have been demanded by ERMA throughout New Zealand, and gas recapture infrastructure quickly developed by the log exporters. However cost has once again been allowed to come before the health and safety of New Zealanders.”
Tasmania has already made methyl bromide recapture mandatory for quarantine treatment, and the European Parliament has banned the use of methyl bromide within the European Union (EU) from March 18, 2010. (3)
“Methyl bromide due to its damage of the ozone layer has a much greater effect on climate change than carbon dioxide, yet ERMA is hiding behind the fact that man made ozone hole damage appears to be lessening. So now New Zealand is blatantly taking advantage of everyone else fixing the problem.”
“With ERMA’s chemical cowboy approach, New Zealand is once again demeaning its clean green 100% Pure reputation.”
Soil & Health has been involved with several ERMA reassessments and other hearings, and believes the ERMA submission process now open to the public until 18 December, is unlikely to make significant changes to the recommendations.
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that will not include release to air of dangerous ozone depleting fumigants.
References
(1) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/publications/pdfs/Methyl%20Bromide%20Reassessment%20Application.pdf
(2) Extract from ERMA’s Methyl Bromide Reassessment Application
1. The Agency proposes the adoption of the following tolerable exposure limits (TELs):
TEL(chronic)

TEL(acute)24 hour average

TEL (acute)1 hour

0.005 mg/m3

1.3 mg/m3

3.9 mg/m3

1.3 ppb

333 ppb

1000 ppb

0.0013 ppm

0.333 ppm

1 ppm

2. The Agency proposes that the following minimum buffer zones (the downwind distance between the ventilation release location and any non-occupational bystander) be observed when ventilation occurs:
Situation

Buffer zone

Ship‘s hold (greater than 1000 kg methyl bromide used)

100m

Ship‘s hold (less than 1000 kg)

50m

Logs/timber under covers outdoors and indoors (without recapture technology)

50m

Shipping containers

25m

Note 1: Non-occupational bystanders include not just those persons living in nearby residential properties but also those who may be temporarily present in a location, for example, walking on footpaths.
(3) European Union
B1.2.1 At its meeting on March 25, 2009, the European Parliament banned the use of methyl bromide within the European Union (EU) from March 18, 2010. This ban is significantly sooner than the 2015 phase-out originally proposed by the European Commission and supported by EU governments.
B1.2.2 The ban covers the use of methyl bromide as a pesticide, as well as its use for QPS purposes prior to transport. This ban includes the gassing of containers to control vermin. The only remaining exceptions to the ban will be the use of methyl bromide for analytical use in laboratories and for its use in emergencies, such as where a large-scale epidemic occurs (methyl bromide used for emergencies may be used for a period not exceeding 120 days and up to a quantity not exceeding 20 metric tonnes).
B1.2.3 The calculated level of methyl bromide which may be used in the period from 1 January 2010 to 18 March 2010 in the EU is not to exceed 45 (ODP) tonnes. Until 18 March 2010 methyl bromide may be placed on the market and used for QPS purposes for treatment of goods for export, under the condition that at least 80 % of methyl bromide released from the consignment is recovered.

Food Safety Minister Needs To Question GE Food Safety and Labelling.

/in , ,

Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson needs to ensure a comprehensive review of the labelling of genetically engineered (GE) food ingredients and GE food safety in New Zealand, now that 40 different GE food applications have been approved for use in New Zealand, including foods derived from 61 GE plant lines (1), according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand. Soil & Health says the latest approvals (2) have gone through despite an increase in evidence of the health risks from GE food.
GE plant lines approved include canola, corn, potato, cotton, soy bean, lucerne (alfalfa), sugarbeet, and rice. Further GE corn, cotton and soybean applications are being processed. Fourteen approved microbial-based food processing aids have also been approved with another being considered.
The Food Safety Minister’s meeting in Adelaide last Friday with the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council (Ministerial Council) (3) ended with a joint communiqué (4) that included, “agreeing in principle to commission an independent, comprehensive review of food labelling law and policy.” However Soil & Health is concerned that the “independence” is unlikely to be more than a sham, and points to repeated GE food safety concerns by expert independent scientific researchers being consistently overridden.”
“Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), which takes direction from the Ministerial Council, has never yet turned down an application for the introduction of a genetically engineered food line, and its past so-called independent advice has invariably used research supplied by the mega food industry applicants,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“The ‘independent panel’ to undertake the Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy will be appointed by the Ministerial Council, and if it is anything like last year’s New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s (NZFSA) so-called independent review of some of its decisions, it will be a rubber stamp for whatever convenient business focused direction the Ministerial Council wants.”
“The NZFSA review including A1-A2 milk, artificial sweetener aspartame and Campylobacter, lacked the independence required. In a fox-in-charge-of-the-henhouse scenario, the NZFSA, which was being criticised for its decisions, decided on a review, drafted the terms of reference, and then chose its own reviewer. There were no surprises in the review’s findings.”
“This exercise, as in the NZFSA review, is unlikely to be anything more than a whitewash of FSANZ practices and a Trojan horse for even more harmonisation with international food standards regulator Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex). New Zealanders will lose even more sovereignty and control of their food supply and its safety.”
“However Soil & Health and New Zealand consumers will be blissed out if Kate Wilkinson gets in now and reviews just how many of the numerous GE food ingredients are not identified on the supermarket shelves. While she is putting that right, she should also get Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling (MCoOL) underway,” said Mr Browning. “The Minister doesn’t need the Aussies for either of those, the Aussies have MCoOL already, and any of the Minister’s staff can show what a joke GE food labelling (5) is in NZ. When did NZFSA last check on compliance of the weak rules?”
“NZFSA’s own broad based Consumer Forum voted unanimously for MCoOL, yet NZFSA continues to advise government against it, and like FSANZ advises that GE foods are safe.”
“The Indian government has just overridden its GE crop regulator and put on hold the permission for GE aubergine there, because of protest and scientific criticism. One such scientist who assessed the GE food’s applicant Monsanto-Mahyco’s molecular transformation methods, New Zealand’s Professor Jack Heinemann from the University of Canterbury, was quoted saying, “I have never seen less professionalism in the presentation and quality assurance of molecular data than in this study,”
Heinemann, who is genuinely independent, has also questioned FSANZ decisions affecting New Zealanders exposure to GE foods but again the applicant’s own substandard science was preferred by FSANZ. (6)
“Independent animal GE food feeding studies including foods approved for New Zealand are increasingly showing food safety risks, yet FSANZ has yet to turn down an application. Studies include showing multi generational infant mortalities and disorders of the reproductive, immune and blood clotting systems. This can include increased cases of pre-cancerous growths. (7,8,9)
“While buying organic food avoids exposure to GE food components, Soil & Health points out the broad consumer preference to not be eating GE foods, yet current GE labelling requirements are both weak and under-enforced,” said Mr Browning.
“Soil & Health maxim, Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, is a lead to a sustainable environment, safe and nutritious food, and a healthy nation. Consumers should at least have the choice and the Minister can ensure they do.”

REFERENCES

(1) http://www.foodstandards.govt.nz/standardsdevelopment/standardsworkplan.cfm
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodmatters/gmfoods/gmcurrentapplication1030.cfm
(2) http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/standardsdevelopment/notificationcirculars/index.cfm
· Application A614 – Food derived from Glyphosate-tolerant Cotton Line GHB614
· Application A615 – Food derived from Insect-protected Cotton Line COT67B
(3) Membership of the Ministerial Council comprises Health Ministers from New Zealand most Australian States and Territories, the Australian Government, as well as other Ministers from related portfolios (Primary Industries, Consumer Affairs etc) where these have been nominated by their jurisdictions. All jurisdictions, except New Zealand, have nominated a Lead Minister for voting purposes. New Zealand has nominated their Minister for Food Safety as Lead Minister for voting purposes. It appears to be a one New Zealand Minister to twelve Australian ratio.
(4) http://www.alga.asn.au/newsroom/communiques/03.anzfrmc/20081024.php Comprehensive Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy. The meeting agreed in principle to commission an independent, comprehensive review of food labelling law and policy. The review will be undertaken by an independent expert panel. The expert panel will comprise prominent individuals appointed by the Ministerial Council who collectively possess knowledge and expertise in the fields of public health, regulatory, economics/public policy, law and consumer behaviour and business. The review is to be chaired by an independent public policy expert.
(5) http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/gm-ge/gmfoods.htm
Extracts from New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s Frequently Asked Questions further below.
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/organisms/regulation/food-labelling.html
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Standard_1_5_2_GM_v112……..pdf
(6) MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “sites.google.com” claiming to be MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “sites.google.com” claiming to be http://sites.google.com/site/therightbiotechnology/free-chapter-downloads
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/Response to INBI submission on A549 DAR FINAL
(7) Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food, by Jeffrey M. Smith http://permaculture.org.au/2009/05/20/doctors-warn-avoid-genetically-modified-food/ Full text with references copied further below.
(8) GM food can cause cancer
Down to Earth, October 31 2009
http://downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20091031&filename=inv&sec_id=14&sid=1
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11612-qgm-food-can-cause-cancerq-seralini
French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini unmasked the dangers of genetically modified brinjal (aubergine), intended for commercial production in India. He shared with Savvy Soumya Misra his findings on Bt brinjal and Roundup Ready soybean(9) GE Soy Rat Feeding Study
In the group GM-soy there was a high level of pup mortality in the firstgeneration, underdevelopment of some pups, and a total absence of a second generation. These effects were not observed in the other groups. It is concluded that a diet incorporating the GM soy line 40.3.2 (approved for use in NZ) can have a negative influence on the fertility, health and posterity of rats.
The full Russian version of the paper is at:
http://www.science-education.ru/download/2009/05/2009_05_02.pdf
Full Text References (5,7)
(5) Extracts from New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s Frequently Asked Questions;

Genetically Modified Foods: Labelling and Safety

What is Genetically Modified (GM) food?
GM food is a food or ingredient that is produced from a genetically modified organism and is different from its conventional counterpart.
Genetic modification (GM) or genetic engineering (GE), is a process for altering specific genes of a living organism to change its characteristics.

Is there GM food in New Zealand?
Currently in New Zealand:
o No GM crops are grown commercially.
o No GM fruit, vegetables or meat are sold.
o Processed foods can contain GM ingredients but must be labelled accordingly.

What GM food can be sold in New Zealand?
GM ingredients can only be sold in New Zealand if Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) has assessed them for safety and they have been approved by the FSANZ Board and cleared by all Australian and New Zealand ministers responsible for food.
GM ingredients that are approved are derived from GM crops such as corn, canola, soybean and sugarbeet. Foods containing approved GM ingredients must then be labelled accordingly.

How do people know if what they are buying contains GM material?
Since 7 December 2002, accurate labelling is required for foods containing GM DNA or protein, or having altered characteristics (e.g., soybeans with high oleic acid content).

What does a label look like?
Where a food has to be labelled as GM, the information will usually be in the ingredients list. For example a label for bread containing a GM ingredient could look like this:
Ingredients: wheat flour, yeast, soy flour (genetically modified), water, vegetable oil, sugar, salt, emulsifiers (471, 472E), preservative (282), enzyme (amylase). If you want to find out more about a product, you can contact the manufacturer directly, often through a toll-free number on the label.

What about ‘GM-Free’ labelling?
Negative content labelling such as ‘GM-free’ labelling is not addressed as part of the labelling standard.

What foods must be labelled?
The labelling requirement covers all packaged and bulk foods. The law says:
Food that contains genetically modified DNA or protein must be labelled. This includes any food, food ingredient, food additive, food-processing aid or flavouring that contains modified DNA or protein. Flavourings that make up less than 0.1% of a food are exempt from this requirement.
Food that has altered characteristics as a result of genetic modification must be labelled, even if no GM material is present in the finished product. For example, if soyabeans are genetically modified to produce oil that is higher in oleic acid, that oil must be labelled. Does this cover all GM ingredients all the time?
If an ingredient unintentionally contains GM material that is less than 1% of that ingredient then it does not need to be labelled. Food businesses are required to take all reasonable steps to avoid this happening. Flavourings that make up less than 0.1% of a food are also exempt from this requirement.

Why do we allow a tolerance before labelling is required?
There is an allowance for unintentional presence of GM content up to 1% before a ingredient must be labelled. This recognises that, even with the best of intentions, occasionally some cross-contamination of different foods is possible. For example, intermixing may arise from use of the same transport containers or vehicles for GM and non-GM foods or ingredients.
Does GM labelling apply to takeaways and food prepared in restaurants?
The GM labelling requirement applies to all packaged and bulk foods, but does not apply to food prepared in restaurants, cafes and takeaways. This is the same as most other food labelling requirements. If concerned, you can ask whether it contains any GM ingredients before you choose to buy it.

(7) Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food By Jeffrey M. Smith
Full text with references follows;
On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”
More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”
Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk
Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]
The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks – compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]
When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]
Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]
In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food designed to produce toxin
GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt – produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis – has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, Sunday India reported “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”[14]

GMOs provoke immune reactions
AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation” – all on the rise in the US.
According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]
GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers
In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.
In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]
Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]
In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]

Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us
The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.
When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored and denied
Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases
AAEM states “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]
Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]
Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.
This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood – but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.
If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]
To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”
Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.
If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.
International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.
www.ResponsibleTechnology.org,
info@responsibletechnology.org

——————————————————————————–
[1] http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
[2] David Schubert, personal communication to H. Penfound, Greenpeace Canada, October 25, 2002.
[3] Irina Ermakova, “Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies,” Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4–9.
[4] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[5] Irina Ermakova, “Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards,” Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007
[6] L. Vecchio et al, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct–Dec 2004):449–454.
[7] Oliveri et al., “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7–10, 2006.
[8] Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, “Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice,” Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008
[9] Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006
[10] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, “Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea,” Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441–7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, “Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae),” Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2–3 (2004): 175–183.
[11] Washington State Department of Health, “Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program,” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
[12] M. Green, et al., “Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86,” Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848–852.
[13] Ashish Gupta et. al., “Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers’ Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh),” Investigation Report, Oct–Dec 2005.
[14] Sunday India, October, 26, 2008
[15] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
[16] John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstu…
[17] Alberto Finamore, et al, “Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice,” J. Agric. Food Chem., 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533–11539, November 14, 2008
[18] See L Zolla, et al, “Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications,” J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, “The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods,” Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45–62.
[19] A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, “GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks,” Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005
[20] Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, “Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison,” Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May–June 2005): 210-216(7).
[21] “Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields—Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh” Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp
[22] Personal communication and visit, January 2009.
[23] Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007
[24] Arpad Pusztai, “Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?” Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73–84.
[25] Stéphane Foucart, “Controversy Surrounds a GMO,” Le Monde, 14 December 2004; referencing, John M. Burns, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf
[26] Netherwood et al, “Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract,” Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.
MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from “outbind:” claiming to be [27] See memos at www.biointegrity.org
[28] José Domingo, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants : A Review of the Published Literature,” Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2007, vol. 47, no8, pp. 721-733
[29] Angela Hall, “Suzuki warns against hastily accepting GMOs”, The Leader-Post (Canada), 26 April 2005.
[30] Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, “Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend,” Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25

Port Marlboroughs Independent Fumigation Monitoring A Sham

/in , ,

Port Marlborough’s sole owner, the Marlborough District Council, should take a leaf out of Taupo District Council’s book and ban aerial 1080 drops, but also immediately ban the release to air of tonnes of methyl bromide gas, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.

“This weekend’s release of several tonnes of the neurotoxic methyl bromide gas from log fumigation into the atmosphere at Shakespeare Bay, Picton (photo 6419), was typical of the cavalier attitude to the community and environment by the Council, Port Marlborough, fumigation company Genera, log exporter Zindia, and also the so called independent monitoring company SKM,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“A series of breaches of best practice for fumigations, and community and environmental care included;
Wind conditions at times beyond Port Marlborough’s own limits.

The so-called ‘independent’ monitoring company employing fumigation company, Genera, staff.

A launch coming along side and down wind as gas was being vented from one of the log ship Super Challenger’s holds. (photo 6432, 6446)

When the wind changed, gas, from on shore log stacks under previously billowing tarpaulins (photo 6454), was released in the direction of the interislander ferry terminal.

No one in the vicinity of the fumigation appeared to be wearing safety masks.” (photo 6452)
“To top it off, sawn timber that would normally have been fumigated under strict conditions in Nelson, where the gas would have been recaptured, was being fumigated near Picton with all the gas being released into the surrounding air,” said Mr Browning, who spent several hours observing the facility on Saturday.

“Why should the Picton community put up with anything less than the best practice conditions imposed by the Environment Court in Nelson?”

“The monitoring is a farce, as air modelling to determine where the invisible and odourless methyl bromide gas will move, has not been done for Picton, and the siting of monitors around the fence line has little relevance to likely air flows of the fumigant.”

“Taupo District Council (Note 1) made good use last week of Section 10(b) of the Local Government Act (Note 2),

To enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities

To promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities, now and for the future,
in immediately banning aerial drops of 1080. That example should be used by the Marlborough District Council in response to the wide level of community opposition to both 1080 and methyl bromide being used recklessly in the environment.”

The fumigation was on the back of significant public disquiet, and a protest (photo 6239) at the last Marlborough District Council meeting, where the Council which receives significant income from Port activities, decided to allow fumigations to continue for at least a year; until the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has completed a reassessment of the fumigant.

“Taupo District Council properly used its powers, for the immediate ban on aerial drops of 1080 poison in that region, regardless of ERMA’s soft 2007 1080 reassessment decision. Marlborough District Council can do the same,” said Mr Browning.

‘Until air modelling and then recapture of the gas following fumigation occurs, large scale methyl bromide fumigation must stop.”

Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and has a vision of an Organic 2020 that does not include the use of neurotoxic, ozone depleting fumigants or the aerial discharge of toxins such as 1080.

NOTE: (1,2) below.

Photographs are available in larger format.

————–

(1) The Taupo District Council resolution follows:
Resolution
That the Taupo District Council, in accordance with the Section 10b of the Local Government Act 2002, advocate with central government and appropriate agencies, viz:
a. To develop a sustainable alternative possum eradication and trapping programme.
b. For the abolition of all aerial dropping of 1080 poison forthwith.
(2) Extracts from localcouncils.govt.nz

http://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/LGIP.nsf/wpg_url/About-Local-Government…
What do our Councils do?
A quick look at the Local Government Act 2002 shows the expectations of councils, briefly–
The purpose of local government is –
To enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities
To promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities, now and for the future. (Local Government Act 2002, section 10 (b)).
The role of local authorities is to lead and represent their communities. They must engage with their communities and encourage community participation in decision-making, while considering the needs of people currently living in communities and those who will live there in the future.

The Local Government Act 2002, section 12(2), gives councils wide scope to do anything within the context of the purpose of local government.

Marlborough Needs To Clean Up Its Air

/in , ,

The Marlborough District Council and its subsidiary company Port Marlborough need to commit to a ban on the release to air of methyl bromide log fumigants, at least until the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has completed its reassessment of the neurotoxic gas next year, according to the Soil & Health Association.
The Marlborough District Council was due to decide today on the recommendation of its Environmental Policy Committee that any decision relating to methyl bromide log fumigation at Port Marlborough should wait until after the ERMA reassessment. Soil & Health believes that is the wrong way around and lacks responsibility and the correct precautionary approach.
Methyl bromide fumigations at Port Marlborough had stopped in September 2007 following significant publicity but began again earlier this year.
“The Marlborough Mayor and Councillors all know that Nelson has been through a rigorous Environment Court process for its Port fumigation activities, and now has stringent rules that offer the port workers, and the Nelson people and environment, a reasonable level of protection,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Log fumigation releasing several tonnes of the very dangerous gas at each log shipment, is no longer possible in Nelson. Precaution and common sense say that the same risks exist in Picton and Shakespeare Bay, and until gas recapture technology as is being developed in Nelson can occur in Marlborough, log fumigations must stop.”
Today’s Picton and Blenheim protest against methyl bromide log fumigation, organised by the Guardians of the Sounds group, is supported by Soil & Health who initiated public response to the methyl bromide issue in both Picton and Wellington.
“Both Wellington and Picton ports have had fumigation tarpaulins blown off log stacks during high winds, releasing hundreds of kilograms of toxic and ozone depleting gas unexpectedly,” said Mr Browning.
Wellington’s Regional Council owned CentrePort, has been reported to be now fumigating logs only in the ships hold, to better able controlled release of the toxic gas. However Mr Browning points out that even then, the Port companies have no real idea where the gas will go, as they have not computer modelled the air flow.
‘Until air modelling and then recapture of the gas following fumigation occurs, large scale methyl bromide fumigation must stop.”
“Marlborough councillors, nearly all of whom in the 2007 local body election campaign opposed the Picton fumigations, know that Nelson has led the way, but for short term economic imperatives seem now prepared to risk community and environmental health.”
“With Europe effectively banning methyl bromide fumigant release to air early next year, maybe Marlborough’s short term economic outlook may get a bite in its clean green sauvignon blanc reputation, when word of high spray drift and ozone depleting fumigations get to those discerning markets.”
“Marlborough, the Picton community and the ozone layer deserve better now. Soil & Health hopes the Council will listen to its community and stop the gas.”
Soil & Health has a motto of Healthy Soil, Healthy Food, Healthy People, and has a vision of an Organic 2020 that does not include the use of neurotoxic, ozone depleting fumigants.

US Commentator Calls New Zealand GE Trees Irresponsible

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association is calling for a ban on New Zealand exports of genetically engineered (GE) organisms.
The intended growing in the United States of 260,000 GE eucalyptus trees from New Zealand has been described as “Irresponsible, Dangerous, and Stupid,” by Jim Hightower, a U.S. national commentator who broadcasts daily radio commentaries carried by more than 150 commercial and public stations, as well as on the web. He was also twice elected Texas Agriculture Commissioner. (1,2,3)
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which initially recommended approval of the large GE tree plantings is currently considering the submissions to the forestry biotech company ArborGen’s application.
“This has happened with practically no media coverage or public participation. It is happening solely because a handful of global speculators hope to profit by making ethanol from cellulose-enhanced eucalyptus – never mind that their self-aggrandizement would put America’s native forests in danger of irreversible contamination by these destructive, invasive Frankentrees,” said Hightower.
“It is a double standard to be exporting very risky products, such as GE eucalyptus trees, most of which are intended to be allowed to flower and set seed. We all know the same trees would be unacceptable planted in New Zealand,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“The double standard is being recognised overseas and further GE exports from New Zealand will continue to erode our clean green 100% Pure NZ brand. Those opposed to the GE trees are the very consumers identified as the best value international market for New Zealand produce over the next two decades. They want wellness, GE free, sustainably produced, animal friendly, and fair traded products.”
Nearly 17,500 public comments, including some from New Zealand, were sent to the USDA opposing its recommendation for approval of ArborGen’s proposal. The USDA received only 39 favourable comments. If allowed, the plantings would take place on 330 acres of land across seven states in the Southern U.S., to supposedly trial future biofuel production. Soil & Health submitted against the USDA recommendation (4).
“The irony is that eucalypts, release soil carbon through their nutrient uptake, losing more carbon from the soil than they take from the atmosphere, and as such negate much of the point of biofuels. Not only will the GE trees be very risky as an invasive fire promoting GE weed, but they will also contribute to the human component of climate change,” said Mr Browning.
The 260,000 GE eucalypts were grown in New Zealand by Horizon 2, which is based in ArborGen’s Australasian headquarters near Te Teko in the Bay of Plenty. Rubicon, effectively old New Zealand company Fletcher Forests, is in turn a third of ArborGen. (7)
“The Rubicon – ArborGen – Horizon 2 GE tree exports lower New Zealand’s reputation by being both carbon depleters and GE.”
The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has also granted Pacificvet Ltd of Christchurch, approval for importing for future exporting, a live GE E. coli vaccine (Poulvac® E. coli) used in the immunisation of poultry against colibacillosis. The vaccine, not permitted for use in New Zealand, is intended to be exported to South Pacific countries which will not be under ERMA controls. (5,6)
Specific consent from the Minister for the Environment is required however, if the export is for the non-contained use of the GE organism (GMO) in the country of import, and it appears import for export consent holder Pacificvet Ltd of Christchurch is now wanting to export the vaccine.
“This is a rather strange situation of New Zealand being the warehouse for GE goods not permitted for use in New Zealand, but for use by some of our less cautious neighbours,” said Mr Browning.
“Like most New Zealanders, Soil & Health is proud that there is no effective release of GE organisms in New Zealand, and to maximize this country’s GE free advantage, wants a ban on the export of GE material.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 free of genetically engineered organisms.

Notes
(1) http://jimhightower.com/node/6900 (Text also below)
(2) Audio, http://jimhightower.com/sites/jimhightower.civicactions.net/files/28_17_rnc.mp3
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hightower
(4) Soil & Health’s previous media release and references further below Jim Hightower text.
(5) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/appfiles/execsumm/pdf/GMC08001-003.pdf
(6) http://www.pacificvet.co.nz/index2.html
(7) Click the links below for photographs of the Horizon 2 facility – ArborGen Australasian Head Office at 1943 SH39 Te Teko Bay of Plenty (07) 3229030 http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=0&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|, http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=1&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|, http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=2&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|, http://by107w.bay107.mail.live.com/att/GetAttachment.aspx?tnail=3&messag…|0|8CBFA35594C4CF0|

(1 Text) The Invasion of Genetically-Engineered Eucalyptus
Jim Hightower jimhightower.com, August 6 2009

Here’s a great idea: Let’s bring into our country a genetically-engineered, non-native tree that is known to be wildly invasive, explosively flammable, and insatiably thirsty for ground water. Then let’s clone thousands of these living firecrackers and plant them in forested regions across seven Southern states, allowing them to grow, flower, produce seeds, and spread into native environments.

Yes, this would be irresponsible, dangerous, and stupid – but apparently “Irresponsible, Dangerous, and Stupid” is the unofficial slogan of the U.S. Department Agriculture. In May, with little consideration of the devastating consequences for our native environment, USDA cavalierly rubberstamped a proposal by a profiteering corporation named ArborGen to do all of the above.

Substantially owned by International Paper, ArborGen shipped tissue from Brazilian eucalyptus trees to its New Zealand laboratories, where it was genetically altered to have more cellulose. New Zealand, however, outlaws plantings of genetically-engineered crops, so ArborGen sought out a more corporate-compliant country: Ours. The engineered eucalyptus was waved right into the good ol’ USA to be cloned, and it’s now awaiting final approval for outdoor release in our land.

This has happened with practically no media coverage or public participation. It is happening solely because a handful of global speculators hope to profit by making ethanol from cellulose-enhanced eucalyptus – never mind that their self-aggrandizement would put America’s native forests in danger of irreversible contamination by these destructive, invasive Frankentrees.

Luckily, several scrappy grassroots groups have mobilized to bring common sense and public pressure to bear on USDA. For updates and action items, visit www.nogetrees.org