Aotearoa New Zealand | Policy Proposals on healthy waterways: Are they fit for purpose?

/in , ,

Excellent water quality is of paramount importance for our Treaty obligations, agriculture, tourism industry, health and sense of national identity. In September 2019 the Ministry for the Environment released its proposals for dealing with the crisis in our freshwater: Action for healthy waterways. While the document outlines possible ways of ‘reducing soil loss, reducing nutrient run-off, and/or investing in upgrading wastewater and stormwater infrastructure’, there is one glaring omission – it does not address the need to monitor synthetic chemicals in our waterways.

New Zealand has chemicals in our waterways that are banned in Europe. Policy-makers tend to assume toxic chemicals assimilate into the environment. However, it is clear from global and local data that the pressures from ongoing diffuse sources (agricultural, industrial and household and pharmaceutical) exceed the capacity for the environment to disperse and degrade them. The only way to understand the pollution profile is, as the OECD recommends, to (1) commence transparent, centrally driven monitoring that seeks to comprehensively capture chemical pressures that will differ by region. (2) Then make the data public, so that citizens and scientists can access the data, and then (3) Civil society can debate the degree to which regulation (or not) is required in order to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of our freshwater (See Sn 5 of the RMA).

The Soil and Health Association and Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (NZ) jointly produced a detailed submission to respond to the September discussion document. Twenty-one NGOs supported our submission document, and eight private organisations also requested to join, including major players in the regenerative agriculture movement. Surprisingly, this was not picked up by mainstream media. Chapter 10 of our publication outlines suggestions for reform. We also produced a summary paper.

Chemical production is predicted to increase exponentially, constituting a present and growing threat to human and environmental health, and risking the wellbeing of future generations. Chemical contaminants include pesticides, household products, resins, plastics, petroleum products, pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Currently, routine national monitoring for chemical contaminants in New Zealand freshwater that is publicly accessible, is confined to groundwater. While laudable, this is not sufficiently protective of public or environmental health.

Polluting synthetic chemical contaminants create intersecting social, cultural and economic harms. Without a mandate to monitor chemical contaminants in waterways as well as aquifers, territorial and national authorities will not have the capacity to safeguard:

  • The quality of our drinking water;
  • Māori customary fishing and traditional riverside food gathering;
  • Favourite Kiwi swimming areas;
  • Key tourist destinations as safe and ecologically healthy;
  • Food production and processing, and organic systems from contamination.

Excluding diffuse chemical contaminants from monitoring and regulation additionally leaves Māori without appropriate scientific resourcing to assert rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. We will be unable to protect biodiversity and our food chains, reverse declining fish populations and ensure that our agricultural exports are not inadvertently contaminated. And the possibility of endocrine disruption puts at risk our most vulnerable citizens – our babies.

Diffuse synthetic chemical emissions must be urgently addressed at a central government level. Chemicals accumulate, they can interact together additively and/or synergistically and be much more harmful to environmental organisms, and humans – than exposure to a single chemical. It’s an interesting fact that all vertebrates – from frogs to fish to humans, are similarly vulnerable to endocrine disrupting chemicals. For endocrine disrupting, carcinogenic and/or mutagenic substances, it is increasingly clear that there can be no ‘end-point’ – no degree of exposure that can be claimed to be safe. Our paper discusses this in depth, drawing on extensive references to support our discussion.

The solution is not to stick our heads in the sand, because it is not politically comfortable, nor convenient. Nor is it acceptable to wait for certainty – until scientific endpoints are established. It is evident, for many endocrine disruptors, that it may not be possible to establish endpoints because of the miniscule levels at which these chemicals cause harm, and because of the varying vulnerability at different life stages.

In such an environment, there remain many opportunities to ensure policy and regulation concerning freshwater are fit for purpose and can reasonably meet the foreseeable needs of future generations.

Reform Recommendations

  1. Where degraded areas are identified, scientists can utilise a suite of nationally regulated testing screens for diffuse chemical contaminants and publish this information for public debate.
  2. New Zealand can resource scientist experts in chemical toxicology, endocrinology and environmental chemistry and build on international research to innovatively evaluate the risk to both aquatic food chains and human health – at arms-length from industry.
  3. Our chemical risk assessment can adopt best practice alongside Europe, sending a firm message to trading partners and tourist operators that freshwater and food in Aotearoa is clean and safe.
  4. We can update regulations to recognise additional risk from chemical mixtures; and the risk from exposures at low levels that impacts the hormone system and can set the stage for disease and dysfunction.
  5. New Zealand can appropriately engage the precautionary principle as the key policy instrument that over-arches risk evaluation, rather than retaining it where it currently sits in legislation and policy, alongside social, cultural and economic considerations where it is
    rarely called upon, and frequently ignored.

We recommend that the monitoring of diffuse chemical pollutants in our fresh water is required as a national environment standard and that the recommendations for reform in this paper are included in any policy on protecting the quality of our fresh water.

Freshwater 2020 – Scope continues to exclude diffuse chemicals

Proposed National Environmental Standards for Freshwater continue to exclude the cumulative risk of environmental synthetic chemicals from national documentation and discussion. Environmental indicators ignore diffuse pollution from urban, agricultural and industrial sources. 

The Soil and Health Association, PSGR and our co-signatories joined many individuals and organisations in submitting to the September 2019 the Action for healthy waterways.

A record number of individuals and organisations submitted to the Ministry for the Environment– 17,500. The Summary of Submissions reveals that urban, agricultural and industrial synthetic chemical pollution was not an item of concern to the general public.

Inconsistent approach to chemical pollutants

In February 2020 the Report of the Freshwater Independent Advisory Panel was released.

– It did not mention synthetic chemicals, pesticides, or trace (heavy) metals.

In April 2020 the Our Freshwater 2020 was released by the Ministry for the Environment and StatsNZ.

– It did mention synthetic chemicals, pesticides, or trace (heavy) metals were a substantial problem.

In May 2020 National Environmental Standards for Freshwater and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management were released. They were accompanied by a Cabinet paper which was the key document for seeking agreement to an action for the healthy water ways package. They files also included regulatory impact analyses and appendices.

– None of these documents nor appendices mentioned synthetic chemicals, pesticides, or trace (heavy) metals.

Of the files released in May 2020, Appendix 7 contained the Summary of Submissions from 17,500 individuals who joined others in submitting to the national direction for our freshwater. This, it appears, was one of the primary documents informing the Cabinet paper.

However, it appears that not many, if any submitters were interested in the potential for synthetic chemicals, pesticides and trace metals to pollute New Zealand waterways.

As a result in the 190 page Summary of Submissions there was only one mention of synthetic chemicals: ‘Submitters also mention contamination of drinking water from other chemicals (including emerging contaminants), microbes and waste’ (page 173). Trace metals and pesticides were not mentioned.

This 2019-2020 process was largely a result of the failure of an earlier process which produced the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (amended 2017). This earlier process was criticised for its weak approach to nutrient (nitrogen) management.

Following the release of the 2020 suite of papers, the nitrogen level recommended in the Cabinet paper was also criticised for not following the bottom line recommendation of 1mg/L dissolved inorganic nitrogen level recommended by the Science and Technical Advisory Group who were invited to advise the Ministry for the Environment.

Therefore the Freshwater process managed by the Ministry for the Environment continues to fail to produce fit for purpose national standards that can assure that our freshwater will be safe for not only river life, but for human health for future generations.

View full paper

The October 2019 submission to the Ministry for the Environment Aotearoa New Zealand Action for healthy waterways has been kindly supported by the following NGOs:

  • Safe Food Campaign
  • Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand
  • For the Love of Bees
  • Federation of Freshwater Anglers
  • Whitewater NZ
  • Biodynamics New Zealand
  • Waitaha Executive Grandmothers Council
  • Organic Dairy and Pastoral Group Inc
  • Te Waka Kai Ora – Maori Organics Aotearoa
  • Organic Farm New Zealand
  • Katikati Taiao
  • Manu Waiata Restoration and Protection Society

  • Orari River Protection Group
  • COBY – Coromandel Our Backyard
  • Te Waka Kai Ora – Maori Organics Aotearoa
  • ERP – Environment River Patrol Aotearoa
  • KEA – Kuaotunu Environmental Action
  • Weed Management Advisory Auckland
  • GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand
  • Econation 2020 Aotearoa New Zealand
  • Otago Organics

And these Private Sector Organisations:

  • Āta
  • Soil Connection
  • True Health
  • BioAg
  • Integrity Soils
  • Plenty Permaculture
  • Rings Road Herb Gardens
  • The Whistler

Hazardous substances assessments: Improving decision-making

/in

Submission to the Ministry for the Environment:

Date: September 20, 2019.

Discussion Document: Hazardous substances assessments: Improving decision-making – A discussion document on proposed improvements to assessments and reassessments of hazardous substances.  Publication reference number:  ME 1426

 

The Soil & Health Association support the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZEPA) using a trusted regulator approach. However, this comes with the caveat that the ‘trusted regulator’ is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission (EC).

This submission is made to the Ministry for the Environment who are responsible for the oversight of the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority and are best situated to improve hazardous chemicals regulations in Aotearoa New Zealand. Current regulations are out of date and cannot protect the public, nor protect tourists visiting New Zealand, as we have discussed elsewhere. The world is experiencing a global chemical acceleration. (1) New Zealand does not have the resources to safely regulate all toxic environmental chemicals the New Zealand public are exposed to, because of the sheer volume of chemicals that are produced and sold and brought into New Zealand.

Soil and Health recognise that protection from toxic chemicals will be best arrived at if Aotearoa New Zealand adopts best international practice in chemical risk assessment and regulation and this will:

  • Most effectively protect future generations as is required by principles of administrative law and the RMA and HSNO Acts.
  • Transparently uphold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Best regulatory practice is scientifically and practically the best way to practise guardianship – kaitiaki – of the ecosystems of Aotearoa.
  • Ensure that the human right to clean drinking water is protected, noting that the United Nations has identified that pesticides are having a serious impact on human rights, and that the ‘excessive use of pesticides are very dangerous to human health, to the environment and it is misleading to claim they are vital to ensuring food security’ .

The HSNO Act is outdated (2).

The Soil and Health Association consider that the entire Act requires substantial overhaul in order to address the current deficiencies that are contained therein. This requires substantial expertise and consultation across government, particularly with regard to the following issues:

  1. The European Commission utilises the precautionary principle and has consistently adopted a proactive approach to removing toxic pesticides from public exposure. New Zealand in contrast utilises a precautionary approach which is weaker as it only requires decision-makers to take caution into account – there is no requirement to favour caution.
  2. Soil and Health understand that the deficiencies in New Zealand regulatory risk assessment include the failure to acknowledge low-dose (hormone level) toxicity; the problem of the one chemical harming via many pathways (for example a chemical or formulation may be neurotoxic and a cholinesterase inhibitor and a developmental neurotoxicant); that current tests don’t test for allergic, inflammatory or autoimmune conditions; the potential for endocrine disruptors to contribute to the developmental origins of disease arising later in life; mixture effects and cumulative effects as body burdens; and different sensitivities.

iii. The ecosystem-based approach advocated by Professor Iorns seeks to protect ecosystem integrity and ensure the sustainable use of ecosystem resources. The current decline of New Zealand aquatic species is a clear indicator that current practices are unsustainable and are directly damaging to our freshwater species.

  1. In the meantime, a trusted regulator approach ensures the safest guardianship approach.
  2. The ‘trusted regulator’ position could be reassessed every ten years. Terms of reference assigning this role can be based on (a) transparency; (b) precautionary principle as a guiding principle of law; and an (c) interdisciplinary science capabilities approach that mandated to address ecosystem and biological complexity and is informed by the published scientific literature and identify new risk pathways and in particular (d) risk arising in infancy and childhood, a developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) approach.

 

In addition, the attached PDF, our formal submission to the FSANZ discussed these interconnected issues and contains references:

  • Europe has a stricter regulatory regime than the USA, Canada or Australia.
  • Pesticide contamination threatens the integrity and safety of New Zealand organic production.
  • Substantial scientific evidence demonstrates that agrichemicals can volatise and contaminate neighbouring organic properties.
  • New Zealand freshwater sources, and our aquifers contain increasing levels of agrichemicals
  • New Zealand fruit and vegetables and freshwater have chemicals in them that are banned in Europe
  • The Soil & Health Association are concerned that New Zealand’s 100% Pure reputation as a ‘clean green’ producer is being eroded and that the NZ EPA has been unable to keep pace with reassessments of toxic chemicals.

It is evident that EFSA and the EC have banned or strictly regulated chemicals that have not been banned or strictly regulated in the USA, Canada and Australia. Soil and Health consider New Zealand should orientate our authorisations and risk assessment with premium markets, and that this will help not only maintain essential freshwater quality, but it will stop our reputation as a 100% Pure, clean green producer from further erosion.

Current assessment and reassessment does not incorporate the benefits of regenerative agriculture in mitigating climate change. Of 80 ways to mitigate climate change, regenerative agriculture—managed grazing, silvopasture, tree intercropping, conservation agriculture, and farmland restoration—jointly rank number one of methods to sequester GHG’.

Regenerative and organic practices reduce chemical dependency. The comment ‘Reassessment decisions are difficult to make when there are no safer alternatives to existing chemicals’ does not reflect the fact that chemicals need not be replaced with chemical alternatives. There is a significant body of evidence demonstrating that organic, biological and regenerative agriculture which places soil and nutrition science at the heart of agriculture, building the immune systems of healthy plants and animals can result in plants and animals that not only exhibit greater resistance to disease, but taste better and store better for export purposes.

Furthermore the Soil and Health Association expressed concern that the HSNO Discussion Document confines the scope of discussion / terms of reference to avoid :

  1. Discussing controversial issues that may be contributing to decline in public trust of risk assessment agencies and processes. There was no discussion of the need to address these issues: industry selected and supplied data, endocrine disruption, mixture effects, adjuvant toxicity and persistence, developmental neurotoxicity risk) that are of the essence to human health as identified by Professor Catherine Iorns, Dr. Meriel Watts , and others.
  2. Asking questions about improving risk assessment to protect health and environment. The terms of reference are narrowly framed and appear to adopt a mechanistic assessment/reassessment process orientation that cannot address chemical and biological complexity.

 

Note: As at April 2020 there has been no policy decisions released as a result of this consultation process.

 

 

References:

(1) UNEP 2019 Global Chemicals Outlook II – From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,

(2)   Iorns, C. (2018). Permitting Poison: Pesticide Regulation in Aotearoa New Zealand. EPLJ, 456-490. P.1

[siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Button_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget]

Submission on application APP203660 To reassess methyl bromide

/in

29 August 2019

Environmental Protection Authority

Private Bag 63002

Wellington 6140

New Zealand

Submission on application APP203660

To reassess methyl bromide

Introduction

1.   The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”) is a charitable society registered under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. It is the largest membership organization supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand and is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. Soil & Health’s objectives are to promote sustainable organic agricultural practices and the principles of good health based on sound nutrition and the maxim: “Healthy soil, healthy food, healthy people”. Its membership is chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Soil & Health publishes the bi-monthly ‘Organic NZ’ magazine – New Zealand’s leading organics magazine.

2.   Soil & Health makes this submission on the application by Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide Reduction Inc (STIMBR)  to reassess methyl bromide a fumigant which among other things is used on export timber and logs.

3.   Soil & Health accepts the need for fumigation to meet the phytosanitary needs of New Zealand and other countries, should safer methods of pest control not be effective, and if communities and the broader environment are protected from any adverse effects from the fumigant.

4.   The EPA in 2018 allowed the possibility of a reassessment application;

‘Grounds to reassess were granted based on data that evidenced New Zealand’s use of the fumigant has increased from over 400 tonnes a year in 2010, to more than 600 tonnes in 2016. One of the criteria required to be met to meet grounds for reassessment under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, is a significant change in the quantity of a substance imported into or manufactured in New Zealand.’

5.     Soil & Health believe that reassessment criteria was used inappropriately, as that increased use was totally predicted at the last reassessment with conditions of use and the recapture deadline made in that knowledge. It is misleading to use increased use to allow another reassessment to effectively excuse the log export industry out of their environmental and public health responsibilities, when those responsibilities were clearly defined in 2010.

6.     Soil & Health submitted to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) for the reassessment of methyl bromide in 2010 and has campaigned since to have that fumigant better contained and recaptured or stopped.

7.     Those campaigns along with other community, union, and environmental groups have meant that methyl bromide fumigation without recapture is no longer used at log exporting facilities in several ports, notably Nelson, Picton and Wellington. However the problems of worker exposure and release of the atmospheric ozone depleting gas have mostly just shifted north to the ports of Napier, Tauranga, and Marsden Point-Whangarei.

8.     This submission writer, later in another role as a Section 274 Party, won an Environment Court case, Envirofume Limited vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2017] NZEnv 12. That case, contested for the applicant Envirofume by legal counsel Helen Atkins (Chairperson of the 2010 ERMA methyl bromide re-assessment), exposed further the significant risks of methyl bromide fumigations for the health and safety of workers and nearby communities.

9.     The log exporter industry through STIMBR have variously used public funding as in the Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) funding to look at mostly predictably unlikely alternatives to recapturing residual methyl bromide, while obfuscating attempts at log stack trials of existing recapture technology using carbon filters as available from Nordiko.

10.  STIMBR supported Draslovka who applied for an alternative fumigant ethanedinitrile (EDN) which the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) appear to be taking seriously in negotiations with log importing countries as an alternative to methyl bromide, on the premise that recapture will not be necessary should EDN be approved, as it is not subject to the Montreal Protocol.

11.  Soil & Health submitted in opposition to EDN due to the known risks, and the lack of environmental and safety data, and that the applicant and STIMBR’s approach that recapture would not be required, although in Australia, EDN can ONLY be used with scrubbing (a recapture) technology as part of its label use after being assessed by the national regulatory body there, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA).

12.  Soil & Health is concerned that government agencies such as MPI might be looking at the EPA as a rubber-stamping agency for compounds such as EDN with such confidence that they are putting EDN as an option for fumigation to countries including India and China. Soil & Health is concerned that industry’s economic benefits appear to become paramount over the need of worker, community and environmental health in the decision making around fumigants approval and their use.

13.  However, the EPA has decided to process this application by STIMBR as a modified reassessment rather than forcing the previous reassessment’s requirement of recapture onto the users of methyl bromide fumigation.

The Tauranga example:

14.  While economic considerations are included in the benefits analysis by the EPA, the ability to pay for appropriate safeguards must be included in any analysis, not just the significant earnings the industry generates. All stakeholders including port companies should be part of ensuring the ultimate safety of workers, community and environment.

15.  In the Environment Court case, Envirofume Limited vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2017] NZEnv 12, it was noted that Port of Tauranga Limited (POTL) was missing in action as such during those proceedings although was the owner and operator of the port where the log fumigation activity under scrutiny was taking place.

16.  The community and Soil & Health have long called for dedicated fumigation facilities incorporating recapture technology to be constructed and used, yet POTL continue to discount any such possibility there.

17. Soil & Health points out that POTL has just announced its largest profit ever (end of year June 2019). Increasing 6.7% on last year’s profit of $94.3 million to reach $100.6 million, with log export volumes increasing during that time 12.5% to 7.1 million tonnes. http://www.port-tauranga.co.nz/growth-in-cargo-volumes-contributes-to-increased-profit-for-port-of-tauranga-limited/

While that growth is expected to ease in the short term, POTL is still the country’s largest export log exporter, close to twice its nearest rival Whangarei.

18.  Log exports through POTL for the year ending December 2017 were valued at $968,919,331, almost a staggering billion dollars towards a third of New Zealand’s log export value that year of $3,058,737,889 and yet the port company and log exporting interests continue to deny workers, the community and environment the benefits of recapture.

  1. Safeguards to protect people and the environment are becoming more important and need greater attention as increasing development and presence of toxins including fumigants in the environment become more common.

20.  Soil & Health submits that the money is there for fast correction of the shortcomings in facilities and responsible management of log and timber fumigation in New Zealand.

Monitoring and modelling

  1. Methyl bromide is a risk well beyond fumigation areas due to drift, inversion layers, and the inability by those responsible to adequately monitor its whereabouts. Boundary monitoring is pointless if at head height, when a fumigant plume passes above it and then descends or drifts into other areas.

22.  Air modelling techniques cannot fully give assurances about where and at what concentrations methyl bromide will be once released from containers, log stacks or ships holds. Modelling can at best be a best estimate, but the topography of the fumigation surrounds is continually changing with log or container stacks, ships size and presence, and weather variables, including humidity, temperature of air, objects and ground all obfuscating the best air modelling estimates.

  1. There is no sure air monitoring possibility, or method for the safe release of methyl bromide in the port and coastal marine area. A previous Environment Court in Nelson noted the possibility for “monitoring devices to miss the most concentrated area of the plume, or even the plume in its entirety, and in fact on four out of seven attempts to sample air quality in Port Nelson during 2003-2004 this had occurred in varying degrees” (Env Court Interim Decision para 50).

24.  Soil & Health notes STIMBR’s intent that recapture of fumigant from ships holds be delayed significantly, another 10 years, yet ships’ holds are where the most significant volumes of methyl bromide are used. The communities near the ports of Napier, Tauranga and Mt Maunganui, and Marsden Point (Whangarei port), and potentially elsewhere in New Zealand will be further exposed to the toxicity of methyl bromide, and the damage to the ozone layer will continue.

25.  Other port workers, not involved in fumigation but working nearby, may also be exposed to the methyl bromide, particularly when the methyl bromide is released into the atmosphere following fumigation, but also during accidental and spontaneous release, as happens with methyl bromide most years, at most log stack fumigating ports. Log stack fumigations under tarpaulins are subject to strong wind events and accidental tarpaulin puncturing. Both Genera and Envirofume fumigation operators have had log stack tarpaulins rent with spontaneous release of methyl bromide.  Dedicated permanent fumigation structures would eliminate the risk of tarpaulin failure.

Worker and community safety

  1. In the Environment Court decision Envirofume Limited vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council, [2017] NZEnv 12, the court observed the large range of port users that may be exposed inadvertently to the methyl bromide fumigant. [1]
  2. That Court found significant shortcomings in the current methyl bromide fumigations. EPA and Work Safe requirements are either impractical or are frequently breached.
  3. Whatever toxic fumigant is used for log, timber and other fumigations, it must be in a dedicated facility with recapture of remnant fumigant, such as is used at Port Nelson. Methyl bromide was linked at that port with the deaths of six men from motor neurone disease. Alternative fumigants such as EDN have their own array of serious health risks. Recapture technology exists but industry individually and collectively has mostly avoided its use for economic reasons.

Ozone depletion

  1. Continuance of methyl bromide release means further atmospheric ozone depletion, and New Zealand’s intentional breach of responsibility to its Montreal Protocol obligations, where although phytosanitary requirements allow some continued use of methyl bromide, there is an obligation to be reducing its use. ERMA allowed a continuance of damaging release into the atmosphere in 2010 with the knowledge that there would be a significant increase in methyl bromide use.
  2. Dr Olaf Morgenstern – Programme leader (Climate Variability and Change) NIWA for the writer at the Environment Court outlined the significance of that release in world terms, with New Zealand being the highest user per capita. That should not continue if we are concerned about climate effects and the health of people and environment, or economically if our international, including trading, clean green branding reputation is to be valued.

Health effects.

  1. Most people acknowledge the very real danger of methyl bromide from both acute and chronic exposures, and both acute and chronic effects. A recent although limited US study recently published in the Journal of Asthmareported a positive association between methyl-bromide concentrations and asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits among youths between the ages of 6 and 18 years in California.
  2. After adjusting for the presence of other pollutants, humidity, and meteorological conditions, each 0.01-ppb increase in methyl-bromide concentration was associated with a 7.1% (95% CI, 2.9%-10.8%) greater likelihood of an asthma-related ED visit.
  3. That science will need more work but further shows the need for recapture if real precaution is to be used.

The solution – dedicated containment and recapture.

  1. Responsibility for dedicated containment and recapture facilities was considered by the Environment Court to require an integrated approach:

[130] Overall, our view is that this matter requires an integrated approach from the Port of Tauranga, the marshalling/stevedoring companies, the forestry industry and the fumigators to adopt an approach for the safe application of methyl bromide and the recapture of all reasonable emissions. This would probably require a dedicated area for fumigation, and may involve a building or other system that seeks to encapsulate and recapture gas. We are not satisfied that the introduction of another company into the Tauranga market is going to bring about those changes. In our view, the advance towards reduction of emissions has seen little progress since the 1990s, and the Court is surprised to see that there is approximately ten times as much methyl bromide being applied in Tauranga as there was in the 1990s.

  1. Regardless of the possibility of an alternative fumigant, industry including port companies and possibly government need to bite the bullet and install dedicated facilities for fumigations and recapture.
  2. The ERMA 2010 methyl bromide re-assessment inappropriately and possibly illegally set a very late 2020 date for recapture of that fumigant to meet Montreal Protocol requirements of phasing out methyl bromide emissions. The EPA must now insist on dedicated fumigation facilities and recapture always, if the EPA is to meet its statutory requirements.
  3. Soil & Health supports the substantive submission of the Combined Trade Unions, and is in general agreement of the fumigation context and need for stronger and certain safety conditions as supplied by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.
  4. Soil & Health submits that the evidence as attached and provided by expert witnesses for the writer for the Envirofume Environment Court case be considered by the EPA. That included evidence by an epidemiologist Dr Dave McLean from the Centre for Public Health Research, Dr Olaf Morgenstern – Programme leader (Climate Variability and Change) NIWA, and Jayne Metcalfe an air scientist.

Conclusion.

39.  Soil & Health seek that the current application be declined.

40.  Should the application be granted, dedicated fumigation facilities and recapture must be required.

41.  Soil & Health wish to be heard in support of our submission and welcome any questions of the writer for clarification or further information.

Yours sincerely

Steffan Browning

021 804 223

greeny25@xtra.co.nz

Position: National Councillor

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 9693,

Marion Square,

Wellington, 6141

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

[1] https://www.environmentcourt.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2017-NZEnvC-012-Envirofume-v-Bay-of-Plenty-Regional-Council.pdf

Submission on Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill

/in

INTRODUCTION

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand and one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. The Association receives no government or other official support, nor is it sponsored or supported by any commercial organisation, political party, religion or other vested interest.

With every year that passes the vision of Soil and Health of an organic New Zealand becomes more relevant, more imperative, and in fact, more mainstream. The maxim of the organisation is “Oranga nuku – Oranga kai – Oranga tāngata, Healthy Soil – Healthy Food – Healthy People”. This extends into the sphere of climate change, as healthy, living soil is potentially the most important carbon sink our planet has. For planetary health (and therefore our own health) not only must we stop the burning of fossil fuels, but we must change our actions so as to sequester the existing carbon from the air into soil and biomass. Organic and regenerative[1] production methods, which maximise the accumulation of soil organic matter, are key to sequestering atmospheric carbon and keeping global warming within 1.5ºC.

BACKGROUND SCIENCE

This section is aimed not at outlining the climate crisis, which the Bill recognises, but at highlighting the key role that organic and regenerative agriculture can play in ameliorating climate outcomes.

The degradation of soils from unsustainable “conventional” agriculture has released billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere[2].  It is estimated that the world’s cultivated soils have lost between 50 and 70 percent of their original carbon stock[3]. Conventional agricultural methods, such as the use of chemical biocides and fertilisers, heavy mechanical tillage, mono-cropping and overgrazing, have killed or rendered ineffective a multitude of living organisms within soils, leading to the oxidation of soil organic carbon and its release in gaseous forms. Although classed as “conventional” and therefore normal, these methods of agriculture are new, having arisen only since the “Green Revolution” after the Second World War. In 2019 we have enough evidence that these new ways cannot be continued if we are to survive.

According to soil scientists, at current rates of soil destruction (i.e. decarbonisation, erosion, desertification, chemical pollution), within 50 years we will not only suffer further serious damage to public health due to a qualitatively degraded food supply, but we will literally no longer have enough arable topsoil to feed ourselves[4]. Without protecting and regenerating our arable soils and grazing lands, it will be impossible to feed the world adequately and keep global warming below 1.5ºC.

So we come back to the key focus of the Soil and Health Association: how to grow food in such a way that soil, human and overall planetary health are supported? There is a growing body of research and many examples, from within NZ[5] and from overseas[6], showing how to manage land profitably to meet human needs, while sequestering carbon. These carbon farming methods have been largely ignored as we scramble for solutions to the global climate catastrophe that faces us. For too long, the focus of NZ government has been on offsetting carbon emissions from conventional agriculture by purchasing overseas carbon credits, or planting monocultures of pine trees to sequester carbon within NZ. Of course, we are all in favour of planting more trees, however this does to some extent detract from the opportunities that exist in pastoral, silvopastoral and arable systems. NZ needs to move more urgently in the direction of changing agriculture through appropriate policy and regulation, rather than avoiding the necessary change to appease strong vested interests or maintain lucrative but unsustainable export industries.

OUR POINTS ON THE BILL ITSELF

There are several positive things about the Bill which we wish to tautoko:

  • We support the Bill’s objective of limiting warming to 1.5ºC. This target should definitely be embedded in the law, and to do anything less would be ineffective.
  • We support the creation of a framework for five-yearly emissions budgets, providing both short term and long term certainty about how to achieve our reduction targets. The framework for these budgets makes it clear that NZ needs to respond through real reductions, with tight conditions around the use of offshore credits.
  • We support the establishment of an independent Climate Change Commission. This will be essential for ensuring robust advice on what our emissions budgets should be and how to stay within them.
  • We support the requirement for NZ to start planning now for climate change adaptation.

Having said this, we believe the Bill has not gone far enough. To limit warming to 1.5ºC, New Zealand has a limit on our total remaining greenhouse gas emissions. Our pathway to net-zero must stay below this limit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says this pathway requires carbon emissions to halve by 2030 and reach zero before 2050. Aotearoa New Zealand has the tools to achieve deep emission reductions in the next decade, as long as we have the legislation to back them.

We want this Bill to ensure an emissions pathway that limits our contribution to warming to no more than 1.5ºC. The Climate Commission must ensure we are on the right path, acknowledging New Zealand’s historical emissions. The Bill in its current state will not ensure our contribution to limiting warming to 1.5ºC.

Therefore we wish to propose the following revisions to strengthen its effectiveness:

  • The 2050 target is explicitly referred to in the Bill, but there needs to be an interim target for non-methane gases of a 50% reduction of 2017 levels by 2030.
  • There should be a requirement for the Climate Commission to determine New Zealand’s total remaining carbon emissions to meet the 1.5ºC target, accounting for historical emissions, by 31 December 2021.
  • There need to be more clear timeframes for the government to make plans to meet future budgets.
  • Section 5ZJ must be removed to allow the court to take other steps to remedy ineffective budgets.
  • There needs to be a change to Section 5ZK so that government bodies must take targets and carbon budgets into account when making other decisions. The law must require that there be a whole of government approach. We can increase accountability by making this enforceable through Judicial Review. The public deserves to be able to hold decision makers to account.
  • This Act should trump the Resource Management Act, which currently does not allow climate change to be considered when issuing resource consents. Climate change should be an overriding consideration like Te Titiri o Waitangi, or human rights legislation, not “just another thing” to consider (and then write off).
  • There should be a gross emissions limit, and a limit to how much emissions can be offset. Under the current wording, all long lived gases (e.g. CO2) could be entirely offset by planting trees without actually having to reduce emissions. This has been New Zealand’s policy for many years, and has led to our current state of emissions: 65% above 1990 levels. Note that the EU’s policy is “at least 40%” below 1990 levels by 2030 and it looks like it will make it.  Tree planting as a mechanism to offset emissions should be a last resort and this should be recognised in the legislation, e.g. no more than 30% of the obligation may be offset with forestry, with this percentage reducing every year. All trees planted as a carbon sink will carry a future liability to pay back the credits if they are felled, effectively locking up the land for future generations.
  • There should be a prohibition of the use of international credits to promote long-term certainty and accountability.
  • Regarding the biogenic methane emissions target, the mention of “at least a 24% – 47% reduction in methane” means we could go further than this goal by 2050. We would like to see a faster reduction earlier.  Instead of “10% less than 2017 emissions by the calendar year beginning on 1 January 2030” we think this figure should be should be at least 20% below 2017 levels by 2030.  Measured over the first 20 years, methane is 86 times more powerful and damaging than carbon dioxide, therefore we need to focus on reducing biogenic methane emissions more strongly.  Methane is NZ’s biggest chance to make a difference quickly. The 2050 methane target needs to be consistent with the 1.5ºC limit to global warming.
  • Agricultural representation on the Climate Change Commission should move to those with experience with proven sustainable organic and regenerative agro-ecological systems approaches.  While the Soil & Health Association welcomes technological innovation to address climate change we need to take a precautionary approach to new and unproven interventions in agriculture.
  • Action plans should ensure that emissions reduction measures do not compromise the protection of indigenous ecosystems.
  • There should be clauses in the Act that properly honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand wishes to speak to its submission.

 

NZ EXAMPLES OF ORGANIC AND REGENERATIVE FARMS

Biofarm, Palmerston North  https://www.facebook.com/pg/BiofarmOrganic/

Bostock’s Organic Free Range Chicken, Hastings https://bostocksorganic.co.nz/

Field to Feast Organics, Christchurch http://www.canterburyorganic.org.nz/field-to-feast-organics/

Grow Together Farm, Rotorua https://www.growtogetherfarm.co.nz/

Harts Creek Farm, Canterbury, http://www.hartscreekfarm.co.nz/

Kotare Village, Wairoa http://kotarevillage.org.nz/regenerative-agriculture/

Lawson’s True Earth, Hastings  https://trueearth.co.nz/

Lux Organics, Rotorua https://www.luxorganics.co.nz/

Mangarara Station, “The Family Farm”, Hawkes Bay https://www.mangarara.co.nz/

Milmore Downs, North Canterbury http://www.milmoredowns.co.nz/

Puramahoi Fields, Takaka https://www.puramahoifields.com/

Pikiroa Farm, Te Awamutu

Rainer Ramharter, Lincoln, Canterbury https://www.facebook.com/Ramharter-Organic-Farm-575814699192206/

Six Toed Fox Organics, Tauranga https://www.sixtoedfoxorganics.co.nz/

Spring Collective Organics, South Canterbury https://www.facebook.com/springcollectiveorganics/

Winiata Dairy Farm, Rotorua  winiatat@farmside.co.nz, 07 333 2139.

 

[1] As coined and defined by the Rodale Institute https://rodaleinstitute.org/

[2] https://www.onpasture.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Lal-Soil-carbon-sequestration-to-mitigate-climate-change.pdf

[3] https://e360.yale.edu/features/soil_as_carbon_storehouse_new_weapon_in_climate_fight

[4] https://regenerationinternational.org/why-regenerative-agriculture/?fbclid=IwAR219PNjLCveGhUgdavaefaXNVjrB4DJfik2NN441hwf-lURgj9zkaCjkS0

[5] See the end of this document for a list of organic and regenerative NZ farms.

[6] Toensmeier, E. 2016. The Carbon Farming Solution – A Global Tookit of Perennial Crops and Regenerative Agriculture Practices for Climate Change Mitigation and Food Security. Chelsea Green Publishing, Vermont, U.S.A.

Submission on Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 review

/in

Introduction

1. The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”) thanks the Ministry for Primary Industries for the opportunity to comment on the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 (“DIRA”) review and specifically the ‘Review of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 and its impact on the dairy industry’ Discussion Document (“Discussion Document”).

2. Soil & Health is an incorporated society, with charitable status, supporting organic food production established in 1941. It is the largest membership organization supporting organic food and farming practices in New Zealand and is one of the eldest present-day organic organisations in the world. Soil & Health’s objectives are to promote sustainable organic agricultural practices and the principles of good health. Its membership is chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Soil & Health publishes the bimonthly ‘Organic NZ’ magazine – New Zealand’s leading organics magazine.

3. Soil & Health has concerns about a lack of government support for dairy farmers to transition to higher premium organic milk production. We consider that the Government should recognize the economic and environmental benefits of organic milk production for New Zealand; these include higher returns for farmers and less environmental degradation. The changes we therefore seek from the DIRA review are that:

a) Fonterra must be obligated to collect all certified organic milk and in transition to certified organic milk; and

b) Fonterra must be obligated to pay any Fonterra organic milk supplier a minimum of 25% premium above the annual farm gate price, irrespective of location or availability of processing capacity.

Submission

4. Soil & Health understand that the DIRA was enacted in 2001 to facilitate the formation of Fonterra to drive the New Zealand dairy industry’s economic performance in global dairy markets, and to regulate its dominance domestically, for the long-term interests of New Zealand dairy farmers, consumers and the wider economy. However, we consider that this strong focus on economic growth has come at the expense of the environment.

5. We strongly agree with the Discussion Document that, along with economic benefits of the growth of the dairy industry, there have been negative effects on our environment. Such effects include increased greenhouse gas emissions, nitrate leaching, and the expansion of dairy into increasingly marginal land areas. We are pleased to see this acknowledged in the Discussion Document.

6. We share concerns highlighted in the Discussion Document that the DIRA has been encouraging uneconomic and environmentally unsustainable milk production inevitably preventing Fonterra from transitioning to higher value-add processing activities such as organic dairy.

7. It is well known that New Zealand’s freshwater is in a dire state, with a staggering 62% of monitored waterways being unsafe for swimming, and a big factor in this is nitrogen pollution from the increasing intensification of agriculture. The Ministry for the Environment says New Zealand has recently experienced one of the world’s highest rates of agricultural intensification.

8. There is also growing concern about the public health impacts of highdensity livestock production – especially for dairy farming. There are health concerns as nitrate levels in drinking water increase.

9. Nitrogen pollution comes from cow urine and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer diffusing through soils and pasture root zones, so simply planting stream banks and fencing off streams cannot solve this issue.

10. Our concerns are that Fonterra’s focus on economic value growth, primarily from greater volume of commodity production, have made it more difficult for dairy farmers to transition to organic dairy production, and therefore to more environmentally friendly methods of dairy farming.

11. Going organic is part of the solution to fixing polluted fresh waterways in New Zealand. Organic dairy farming involves no synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, lower stock numbers, more biodiversity, and grass-fed cows with no GE feed or palm kernel supplements. Organic farming methods improve the soil biology and soil structure, which means better water retention and less nutrient leaching. Organic and biological farmers make use of natural fertilizers including legumes, instead of soluble artificial nitrogen fertilizers that are more prone to leaching.

12. Organic dairying also has higher animal health outcomes and lower intensity. Some of the profit making of organic dairying and their ability to remain profitable with less volume is because of the reduced veterinary costs because of the reduced animal health issues.

13. Studies have found that a low-input system with fewer cows per hectare and no synthetic nitrogen fertilizer produces the most milk per cow per year. This research also confirms that the low input system is the best environmental performer, the least financially risky, and is most profitable when milk-price payouts are low (Basset-mens C, Ledgard S and Boyes M (2009). Eco-efficiency of intensification scenarios for milk).

14. We support the DIRA in that it is legislation enabling a cooperative and protective approach to market access for many farmers, controlling farmgate milk price to some degree, and because it exists it allows for what could be a legislative environmental gamechanger for dairy in New Zealand.

15. The DIRA however has allowed Fonterra to treat organic farmers poorly over time, including reducing the organic pickup area for paying the organic premium, meaning no premium, even for some of the organic pioneers that helped get the organic dairying underway, because they were beyond the ‘organic hub’. Only when it has suited Fonterra did they reinstate some parts of Taranaki and Manawatu, but overall there has been limited encouragement for new organic transitions beyond its organic hub.

16. Fonterra have made it more difficult to have certified organic dairy farmers in parts of New Zealand away from their prescribed hubs. We understand this has been done for efficiencies however at the same time has resulted in organic dairy growing better outside of Fonterra in New Zealand.

17. Fonterra established its organic programme in 2002 following three years of research and the sector grew strongly. At its peak in 2011, there were 127 dairy farms supplying Fonterra with organic milk. Fonterra had a review and changed its organic policy in the same year. This opened the door to commercial opportunities for new players to fill the supply vacuum. The Organic Dairy Hub Cooperative which is now the third largest supplier of organic milk in New Zealand was incorporated in 2015. Fonterra, Open Country Dairy, Organic Dairy Hub and Marphona Farms which operates Green Valley Dairies, are now the four main suppliers of organic milk in New Zealand (OANZ 2016 Organic Market Report).

18. Consumers worldwide are demanding safe, healthy and more environmentally friendly food, and are prepared to pay for high quality, GEfree, organic dairy products. New Zealand is well placed to provide discerning consumers with an expanding range of organic dairy products to meet their demands, particularly in Asia. The 2018 Organic Market report found that global organic dairy market is currently estimated to be worth about US$17b with a compound annual growth rate of 8% during 2009 to 2016. By 2022 the sector is projected to be worth US$25b the value of organic milk powder being an important contributor (OANZ 2018 Organic Market Report).

19. If Fonterra are obligated to pay farmers the premium for organic milk everywhere, then the co-op will be motivated to process more of the milk
into organic products and do better at marketing the same. DIRA needs to be amended to make it obligatory for Fonterra to be picking up certified organic milk and in transition to certified organic and be paying the premium for it.

Soil & Health’s recommendations

20. Soil & Health considers that government intervention is required to incentivize more sustainable and organic methods of farming. We consider that a shift towards organic farming practices is needed to protect and enhance our environment and our economy.

21. Soil & Health therefore seek that the legislation require that Fonterra must collect all certified organic milk and in transition to certified organic Fonterra milk and pay a 25% premium above the annual farm gate price for it, irrespective of location or availability of processing capacity.

22. Other changes Soil & Health seek are that the DIRA open entry requirements are repealed. As one of the key mechanisms that has facilitated the growth of this industry Soil & Health strongly recommends that the open entry provision be completely removed. For completeness we recommend that open exit be retained so that Fonterra cannot impose any restrictions on farmers who wish to leave Fonterra.

23. Further, with regards to Terms of Supply, Soil & Health recommends that the DIRA be clarified to ensure that Fonterra can provide financial incentives and disincentives to farmers who are performing above or below any element of Fonterra’s Terms of Supply or standards. Being able to use financial incentives and disincentives should include, but not be limited to, issues associated with environment, emissions and animal welfare standards.

Author: Mischa Davis
Position: Policy Advisor
The Soil & Health Association
PO Box 9693,
Marion Square,
Wellington, 6141
Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

Submission on an organic standard in New Zealand.

/in

 11 June 2018

 

Ministry for Primary Industries

PO Box 2526

Wellington 6140

 

Submission on MPI Discussion Paper N0: 2018/19

Background

1.    The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”) is a charitable society registered under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. It is the largest membership organization supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand and is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. Soil & Health’s objectives are to promote sustainable organic agricultural practices and the principles of good health based on sound nutrition and the maxim: “Healthy soil, healthy food, healthy people”. Its membership is chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Soil & Health publishes the bi-monthly ‘Organic NZ’ magazine – New Zealand’s leading organics magazine.

Introduction

2.    Soil & Health welcome the opportunity to comment on the MPI Discussion Paper “Would New Zealand benefit from new organic regulation?” (“Discussion Paper”). However, we are concerned that the consultation and submission period was both at short notice and for a relatively short time. Organisations throughout the sector will have had difficulty to have appropriate discussions among their members and members including both consumers and organic licensees. We reserve the right at Select Committee and further consultation to further refine our position.

  1. To know our food is safe, free from contamination and harmful residues is a fundamental human right. However, the right to know exactly what we are eating is often taken away and even routinely denied to us. While growing our own food remains the best way to ensure that we know what we are eating and how it is grown, we must also know what has been sprayed onto crops and soil, added to foods, and used in the processing of the food we purchase. There is a growing awareness in society of how food determines health and people are now demanding to know what is in their food and how it is grown. Safeguards to protect people and the environment are becoming more important and need greater attention as the presence of toxins in the environment become more common.

 

  1. Soil & Health is committed to advocating for transparent and honest food labelling in New Zealand. We believe that transparent food labelling is fundamental in allowing people to make informed choices. We believe that everyone has a right to safe and nutritious food that is grown in a way that enhances the environment. This covers the right to have food free from microbial contamination, harmful organisms, pesticides, harmful chemicals and heavy metal contaminants, harmful additives, irradiation and genetic engineering. We believe in the right of people to equip themselves with the knowledge to make informed food choices. This is only achievable through clear and transparent food labelling.

 

  1. Soil & Health as an organisation that advocates for organics, is a strong supporter of organic certification as it provides a verification system for consumers that ensures that the food product they are purchasing is produced according to specific organic standards. Consumers can trust food or other products that are labelled as certified organic, because they are subject to rigorous audits to ensure their safety and integrity. Most importantly it helps to ensure that businesses do not deceive or mislead consumers through false representation or false information when labelling themselves as organic. We consider certification important as it supports consumers in making informed choices about organic food.

 

  1. Currently there are several different organic certification agencies in New Zealand which all have their own standards and labels. Labels however can be confusing for consumers as there can be many different ones used on food products, for example, regulated and accredited ones like the Heart Foundation tick, or some companies creating labels such as ‘vegan’ or ‘100% natural’. As stated in the Executive Summary of the Discussion Paper, consumers have a mixed understanding about what these claims mean. People want clean, safe food, and are increasingly turning to organic foods and products. Many farmers and producers are responding to demand and producing high quality, certified organic products. But there are a few producers claiming their products are organic when in fact they are not. Some producers may be unintentionally misleading consumers; others may be deliberately using the word organic as part of their marketing strategy to sell more product and/or at a higher price. While consumers are protected by the Fair Trading Act 1986, which requires producers to be able to substantiate any claims that they are making on their products, the absence of a single definition in New Zealand of what organic means makes enforcement difficult. Furthermore, with no government oversight of organic standards, and no national standard to protect the word ‘organic’, the integrity of the organic industry as a whole is compromised.

 

  1. Soil & Health therefore strongly supports the proposal to introduce a mandatory National Organic Standard and associated regulatory regime for organic production. A fundamental point for Soil & Health in developing a single National Organic Standard is to reduce consumer confusion that is created when there are multiple certification agencies. Creating a single National Organic Standard for organics in New Zealand would help to reduce consumer confusion and boost consumer confidence in organic labelled food. It would also put us in step with nearly all of the top 25 organic exporting nations. This will give comfort not only in New Zealand but to export markets as well and will make exports easier.

 

  1. However, regulations which would follow adoption of a single National Organic Standard should not disadvantage small growers. While all relevant businesses should comply with the National Organic Standard there should be provision for a lesser burden of verification on smaller scale growers and producers where the cost would be disproportionate to the benefit. We therefore support exemptions that support smaller growers and produces who typically supply local markets and direct to their consumers. We recognise that among the myriad of reasons for supporting smaller producers is the fact that before big producers were big they generally were small, and we must support them in order to foster the growth of the organic industry. Effective exemptions must still require a claim of ‘organic’ to be meeting the National Organic Standard, and examples exist for on-line registration, or affidavits of compliance for operators below a certain monetary threshold.

 

Discussion Paper Questions

 

Part 1: Introduction, purpose and context

 

  1. Do you agree or disagree with the proposed scope? Are there any other products, for example aquaculture products, that should be considered? Please specify.

 

We generally agree with the proposed scope so long as this is recognised as merely a starting point. However, some aquaculture products, both salmon and mussels, have previously been certified organic in New Zealand, so it is important that aquaculture would be covered by regulation of organics to ensure inappropriate claims are not made.

 

The scope is currently limited to primary and processed products and we recognise this is a good place to start from as they form a large part of New Zealand’s organic production. However, as the development of the regulations progress other products might need to be included for example, it is also not clear whether cosmetics, body care products and textiles are included in the scope.

 

  1. To what extent do you agree with the description of the current context for organics? Please explain why.

 

We agree. The market information provided is consistent with reports produced by Organics Aotearoa New Zealand. However, the description lacks any information about or acknowledgement of New Zealand’s current GE-free status and the market advantages that this provides. The use of GE or GMOs is prohibited in organic products, and products cannot be labelled certified organic if they contain GMOs. The global Non-GMO market is at US$550 billion,[1] and trends show this is only going to grow.

 

Of New Zealand’s five key trading partners, three have non-GMO labelling regulations.[2] New Zealand has a market with these countries due to the perception and the fact that no GMO seeds are currently being cultivated in New Zealand. China is the largest trading partner with dairy being the largest single export. In 2014 NZ$5.3 billion of dairy products were exported to China.[3]

 

What is also important to mention is that organic and sustainable agriculture is the highest value added agricultural market with over US$80 billion worldwide sold as organic in 2014.[4] New Zealand primary industries are looking for ways to export value-added products as they move away from commodity-based trading. The collapse of the dairy industry in 2015 and the rise of tourism as the largest contributor to New Zealand’s GDP indicate an over-reliance on a narrow range of commodities. Federated Farmers sponsored a number of speakers during their national conference on 1-3 July 2015 in Wellington, who shared the view that value added agriculture is important to the resilience of the industry.

 

  1. To what extent do you agree with the description of the current regulatory environment for organics? Please explain why?

 

We agree with the description of the current regulatory environment for organics, namely that they are not regulated at all. One could conclude that MPI’s Official Organic Assurance Programme (“OOAP”) Technical Rules have by default become a national organic export standard. However, the OOAP Technical Rules is an export one and run through MPI with the Organic Export Association of New Zealand. While the process is consultative, it is hardly representative of the wider organic sector in New Zealand and is focused solely on exports.

 

It must also be noted that over decades the BioGro NZ standard has been run by its Society’s members and licensees who have contributed to its development through standards and certification committees. It has had significant voluntary input and provided a chance to review the impact of decisions on growers, input providers etc.  Soil & Health also contributed to this largely as the consumer voice on all boards. However, this process of keeping the standard up to date is is exhausting on resources and the voluntary base.

 

  1. Do you agree that this is a good opportunity to change the way organics are currently regulated in New Zealand? In your opinion, what needs to change? Please explain why.

 

We agree that this is a good opportunity to change the way organics are regulated in New Zealand. The current unregulated environment undermines the credibility of certified organic products produced in New Zealand and this needs to change. Organic licensees, the retail sector and the public are confused and often have a poor understanding of what organic means, or the implications of false claims. Regulation should aim to protect consumers from fraudulent claims and protect producers from unfair competition (products with false claims), thereby building the credibility of organic products produced in New Zealand. There is also an opportunity to rationalise other activities like auditor training, and upskilling, technical development, certification management and to develop a common national mark.

 

  1. Do you think that the appropriate objectives for a new organic regime have been identified? What would you suggest a new regime should achieve? Please explain why.

 

We agree with the objectives outlined however question whether the regulatory regime needs to be flexible.

 

We consider that the new regime should endorse and protect the status of existing New Zealand certifiers. The regime should enable certifiers to set higher standards (above the regulation) should they want to. It should also allow for equivalency between New Zealand produced and certified imported organic products provided the certification standards are at least equivalent to the New Zealand regulation. Soil & Health strongly supports the Participatory Guarantee Systems such as OrganicFarmNZ to be recognised as a credible certification pathway.

 

Part 2: Options for how a new regime for organics could work

 

  1. Do you think that a standard setting out requirements for production methods would be best suited to organic production? Please explain why.

 

Yes, because organics also has environmental and sustainability outcomes, not just food safety outcomes. Production methods are important because of the benefits to the environment as well as end product qualities.

 

Issue 1: Should a new standard be voluntary?

 

  1. Do you think that the correct options have been identified? Are there alternative option(s) that should be considered? Please describe.

 

Yes, we agree that the correct options have been identified. We do not propose any other alternatives.

 

  1. Are there positive or negative impacts of any options that are not described? Please describe any impacts that we’ve missed.

 

Cost is a significant concern to all organic growers and producers but most especially to small-scale growers and producers suppling local markets direct to the consumers. Small-scale growers and producers are important for the support of fresh organic products to New Zealand consumers and therefore any new regulations which would follow adoption of a single standard must not penalise them through unnecessary compliance costs.

 

The importance of genuine organic consumers expectations needs to be considered in the structure of Standards setting/maintenance body, and stakeholders groups. The importance of the consumer guarantee aspect of organic regulation must be reflected in significant organic consumer representation, which Soil & Health has experience of.

 

There are a number of overseas examples of standards maintenance groups that have been dominated by business interests that have not reflected genuine organic consumers and licensees’ interests, for example USDA now includes an option for ‘organic’ hydroponic production, although hydroponics by design does not meet New Zealand organic requirements, nor organic consumer expectations that organic production is soil based.

 

At one consultation, it was suggested that legislation for organic regulation would be likely be ahead of standards group representation being consulted on. It is therefore necessary to ensure that a minimum representation outline is included in the primary legislation to ensure organic consumers will be an effective part of standards setting and maintenance.

 

  1. If a standard became mandatory for all organic operations, what would be the positive and/or negative impacts on you or your business?

 

If mandatory the system should not be designed so that it constrains or prevents alternative certification systems being developed and recognised. A mandatory standard would be acceptable if it allowed for small-scale growers and producers to continue to function without unfair constraints and allowed the opportunity of lower cost Participatory Guarantee System certification.

 

For an organic consumer guarantee with integrity, the degree of organic consumer representation on the standards setting/maintenance group will potentially dictate either positive or negative outcomes. Soil & Health is probably the most visible advocate for New Zealand organic consumers.

 

  1. To what extent do you support or oppose the use of a logo to help distinguish organic products from non-organic products? Please explain why.

 

We support the development of a national logo provided it can be accessed by local and small-scale market growers and producers, not just larger scale operators that export.

 

Issue 2: How should we check that relevant businesses meet the standard?

 

  1. Do you think that the correct options have been identified? Are there alternative option(s) that should be considered? Please describe.

 

We consider that the correct options have been identified.

 

  1. Are there positive of negative impacts of any options that are not described in the above section? Please describe any impacts that we’ve missed.

 

No other positive or negative options are suggested.

 

  1. If ongoing verification (with limited exemptions) was used to check compliance, what would be the positive and/or negative impacts on you or your business?

 

As stated previously local and small-scale operators should not be disadvantaged. Costs relating to MPI regulatory requirements in other sectors have frequently been described as prohibitive to small businesses, and although some changes have been made for example raw milk cheeses, there is a strong cost recovery model in existence using high salary and travel fees. Regulation and compliance in that context threatens small producers if exemptions are not set sensitively.

 

Home gardeners that garden organically and would meet the National Organic Standard, should they be commercial, must also be able to describe their home grown produce as organic, whether sold or not. Such situations could include A&P Show vegetable competitions or descriptions in a newspaper article. Compliance could be by external interests checking against an affidavit or online registration if necessary, and complaints lodged with MPI or the accredited agency.

 

  1. If some businesses were not required to be verified on an ongoing basis, what do you think the criteria for exemption could be? For example, method of sale, annual turnover, volume sold, others…

 

If exemptions are to be allowed, then conditions on which they are based should be clearly defined, for example if there are multiple companies held by a single owner they should not be allowed to all be exempt (all should be verified).

 

Summary of proposals

 

  1. To what extend do you support this combination? Please explain why.

 

We strongly support the combination of Option 1C: mandatory compliance for all relevant businesses, and Option 2C: ongoing verification, with limited exceptions.

 

We support Option 1C due to the level of certainty and transparency that it provides to both businesses and consumers about what the definition of organic means. Under this option, whether or not a product is certified, consumers can be sure that if it is labelled organic then it means the same as certified organic as both terms must meet the National Organic Standard. This is significant for consumers who are too often sold products as organic, even though the grower/producer is not subject to any checks that their claim is authentic. If a producer uses the term organic to sell their system should be able to be verified in some way.

 

However, many of our members are small-scale organic growers and producers who only sell their products locally, direct to their consumers. Their growing and production standards meet that of certification standards, yet they choose not to become certified due to the costs and effort involved. Some growers and producers prefer to remain small-scale and want to keep their costs down in order to keep their products affordable. Certification would be an extra cost that they may not be able to meet unless they scaled up. For them to have to change their labels from “organic” to “spray-free” simply because they are not certified, despite meeting a certification standard, would not be fair on them. We consider that the integrity of certified organic is not compromised by these types of growers using the term organic.

 

Therefore, we also support Option 2C in that while all businesses that label their products organic would need to comply with the standard, not all businesses would be required to have their activities independently verified on an ongoing basis, or certified. The integrity of organics would still be maintained as any grower/producer, small or large, that defines their product as organic would be subject to enforcement action if it was shown that they were not meeting the standard. We also support the proposal to introduce measures that reduce compliance costs for small-scale businesses if and when needed through for example group certification or by adjusting the audit frequency.

 

  1. What changes or impacts would this combination of options involve for you and/or your organisation?

 

For our members and for consumers of organic products there will be benefits as the baseline standards will be clearly defined.

 

  1. What would be your preferred combination of options? This can include any listed options and any other possible option not listed.

 

We have already stated our preferred option – that being Option 1C and Option 2C.

 

Part 3: If needed, proposed features of empowering legislation

 

  1. Have the powers required to implement a new regime been correctly identified? Are there any other components you think would be necessary?

 

Those already certified (BioGro NZ/Asure Quality/OFNZ/Demeter) we consider are already following what will become the National Organic Standard – the process for how they become integrated needs to be clear and separate to those not already certified. We consider that MPI should recognise agencies not individuals.

 

As commented in Q8; At one consultation, it was suggested that legislation for organic regulation would be likely ahead of standards group representation being consulted on. It is therefore necessary to ensure that a minimum representation outline is included in the primary legislation to ensure organic consumers will be an effective part of standards setting and maintenance.

 

  1. Do you have any comments on the range of proposed compliance and enforcement tools?

 

We consider that minor non-compliances should be handled appropriately and be dependent on the level of the organic integrity of their products and the risk to consumer expectations and health.

 

  1. Do you have any other comments about the proposed legislation settings?

 

We consider that the legislation must allow for new certifiers and other certification systems (that can demonstrate compliance to the National Organic Standard) to be recognised. Legislation must include minimum requirements of the structure of standards groups and representation and include an expectation of GMO free food and production.

 

Part 4: General comments and next steps

 

  1. What evidence should be examined to inform further analysis of this proposal?

 

We consider that the affordability of the ‘product’ in terms of the comparative costings from similar situations should be considered from both export and local market certification options.

 

Options from overseas, particularly around exemptions, affidavits and online registrations, what financial thresholds or other measures are used.

 

  1. If you have any other comments or suggestions, please let us know.

 

For an organic supply chain there can be several steps (actors handling product) – organic oversight should be sustained along with the whole supply chain.

Yours sincerely

 

Name: Lucy Blackbourn

Position: Acting General Manager

 

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 9693

Marion Square

Wellington, 6141

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

[1] http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/packaged-facts-global-non-gmo-food–beverage-market-reaches550-billion-us-sales-at-200-billion-300127127.html

[2] http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-in-profile-2015/trading-partners.aspx

[3] http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/imports_and_exports/global-nz-jun-14/keypoints.asp

[4] https://shop.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1698-organic-world-2016.pdf

Submission to the EPA on the use of ethanedinitrile (EDN) as a fumigant

/in

Submission to the EPA on the use of ethanedinitrile (EDN) as a fumigant

Introduction

1. The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”) is a charitable society
registered under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. It is the largest membership
organization supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand and is one of the
oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. Soil & Health’s objectives
are to promote sustainable organic agricultural practices and the principles of good
health based on sound nutrition and the maxim: “Healthy soil, healthy food, healthy
people”. Its membership is chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers,
organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Soil &
Health publishes the bi-monthly ‘Organic NZ’ magazine – New Zealand’s leading
organics magazine.

2. Soil & Health makes this submission on the application to import ethanedinitrile (EDN),
a fumigant for use on timber/logs under commercial conditions, requesting that the
application be declined.

3. Soil & Health submitted to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) for
the reassessment of methyl bromide and has campaigned to have that fumigant better
contained and recaptured or stopped. Our then spokesperson Steffan Browning, has
later in another role as a Section 274 Party, won an Environment Court case Envirofume
Limited vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2017] NZEnv 12. That case, contested for the
applicant Envirofume by legal counsel Helen Atkins (Chairperson of the 2010 ERMA
methyl bromide re-assessment), exposed significant risks of methyl bromide
fumigations for the health and safety of workers and nearby communities. We consider
that due to its known toxicity EDN would be no better for those people potentially
exposed, both at the fumigation workplace and further away.

 

Detailed submission

4. Safeguards to protect people and the environment are becoming more important and
need greater attention as increasing development and the presence of toxins and
fumigants in the environment become more common.

5. We are aware that EDN is promoted as a ‘new’ fumigant showing great potential as a
replacement for the ozone-depleting fumigant methyl bromide, and that an extensive
review of scientific literature commissioned by Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide
Reduction (STIMBR) in 2014 found EDN was the only potential fumigant alternative to
methyl bromide as a phytosanitary treatment for forest products. Research conducted
by Plant and Food Research has also confirmed that EDN is an effective phytosanitary
treatment for insects associated with New Zealand forest products.

6. In Australia, EDN can ONLY be used with scrubbing (a recapture) technology as part of
its label use after being assessed by the national regulatory body Australian Pesticides
and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). It is our understanding however that
Draslovka are trying to register the product in New Zealand, without liquid scrubbing or
another recapture method.

7. Attached to this submission is the public release summary from the APVMA on the
evaluation of EDN. Refer to page 26, under critical comments: “Residual gas must be
scrubbed for a minimum of 4 hours using a liquid scrubbing system at the completion of
the fumigation period, followed by a further 24 hours of ventilation prior to clearance.”

8. EDN is not ozone depleting, unlike methyl bromide. Regardless, if this application for
EDN importation and use is granted, EDN will still need containment and recapture, like
any of these noxious gases, rather than being released into the wider environment.

9. EDN, just as with methyl bromide, will be a risk well beyond fumigation areas due to
drift, inversion layers, and the inability for its whereabouts to be adequately monitored
by those responsible. Boundary monitoring is ineffective if at head height, when a
fumigant plume passes above it and then descends or drifts into other areas.

10. EDN is highly toxic and fumigation workers may be exposed to the highly toxic product
just as with methyl bromide when: • opening fumigant cylinder valves, • removing tarp covers for ventilation, • opening and entering shipping containers, • leakage from damaged (leaking) fumigant delivery lines, or when handling
fumigated timber.

11. Other port workers, not involved in fumigation but working nearby, may also be
exposed to the EDN, particularly when the EDN is released into the atmosphere
following fumigation, but also during accidental and spontaneous release, as happens
with methyl bromide most years, at most log stack fumigating ports. Log stack
fumigations under tarpaulins are subject to strong wind events and accidental tarpaulin
puncturing. Both Genera and Envirofume fumigation operators have had log stack
tarpaulins rent, resulting in the spontaneous release of methyl bromide.

12. In the Environment Court decision Envirofume Limited vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council
[2017] NZEnv 12, the court observed the large range of port users who may be exposed
inadvertently to the methyl bromide fumigant. EDN will have the same risks of
exposure for workers and passersby.

13. That Court found significant shortcomings in the current methyl bromide fumigations.
EPA and Work Safe requirements are either impractical or are frequently breached.

14. EDN gives no better assurance of safety than methyl bromide.

15. Whatever toxic fumigant is used for log, timber and other fumigations, it must be in a
dedicated facility with recapture of remnant fumigant, such as is used at Port Nelson.
Methyl bromide was linked at that port with the deaths of six men from motor neurone
disease. EDN has its own array of serious health risks. Recapture technology exists but
industry individually and collectively has mostly avoided its use for economic reasons.

16. Responsibility for dedicated containment and recapture facilities was considered by the
Court to require an integrated approach:

[130] Overall, our view is that this matter requires an integrated approach from
the Port of Tauranga, the marshalling/stevedoring companies, the forestry
industry and the fumigators to adopt an approach for the safe application of
methyl bromide and the recapture of all reasonable emissions. This would
probably require a dedicated area for fumigation, and may involve a building or
other system that seeks to encapsulate and recapture gas. We are not satisfied
that the introduction of another company into the Tauranga market is going to
bring about those changes. In our view, the advance towards reduction of
emissions has seen little progress since the 1990s, and the Court is surprised to
see that there is approximately ten times as much methyl bromide being applied
in Tauranga as there was in the 1990s.

17. The ERMA 2010 methyl bromide reassessment inappropriately, and possibly illegally, set
a very late 2020 date for recapture of that fumigant to meet Montreal Protocol
requirements of phasing out methyl bromide emissions. Should the application for EDN
use be granted, the EPA must insist on dedicated fumigation facilities and recapture
always, if the EPA is to meet its statutory requirements.

Conclusions

18. Soil & Health seek that the application be declined.

19. Should the application be granted, dedicated fumigation facilities and recapture must be
required.

20. Soil & Health wish to be heard in support of our submission.

Yours sincerely

Name: Mischa Davis

Position: Policy Advisor

The Soil & Health Association PO Box 9693 Marion Square Wellington, 6141 Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

Submission on ‘food derived from new breeding techniques’ consultation paper

/in

Submission To: Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Submission Author: Mischa Davis
Thursday, 12 April, 2018

Introduction

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”) is a charitable society registered under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. It is the largest membership organization supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand and is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. Soil & Health’s objectives are to promote sustainable organic agricultural practices and the principles of good health based on sound nutrition and the maxim: “Healthy soil, healthy food, healthy people”. Its membership is chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Soil & Health publishes the bi-monthly ‘Organic NZ’ magazine – New Zealand’s leading organics magazine.

Soil & Health makes this submission on the consultation paper requesting that all new foods derived from new breeding techniques be regulated including: gene editing including, CRISPR and other related techniques, GE rootstock grafting, cisgenesis, intragenesis, RNA interference or other techniques including RNA and null segregants.

Detailed submission

To know our food is safe and free from contamination and harmful residues is a fundamental human right. We must also know what has been sprayed onto crops and soil or otherwise released into the environment, added to foods and other consumer products, and used in the processing of the food we purchase. Safeguards to protect people and the environment are becoming more important and need greater attention as increasing development and presence of novel organisms created through genetic engineering evolve and become mainstream.

Much uncertainty exists around the methods and the potential risks associated with these new genetic engineering (“GE”) techniques. Unknown risks are involved in the introduction of foreign material (DNA/RNA/engineered molecules) to the cells, plants or animals, as well as the exact effects of the changes (intended and off-target e.g. accidental) that are made to the genome. The genomes of living creatures are very complex, there is much to learn regarding their design and function. It is therefore impossible to predict the full impacts of the various GE products that are being created using gene-editing techniques. As the crops and animals being developed are very diverse and have different traits, it can be expected that the potential adverse effects on human beings and on the environment will differ, and therefore case-by-case safety and risk analysis is fundamental.

Further, genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”) created through new GE techniques are not necessarily detectable using current detection methodology, and in some countries, can bypass all the regulatory registration and labelling requirements. The absence of regulation for these new technologies in some parts of the world means that GE plants, animals, microorganisms etc. can be released in the environment with no risk assessment and no information for breeders, farmers and consumers.

Soil & Health strongly opposes the use of any form of GE technologies in primary production. This includes both the first generation of genetic engineering techniques (transgenics), and subsequent generations (e.g. gene-editing such as CRISPR and other related techniques, cisgenics, synthetic biology and any other new GE techniques). We consider that the new breeding techniques outlined in this consultation paper including RNA interference, fall within the scope of the definition of genetically modified organism under section 2 of New Zealand’s Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (“HSNO Act”) which provides that:

genetically modified organism means, unless expressly provided otherwise by regulations, any organism in which any of the genes or other genetic material—
(a) have been modified by in vitro techniques; or
(b) are inherited or otherwise derived, through any number of replications, from any genes or other genetic material which has been modified by in vitro techniques

Therefore, the new breeding techniques outlined in this consultation paper including RNA interference, and any products, including foods, derived through them must be subject to the same laws and safety regulations as all other GMOs and must be done transparently.

We consider that all the new GE techniques, processes and products should be placed in the highest risk category for assessment. The precautionary and polluter pays principles must be applied rigorously to all assessments, licensing and monitoring of new GE techniques and their products. Further, all products derived from new GE techniques must be labelled to protect the right to know and choice for consumers, organic and conventional farmers and processors. Transparent food labelling is fundamental in allowing people to make informed choices.

FSANZ Questions to answer

3.1.1 Questions – Genome contains new DNA,

Do you agree, as a general principle, that food derived from organisms containing new pieces of DNA should be captured for pre-market safety assessment and approval?

YES. Food derived from breeding techniques such as oligonucleotide directed mutagenesis (ODM), zinc finger nuclease technology types I to III (ZFN-I, ZFN-II, ZFN-III), CRISPR/Cas9, meganucleases, cisgenesis, grafting on a transgene rootstock, agro-infiltration, RNA-dependent DNA methylation (RdDM), reverse breeding and synthetic genomics, are all genetic engineering techniques. Any products, including food, obtained through genetic engineering processes should be subject to rigorous, multi-stakeholder designed and agreed risk assessment protocols that include input from the organic sector and like-minded movements, as well as an assessment of the possibility to prevent the presence of such products in organic products and conventional GE-free products. All products derived from new GE techniques, regardless of the presence of new/altered DNA or new/modified proteins, should also be labelled to protect the right to know and choice for consumers, organic and conventional farmers, and processors.

Should there be any exceptions to this general principle?
NO

3.1.2 Questions – Genome unchanged by gene technology.

Should food from null segregant organisms be excluded from pre-assessment and approval?

NO
If no, what are your specific safety concerns for food derived from null segregants 
The assumption that there have been no unintended genetic, structural or functional changes needs to be assessed before products derived from these techniques are allowed in food. Hence the need for a full safety assessment. A cautious approach is clearly warranted because of the potentially significant and unknown impacts.

3.1.3 Questions – Genome changed but no new DNA

Are foods from genome edited organisms likely to be the same in terms of risk to foods derived using chemical or radiation mutagenesis? 
NO

If no, how are they different?

Genome edited organisms have gone through the process of genome editing, including introduction of all the required components to the cells. They therefore carry a greater risk and warrant pre-market safety assessment and approval.

3.2 Questions – Other techniques

Are you aware of other techniques not currently addressed by this paper which have the potential to be used in the future for the development of food products?

RNA interference, which can result in gene downregulation, silencing or activation and has the potential to be used in the future for the development of food products. It poses unique risks such as gene silencing in non-target species that need to be assessed, among other safety assessment steps, before it should be allowed in food. Products produced using RNA interference should also be labelled as genetically engineered for consumer choice.

Should food derived from other techniques, such as DNA methylation, be subject to pre-market safety assessment and approval?

YES. DNA methylation is quite clearly a genetic modification technique and can result in heritable genetic changes. It therefore needs to be assessed for safety before being used in our food.

3.3 Questions – Regulatory Trigger

Do you think a process-based definition is appropriate as a trigger for pre-market approval in the case of NBTs (new breeding techniques)?

YES. Genetically modified organisms pose unique risks and a process-based trigger is appropriate for assessing these risks.

If yes, how could a process-based approach be applied to NBTs?

As stated previously we consider that the new breeding techniques outlined in this consultation paper including RNA interference, fall within the scope of the definition of genetically modified organism under section 2 of the HSNO Act and therefore must be subject to the same laws and safety regulations as all other GMOs in New Zealand.

However significant gaps exist in the law around GMOs in New Zealand. In the HSNO Act there are inadequate liability provisions (e.g. ‘polluter pays’) for any unintended or unforeseen adverse impacts resulting from the outdoor release of an approved GE crop or animal, meaning those causing harm may not be held liable. There is no mandatory requirement for the Environmental Protection Authority (‘EPA’) to take a precautionary approach to the outdoor use of GMOs.

We consider that a process-based approach should also include the polluter pays principle and require performance standards regarding liability and the posting of bonds. Further, a process-based approach should also require products derived from new GE techniques to be labelled to protect the right to know and choice for consumers, organic and conventional farmers and processors.

Are there any aspects of the current definitions that should be retained or remain applicable

Standard 1.5.2 defines “food produced using gene technology” as ”a food which has been derived or developed from an organism which has been modified by gene technology”. It states that “gene technology means recombinant DNA techniques that alter the heritable genetic material of living cells or organisms.” This definition clearly includes gene editing techniques. The intent of the (Australian) Gene Technology Act and Standard 1.5.2 was to capture all new GE techniques. Since RNA interference can also “alter the heritable genetic material of living cells or organisms” through induction of DNA methylation the definition of gene technology in Standard 1.5.2 would be better changed to “gene technology means in vitro (ex vivo or in vivo) techniques that alter the heritable genetic material of living cells or organisms” for clarity.

3.4 Questions – Other relevant issues

Are there other issues not mentioned in this paper, that FSANZ should also consider, either as part of this Review or any subsequent Proposal to amend the Code?

All forms of genetic engineering must be a government regulated activity and done transparently. The public should be able to retrieve data on what technologies have been applied, to enable producers and consumers to choose varieties according to their values and to reinforce the interdependence between consumers and producers.

We consider that information on all new varieties derived from genetic engineering should be made publicly available. Information should include methods used to develop new genotypes, intended new phenotypic characteristics, and identifiable genetic (and other markers) to enable their detection along with indication of the analytic technologies or other information necessary for such dictation and identification.

We consider that traceability and labelling must be made mandatory and should apply to all genetic engineering processes and GMOs at all stages of the production process, all the way through to consumers.

Conclusions

Soil & Health seeks that all new foods derived from new breeding techniques be regulated including: gene editing, such as CRISPR and other techniques, GE rootstock grafting, cisgenesis, intragenesis, RNA interference and null segregants.

We call on regulators to ensure transparency and traceability, and to safe guard producers’ and consumers’ freedom not to use untested GE techniques.

We consider that a moratorium should be placed on the release and commercialisation of all new GE techniques and their products, especially gene drives, until our regulatory system for GMOs is fully adapted to deal with the risks they pose.

Yours sincerely,

Name: Mischa Davis
Position: Policy Advisor

The Soil & Health Association
PO Box 9693,
Marion Square,
Wellington, 6141
Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

Submission on Draft District Plan for the New Plymouth District Council

/in

12th March 2018

New Plymouth District Council

Submission on Draft District Plan for the New Plymouth District Council

Introduction
1. The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”) thanks the New Plymouth District Council for the opportunity to comment on the Draft New Plymouth District Plan (“Draft Plan”). This document is a comment on the current draft version of the plan.
2. Soil & Health is a charitable society registered under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. It is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand and is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. Soil & Health’s objectives are to promote sustainable organic agricultural practices and the principles of good health based on sound nutrition and the maxim: “Healthy soil, healthy food, healthy people”. Its membership is composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Soil & Health publishes the bi-monthly magazine Organic NZ – New Zealand’s leading organics magazine.
3. Soil & Health makes this submission on the Draft Plan requesting that it include policies and provisions relating to the management of genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”), as allowed under the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) and pursuant to the ruling in Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council.
4. Soil & Health was party to both Environment Court proceedings concerning genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’), where it supported provision for GMOs under regional policy statements. The Association was also party to the High Court proceeding on GMOs.2
5. Soil & Health has concerns about the potential risks posed by releasing GMOs into the environment. It considers that the science is unproven and the risk of biological and ecosystem harm is too great not to include precautionary provisions for GMOs under local plans.
6. Equally important is the risk to social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, even if the New Plymouth District Council considers that GMOs pose no biological or ecosystem risk. This is because GMO contamination could have significant adverse effects on the economic markets, and way of life, for both organic and non-GMO food producers, and the mauri and tikanga of tangata whenua.
Background
7. GMO activities have been of particular concern to Soil & Health, and its members, since the technology was developed in the 1980s. Organic NZ has published numerous articles about GMOs since the early 1990s to explain transgenic technology and investigate its safety.
8. Soil & Health’s membership has consistently called for action to prevent or restrain using this technology freely in the environment, unless or until it can be proven to be safe, healthy and beneficial for people and the environment, and to ensure users of the technology take financial responsibility for any negative consequences.
9. Soil & Health has monitored most of New Zealand’s GE field trials and reported on what it believed to be significant compliance breaches. These include breaches by Scion at its Rotorua facility where GE pine trees were being grown in an outdoor field trial.
10. No matter how carefully conditions of consent for GMOs are crafted, there inevitably remains a risk, even if small, that conditions may be breached by poor management, human error, natural events such as severe storms and even the sabotage of particular projects.
11. Once GMOs have been released into the environment, they would be very difficult if not impossible to eradicate. In the case of a food product, the “GE-free” status of a district would likely be lost permanently along with the market advantages of that status.
12. There is also a potential risk that escape of GMOs from a controlled environment would attract widespread publicity. Any such publicity of control breaches or even public criticism of a lack of an appropriate precautionary approach carries with it a significant risk of damage to ‘brand New Zealand’ or even particular organic farming sectors on the international stage.
13. From its work, Soil & Health is acutely aware of the importance of the precautionary regulation of GMOs to local communities. Feedback from members has made Soil & Health aware that many of them are primary producers and make their livelihood from farming, horticulture, forestry and beekeeping. They are very concerned about the risks posed to their businesses given past evidence of either human error in GMO activities, or unforeseen or unintended adverse impacts of outdoor use of GMOs.
14. GMOs pose a significant risk to the investment organic farmers and growers have made in businesses. This includes the many organic operations in the New Plymouth District. For the important and rapidly growing organic community, the impacts of any GMO contamination could have devastating and irreversible impacts.
Inter-council Working Party
15. Significant gaps exist in the law around GMOs in New Zealand. There is no provision under the HSNO Act for financial liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO, meaning those causing harm may not be held liable. This is a significant financial and enterprise risk for organic and GE free producers, should GMO contamination occur. Fortunately, under the RMA, requirements for bonds for remediation and to cover the costs of contamination can be included in district plans. Further there is no mandatory requirement for the Environmental Protection Authority (“EPA”) to take a precautionary approach to the outdoor use of GMOs.
16. Due to these gaps in the law, the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options was established, and as a result a number of councils around New Zealand are moving to protect their primary producers and communities by introducing precautionary or prohibitive policies. Auckland Council, Far North District Council, Whangarei District Council and Hastings District Council have all included provisions in their planning documents to regulate the outdoor use of genetically modified organisms. All four councils have prohibited the release of GMOs on land and made field trials a discretionary activity with performance standards in regards to liability and the posting of bonds.
17. Soil & Health considers it vitally important that there should be an additional layer of protection at a local level (on top of the requirements of the HSNO), should contamination from outdoor use of GMOs occur. This is a safeguard for organic and GE-free producers who would otherwise have no recompense for GMO contamination damage to, or even the total loss of, their enterprise.
18. Soil & Health strongly supports the role of local councils (district, regional, city and unitary authorities) to manage natural and physical in a truly sustainable manner and safeguard the interests of their constituents and local communities when faced with uncertainty about environmental effects including the significant risks of the outdoor use of GMOs.
19. To maintain consistency with other member councils on the Inter-council Working Party it is submitted that New Plymouth District Council should include provisions relating to GMOs in the New Plymouth District Plan. These provisions could be the same (or similar) as those in the Auckland Unitary Plan.
The Law
20. Soil & Health was a party to Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council. That decision ruled that local councils have the power under the RMA to control the use of GMOs via their local planning instruments.
21. In his decision Judge Newhook ruled that: “the RMA and HSNO offer significantly different functional approaches to the regulation of GMOs”.
22. HSNO is limited to regulating the introduction of new organisms (including GMOs) to New Zealand. HSNO “does not regulate the potential adverse effects of GMOs beyond approving them for release”, and does not provide for integrated management.
23. The RMA, on the other hand, enables authorities to provide for the use and protection of resources “in a fully integrated fashion, taking into account regional needs for spatial management that might differ around the country for many reasons”.
24. This decision was upheld in the High Court after Federated Farmers appealed the Environment Court’s decision.
25. Therefore, there is jurisdiction for the New Plymouth District Council to make provision for objectives, policies, rules and other planning tools in relation to GMOs under the Draft Plan.
26. This is further confirmed by the recent RMA amendments. On 18 September 2017 section 360D officially set down in law the right to place GMO provisions in Council plans without Ministerial interference.
Integrated Management
27. GMO proposals require approval from the EPA under the HSNO Act. The HSNO Act consenting process gives particular attention to the technical aspects of managing individual proposals. However, it does not involve:
(a) consideration of the geographic distribution of GMO projects;
(b) consideration of the need to geographically protect areas of particular value from GMO activities, such as sensitive farming practices (including organic farming, and all farming and forestry relying on a GE-free status, beekeeping etc.);
(c) consideration of the preferences of a community; or
(d) integration of the management of natural and physical resources, and the effects of GMO activities on natural and physical resources, on a geographic basis.
28. The HSNO Act does not, therefore, provide a planning framework through which GMOs can be geographically, spatially or culturally managed in an integrated manner.
29. The RMA establishes a regime whereby local authorities are called upon to prepare policy and plans to implement sustainable management on a geographic basis through the use of integrated management of natural and physical resources at a regional level, and integrated management of effects on the environment at a district level.
30. Consideration of the location and distribution of proposals involving GMOs on a district basis, together with protection of rural resources for organic, biodynamic or GE-free farming, forestry, marine farming, beekeeping or other primary production, are important resource management matters for consideration by territorial authorities in carrying out their functions under the RMA.
Potential Adverse Effects of GMOs
31. The outdoor use of GMOs has a potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment. Adverse effects could include (inter alia):
(a) biological or ecosystem harm;
(b) harm to tangata whenua cultural values such as mauri and tikanga;
(c) harm to the cultural values and lifestyle decisions of people and communities at a local level concerning what constitutes their wellbeing; and
(d) harm from GMO contamination to existing or potential forms of land use including organic farming (including organic certification and the requirement to be GMO free) and farming, forestry, beekeeping, marine farming and other primary production activities dependent on an uncontaminated environmental brand. Adverse effects to these land uses could include:
(i) loss of organic and GMO free certification;
(ii) reputational damage;
(iii) loss of markets, both local, national and international and the premiums paid for GMO free produce; and
(iv) loss of livelihood.
32. GMOs have the potential to adversely affect ecological, economic, and resource management values, and the social and cultural wellbeing of people, communities and tangata whenua.
33. Application of integrated management and a precautionary approach to GMOs under the RMA is the best available technique for managing the potential adverse effects posed by GMOs within the region.
34. It is consistent with the sustainable management purpose and Part II of the RMA to establish district plan provisions (e.g. issues, objectives, policies, rules and methods) that manage the release, location and management of GMOs where they have the potential to adversely affect the environment and other land use activities.
Decision Sought Regarding GMOs
35. The decision Soil & Health seeks from New Plymouth District Council is that the Draft Plan be amended to include the following:
a. A new section specifically addressing GMOs which includes issues, objectives, policies and rules that are the same (or similar) as those in the Auckland Unitary Plan.
b. Rules that make outdoor field trialling of GMOs a discretionary activity and release of GMOs for outdoor use a prohibited activity;
c. Provisions for bonds to make consent holders financially responsible for monitoring and any adverse effects particularly since the economic cost of adverse effects could be very high and should not be borne by third parties;

Yours sincerely

Name: Mischa Davis
Position: Policy Advisor

The Soil & Health Association
PO Box 9693
Marion Square
Wellington, 6141
Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

Submission Template on Draft Waikato District Plan

/in

16 January 2018

Waikato District Council
2 Dominion Road
Tuakau 2121

Submission on draft Waikato District Plan

Introduction

1. I make this submission on the draft Waikato District Plan (“Draft Plan”) requesting that it include strong precautionary and prohibitive policies and rules relating to the management of genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”), as allowed under the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) and pursuant to the ruling in Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council.

Risks of GMOs

2. I have concerns about the potential risks posed by the release of GMOs into the environment. GMOs have the potential to adversely affect ecological, economic, and resource management values, and the social and cultural wellbeing of people, communities and tangata whenua.

3. The release of GMOs has a potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment, which could include:
(a) biological or ecosystem harm;
(b) harm to tangata whenua cultural values such as mauri and tikanga;
(c) harm to the cultural values and lifestyle decisions of people and communities at a local level concerning what constitutes their wellbeing; and
(d) harm from GMO contamination to existing or potential forms of land use including farming, forestry, beekeeping, marine farming and other primary production activities dependent on an uncontaminated environmental brand. Adverse effects to these land uses could include:
(i) loss of organic and GMO-free certification;
(ii) reputational damage;
(iii) loss of markets and premiums paid for GMO free produce; and
(iv) loss of livelihood.

4. No matter how carefully conditions of consent for GMOs are crafted, there inevitably remains a risk, even if small, that conditions may be breached by poor management, human error, natural events such as severe storms and even the sabotage of projects.

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

6. Application of integrated management and a precautionary approach to GMOs under the RMA is the best available technique for managing the potential adverse effects posed by GMOs within the region.

7. It is consistent with the sustainable management purpose and Part II of the RMA to establish district plan provisions (e.g. issues, objectives, policies, rules and methods) that manage the release, location and management of GMOs where they have the potential to adversely affect the environment and other land use activities.

Decision Sought regarding GMOs

8.The decision I seek from Waikato District Council is that the Draft Plan be amended to include the following:
(a) A resource management framework for the management of GMOs that is regional specific taking into account environmental, economic and social well-being considerations.
(b) Strong precautionary and prohibitive provisions, policies and rules relating to GMOs that are the same (or similar) as those in the Far North District Plan, the Whangarei District Plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan, to ensure a consistent approach across Northland, Auckland and the Waikato and to eliminate cross boundary issues.