Submission on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

/in

Introduction

  1. The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”) was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 4 December 1942. Soil & Health’s objectives broadly include soil health and the promotion of organic gardening and farming. Its membership is chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Its age and membership make it the oldest and largest representative organic organisation in New Zealand.
  2. Soil & Health is aware that currently in New Zealand around 60% of public water supplies have fluoride added as a treatment for dental decay. We are also aware that there is conflicting evidence on the benefits of water fluoridation to dental health and that there is growing medical concern about the cumulative negative wider health impacts of ingestion of fluoride and its adverse effects on the environment. The main chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are known as silicofluorides. These fluorides are not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products but unprocessed toxic industrial chemical by-products of the phosphate fertiliser industry.
  1. As an organisation that advocates for organics we are opposed to the use of toxic chemicals in New Zealand. We are therefore opposed to the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. We believe that adding fluoride to local body water supplies is a form of forced medication and therefore is a breach of section 10 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990. We strongly believe that individuals should have a right to choose whether they want to ingest fluoride or not. We believe that dental health is best achieved through a healthy diet and eating fresh, wholesome organic foods.

Detailed submissions

The role of the DHBs and local democracy

  1. The Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill (“the Bill”) was introduced to Parliament in order to enable District Health Boards (“DHBs”) rather than local councils to decide whether community water supplies are fluoridated “with the intention that the change would benefit over 1.4 million New Zealanders who live in areas where networked community water supplies are not currently fluoridated.”[1] This Bill therefore is fundamentally about facilitating the roll out of fluoridation of community water supplies across New Zealand. The Bill itself states in its Explanatory Note that: “Transferring decision-making to DHBs is expected to enable extended fluoridation coverage”.[2]
  2. The Regulatory Impact Statement says: “The Ministry of Health has considered a range of options for managing fluoridation and increasing the proportion of the population having access to fluoridated water supplies.”[3] We argue that “having access” implies having a choice. Under the Bill however there will not be a choice and in fact the Bill is about removing the ability for local communities to have a say on fluoridation. The Bill is therefore dishonest.
  3. It has been argued in the first reading of the Bill that democracy is upheld because the DHB’s have locally elected representatives, and are better placed to make decisions about the health benefits and risks of fluoridation. Part 1 Clause 8(2) of the Bill however sets out only two things the DHBs must consider when making a decision on, which are:

(a) the scientific evidence on the effectiveness on dental health; and

(b) whether the benefits outweigh the costs.

There is no provision for the DHBs to take on board community views, nor to assess health risks or environmental effects. Nor can the DHBs go against Ministry of Health objectives.

  1. The process as it currently exists for considering fluoridation enables local decision making amongst the communities affected. All residents of local councils who want to participate in the process can voice their opinion and a council decision can be appealed in court – as has recently happened in the case of Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council.[4] Transferring the decision making from councils to DHBs will effectively remove the ability of communities to be fully involved in the investigation and reporting of any health, community or ecological impacts.
  1. We consider that the DHBs are also less representative of communities than councils because they are not independent. Under the New Zealand Health and Disability Act 2000 DHB’s “must pursue its objectives in accordance with any plan prepared under section 38, its statement of intent, and any directions or requirements given to it by the Minister”[5] and “The Minister may give a direction to all DHBs to comply with stated requirements for the purpose of supporting government policy on improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the public health and disability sector.”[6]

The toxicity of fluoride

  1. The type of fluoride that is added to drinking water is not naturally occurring calcium fluoride, or even pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride.[7] It is a contaminated chemical by-product of the phosphate fertilizer manufacturing process, known as hydrofluorosilicic acid (“HFA”).[8] It is concentrated, highly toxic and contains hazardous impurities. Due to it’s toxicity by law it cannot be dumped onto the land, into rivers or the sea and cannot be discharged to air. Uranium and radium are found in HFA, both of which are known carcinogens. Two decay products of uranium are even more carcinogenic: radon-222 and polonium-210. Polonium decays into stable lead 206, raising significant health risks, especially for children. Research has shown that drinking fluoridated water increases lead absorption.[9]
  1. New Zealanders are already ingesting elevated levels of fluoride from plants and animals raised on land treated with phosphate which contains naturally occurring fluorides and many people already manifest dental symptoms of fluorosis – fluoride overdose. Further there is no antidote for fluoride toxicity and fluoride does not absorb to activated charcoal in filters.[10]
  1. A further concern is that the Bill’s is sole focus is on dental health with no requirement for the DHBs to assess risk to other parts of the body such as kidneys, liver, brain and thyroid.

Fluoride in the environment

  1. Fluoride ions are directly toxic to aquatic life, and accumulate in the tissues, at concentrations where absorption rates exceed excretion rates.[11] In a scientific journal article titled ‘Fluoride toxicity to aquatic animals’ Julio A. Camargo states how even at concentrations as low as 0.5 mg F−/l fluoride in soft water can adversely affect invertebrates and fishes. Camargo further states that “safe levels below this fluoride concentration are recommended in order to protect freshwater animals from fluoride pollution.”[12] There are other studies that indicate levels below water fluoridation level, 1.5ppm, have lethal and other adverse effects on fish. Delayed hatching of rainbow trout has occurred at 1.5ppm6, brown mussels have died at 1.4ppm7; an alga (Porphyria tenera) was killed by a four-hour fumigation with fluoride with a critical concentration of 0.9ppm 8, and levels below 0.1ppm were shown to be lethal to the water flea, Daphnia magna.[13]
  1. Only 1% of water from community water supplies is ingested by humans, the remaining 99% is discharged into the environment via the wastewater systems. Fluoride is not filtered out by wastewater plants. In 2015 an investigation found that approximately half a tonne of HFA is discharged every year into Lake Taupo via the Hangarito stream from the township of Turangi alone.[14] The safety datasheet for HFA by Orica states it is an exotoxin and to avoid discharge to waterways. New Zealand waterways are already in a dire state with a staggering 62% of monitored waterways being unsafe for swimming. Increasing the amount of fluoridation in local body water supplies will only make this worse.
  1. Of concern for the Bill is that transferring the decision making to the DHBs will mean that environmental effects of fluoride will no longer be taken into account. The DHBs role is to deliver public health services, not to take into account environmental effects. Whereas councils can assess environmental effects when considering fluoridation, DHBs cannot, because their statutory role is restricted to the delivery of health services.

The need for a precautionary approach

  1. Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration mentions the precautionary approach as follows:

“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”

  1. The precautionary approach has been considered a milestone in its ability to reduce environmental risk as it involves an anticipatory preventative action in response to uncertainty. In its use public authorities are not only required to anticipate possible adverse effects that could arise from activities but also to act to control the risks even when it is still uncertain whether adverse effects will occur.
  1. A report compiled in 2013 for the Government of Ireland, the European Commission and the World Health Organisation titled ‘Public Health Investigation of Epidemiological Data on Disease and Mortality in Ireland related to Water Fluoridation and Fluoride Exposure’ found that public health authorities have pursued a policy of medicating the population with fluoridation chemicals for half a century without undertaking any clinical trials, medical, toxicological, scientific or epidemiological studies to examine how exposure to such chemicals may be impacting on the general health of the population. The report concludes that in the absence of any scientific data proponents of water fluoridation continue to believe that the policy is both safe and effective for all sectors of society regardless of the age, nutritional requirements, medical status or total dietary intake of fluoride of individuals.[15]
  1. While studies have shown that a lifetime exposure to fluoride can lead to health risks, especially to those with challenged immune systems and the young and the elderly, [16] it is still unknown at what point HFA causes harm. Our health authorities in New Zealand have not yet found the real safe level to protect sensitive groups, particularly people with kidney disease, diabetes and bottle-fed babies. No safety studies have ever been conducted anywhere in the world.
  1. Soil & Health strongly endorses a precautionary approach to fluoridation of local body water supplies at all levels of government and regulation. Due to the uncertainties of the safety of water fluoridation we consider that applying the precautionary approach should involve a moratorium on the fluoridation of local body water supplies until further research is undertaken.

Conclusion

  1. As set out above Soil & Health opposes the introduction of the Bill. Under the Bill local decision making will be removed, making fluoridation of local body water supplies easier to implement. A number of independent scientific studies have raised serious concerns about the adverse effects that HFA has on human health and the environment.
  1. We consider that to transfer decision making to the DHB’s the government is showing disregard for appropriate decision making, especially when any risk for those affected is not required to be assessed, nor can the DHBs assess environmental effects or go against Ministry of Health objectives.
  1. We urge the select committee to apply the precautionary approach and implement a moratorium on the fluoridation of local body water supplies until an ‘independent’ review of its effects on human health and the environment is undertaken.

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

 

Yours sincerely

Name: Mischa Davis

Position: Policy Advisor

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 340002

Birkenhead

Auckland 0746

Phone: 0212667754

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

[1] Background to Bill https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-digests/document/51PLLaw24221/health-fluoridation-of-drinking-water-amendment-bill

[2] Page 1 the Bill.

[3] Page 1 Regulatory Impact Statement.

[4] New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council – [2014] NZHC 395

[5] Section 22 (2).

[6] Section 33B (1).

[7] https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1233.html

[8]http://www.waternz.org.nz/Folder?Action=View%20File&Folder_id=315&File=140604_nzwwa_f_gpg_revision_final.pdf

[9] http://cof-cof.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Masters-Coplan-Water-Treatment-With-Silicofluorides-And-Lead-Toxicity-International-Journal-Of-Environmental-Studies-1999.pdf and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17420053

[10] http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/814774-overview

[11] http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wat/wq/BCguidelines/fluoride/fluoridetoo-04.html

[12] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653502004988

[13] Dave G. Effects of fluoride on growth reproduction and survival in Daphnia magna, Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 78c (2)

[14] http://fluoridefree.org.nz/campaigns/taupo-turangi/

[15] http://www.enviro.ie/feb2013.pdf

[16] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036214001809 and https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp11-c2.pdf

You can address your submission to:

Committee Secretariat

Health

Parliament Buildings

Wellington

Natural Health & Supplementary Products Bill – Ministry of Health’s consultation paper ‘The Regulation of Natural Health Products’

/in
Submission to: Ministry of Health
Submission Author: Philippa Jamieson and Marion Thomson
Friday, March 4, 2016

Submission on the Natural Health & Supplementary Products Bill
Ministry of Health’s consultation paper ‘The Regulation of Natural Health Products’

TO:
Natural Health Products
Ministry of Health
PO Box 5013
Wellington 6145
naturalhealthproducts@moh.govt.nz

FROM: Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
PO Box 340002
Birkenhead 0746
Auckland

4 March 2016

 

Re: the Ministry of Health’s consultation paper ‘The Regulation of Natural Health Products’

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Incorporated (‘Soil & Health’) is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand, and is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, formed in 1941. We are committed to advocating our maxim ‘Oranga nuku – Oranga kai – Oranga tangata’ meaning ‘Healthy soil – Healthy food – Healthy people’ and to creating an organic New Zealand.

 

The Soil & Health Association of NZ opposes the Natural Health Products Bill and requests that it be removed from the Order Paper.
Our opposition to this Bill includes the following reasons:

 

1.     The Bill would drastically reduce access to, and options for, safe and effective healthcare for New Zealanders.

 

a)     Natural medicines have been used safely and effectively for thousands of years. The Bill would, however, ban numerous natural health product ingredients without just cause. Some of these ingredients could in fact be everyday foods with a long history of safety.

b)    The proposed regulations would severely limit health options for consumers by allowing only a very limited number of permitted ingredients on a ‘white list’.

c)     The limited ‘white list’ approach would mean that many safe and effective natural health ingredients would become illegal.

d)    Many of the ‘white list’ ingredients have severe dosage and application restrictions placed on them. There is no scientific or medical justification for this, and no history of risk to human health.

e)     Soil & Health asks that the current, sensible ‘black list’ approach is retained, so that natural health products are ‘innocent until proven guilty’. If they are shown to cause harm, they are banned and added to the black list.

 

2.     The Bill would severely affect natural health practitioners, who would be robbed of numerous safe and effective health products to recommend to their patients. This would limit or destroy their businesses, as well as impacting on their ethical duty of providing the best care for their patients.

 

3.     The Bill would severely affect New Zealand natural health producers and suppliers, driving many small-to-medium enterprises out of the market.

 

a)     The Bill introduces significant new compliance costs on New Zealand businesses to prove that a natural health ingredient to be safe so it can be added to the proposed ‘white list’.

b)    The compliance costs for businesses go well beyond proving that an ingredient is safe. Costs include notifying the regulator about each ingredient, paying annual fees, providing information about health benefit claims, obtaining a licence to manufacture the product, and complying with the Code of Manufacture Practice. The sum total of compliance costs will be out of reach of many businesses as it could reach into the tens of thousands of dollars or even more.

c)     Businesses will not be able to provide as great a range of natural health products, for sale in New Zealand, or for export.

d)    The only manufacturers likely to be able to survive will be the larger ones.

e)     If consumers are unable to find the products they want in New Zealand they will buy online and import them, therefore bypassing our local industry.

 

This is a Bill whose only benefits are for large and/or multinational companies who can afford to stay in business under this regime, and for the pharmaceutical industry. The primary goal of health legislation or regulation must be the health of New Zealanders. However this Bill does nothing to improve people’s health – in fact it will worsen the health of New Zealanders, as we would lose numerous safe and effective healthcare options.

 

REQUEST

Soil & Health asks that the Bill and associated proposed regulations be abandoned.

Submission on application for the reassessment of chlorothalonil formulations

/in

16 December 2016

 

Hazardous Substances

Environmental Protection Authority

Private Bag 63002

Wellington 6140

 

Submission on application for the reassessment of chlorothalonil formulations

 

Introduction

  1. The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (‘Soil & Health’) was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 4 December 1942. Soil & Health’s objectives broadly include soil health and the promotion of organic gardening and farming. It has approximately 3000 members, chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Its age and membership make it the oldest and largest representative organic organisation in New Zealand.

 

  1. Soil & Health is opposed to the use of harmful pesticides in Aotearoa New Zealand. As an organisation we advocate for farmers and growers to adopt natural, organic, non-harmful methods of pest and disease management. We believe that researchers, farmers and growers should be encouraged to develop and implement nonchemical alternatives to pesticides that foster soil microbial life instead of destroying it.

 

  1. Soil & Health is opposed to the use of fungicides containing chlorothalonil in New Zealand. A number of independent scientific studies have raised serious concerns about the effects that chlorothalonil has on human health and the environment.

 

  1. Soil & Health therefore strongly supports the EPA’s recommendation to revoke the approval of four (HSR000480, HSR000147, HSR000586, HSR100872) non-professional use chlorothalonil formulations and to dispose of the existing stocks of these formulations within the next 6 months. However Soil & Health considers that the fifth outstanding (HSR00618) non-professional use chlorothalonil formulation considered in the application should also have its approval revoked.

Detailed submissions

Adverse effects on humans

  1. We strongly agree with and support the EPA’s statement that “the high toxicity of chlorothalonil means that serious human health effects can develop from even small exposures to chlorothalonil.” Chlorothalonil is listed on the Pesticide Action Network International list of Highly Hazardous Pesticides for global phase out.[1] Chlorothalonil is a known carcinogen, mutagen and an environmental toxin and it is thought responsible for aggravating the health effects of other pesticides. The application itself points out that the hazard classification of the substances are all classified as suspected carcinogens while several are classified as acutely toxic by inhalation, corohesive to the eye and/or as suspected mutagens. The carcinogenic classification in the application is based on findings of kidney tumours in male rats and mice and in female rats following administration in long-term toxicity studies. In a study released by the US government health staff it was found that exposure to certain pesticides, chlorothalonil increased the risks 5.6 fold and 2.4 fold respectfully, of a blood disorder that can lead to multiple myeloma.[2]

 

 

Adverse effects on the environment

  1. According to the Environmental Health Criteria 183 of the International Programme on Chemical Safety chlorothalonil is considered by the World Health Organisation and to be highly toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates.

 

  1. In a study by the University of Florida it was found that chlorothalonil killed nearly every amphibian at the approximate expected environmental concen­trations to which humans are commonly exposed. The study concluded that future studies should be carried out that directly quantify the effects that chlorothalonil has on amphibian populations and human health.[3]

 

  1. In an article published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal ‘Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology’, it was stated that despite the low water solubility of chlorothalonil it has been detected in Australian waterways, and while chlorothalonil can be readily removed from the water column by binding to sediment or suspended solids in the water, the ecotoxicological data from the literature show that it is acutely toxic to nontarget organisms at concentrations much lower than reported environmental concentrations.[4]

 

  1. Research as shown that children are the most vulnerable, up to 108 times, to fatal aerosol effects of chlorothalonil. The home use of the product increases the risk of exposure to children and adolescents.

Adverse effects of Black Spot and Fungus Spray and Watkins Fungus and Mildew Spray (HSR00618)

  1. We consider that due to the harmful effects of McGregor’s Black Spot and Fungus Spray and Watkins Fungus and Mildew Spray, the approval for these substances should also be revoked. The hazard classifications that these products fall into are fatal, suspected human mutagen, toxic to human organs, skin sensitiser, and corrosive to the eye. They are also very toxic to the aquatic environment, persistent and harmful to soil and terrestrial vertebrates (6.1B, 6.3B, 6.5B, 6.6B, 6.9A, 8.3A, 9.1A, 9.2C, 9.3C).

Failure to meet requirements under HSNO Act

  1. Due to the adverse effects of chlorothalonil listed above, we consider that if the decision-making committee decides to reject the EPA’s recommendations and continues to allow the non-professional use of chlorothalonil formulations in New Zealand it would be failing to recognise and provide for the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems, as required to do under section 5(a) of the HSNO Act.

 

  1. Section 28 (2)(a) of the HSNO Act requires each application for approval to include the unequivocal on all the possible adverse effects on of the substance and its properties. We consider that this has not been met due to the EPA failing to identify the adjuvant properties of the McGregors and Watkins formulations, which increase the toxicity of pesticides.

 

  1. Section 28 (2) (b) requires that each application for approval include information on all the possible adverse effects of each substance. We consider that the EPA has also failed to meet this requirement as the EPA has not assessed the cumulative and synergistic effects of the two chemicals contained in the McGregor Watkins products, and whether they increase the hazardous rating, making this compound even more eco toxic than if applied singly.

Alternatives to chlorothalonil formulations and other toxic pesticides

  1. Conventional agriculture relies on pesticides to protect crops from pests and diseases, including synthetic herbicides to control weeds, and synthetic fertilisers to promote crop growth. Over time this heavy use of synthetic chemicals reduces the soil biota and the productive capacity of the soil, and creates increased resistance by pests to the chemicals used, as well as the resurgence of secondary pests. These chemicals are also dispersed in the environment, polluting waterways and damaging ecosystems.

 

  1. Numerous studies on the adverse impacts of pesticides and chemical fertilisers have raised awareness about the use of synthetic chemicals in agriculture, how effective they actually are in treating pests and diseases, and the impact they are having on human health as well as the wider environment. People are turning to more natural forms of pest and disease control that are more effective, sustainable and healthier in the long term.

 

  1. Organic agriculture has a holistic approach to pest and disease management that avoids the need for pesticides by instead focusing on building healthy fertile soil with abundant microbial life, fostering natural predators and using natural remedies. Truly well-nourished plants do not attract pests or provide a suitable conditions for pests and diseases to develop. Farmers and producers try to create healthy soil so that plants and animals can be healthy, and build up good natural defenses against pests and diseases. The long-term health of the soil is taken into consideration, rather than trying to deal with the immediate problem with synthetic sprays.

 

  1. The application itself points out that there are several alternatives for use in a home-setting available on the market in New Zealand. The application states that several fungicides with lower hazards are available, including horticultural oils, sulfur, and the biological fungicide (Bacillus Subtilis).

 

  1. We consider that even those fungicides currently available can easily be replaced by non-chemical biological controls that do not have an adverse effect on the environment. We therefore consider that chlorothalonil formulations do not provide any extra advantage.

Conclusion

  1. Due to the many adverse effects associated with the use of chlorothalonil formulations as well as the lack of convincing evidence of both its need and safety the Soil & Health Association consider that the decision-making committee should accept the recommendations of the EPA to take a precautionary approach as required under section 7 of the HSNO Act, and revoke the approval of four non-professional use chlorothalonil formulations (HSR000480, HSR000147, HSR000586, HSR100872) and to dispose of the existing stocks of these formulations within the next 6 months.

 

  1. We further request that the fifth (HSR00618) chlorothalonil formulation also have their approval withdrawn for any importation, storage, sale, copating, or dispersal, until international scientific evidence exonerates this fungicide from any linkage with human health impacts.

 

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

 

Yours sincerely

 

Name: Mischa Davis

Position: Policy Advisor

 

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 340002

Birkenhead

Auckland 0746

Phone: 06 8775534

Mobile: 0212667754

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

 

[1] PAN International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides, Pesticides Action Network International 2011, p 15.

[2] American Society of Hematology Journal, June 2009 (2,3).

[3] The Fungicide Chlorothalonil Is Nonlinearly Associated with Corticosterone Levels, Immunity, and Mortality in Amphibians, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol 119, number 8, August 2011, p 1098.

[4] Assessing the Chronic Toxicity of Atrazine, Permethrin, and Chlorothalonil to the Cladoceran Ceriodaphnia cf. dubia in Laboratory and Natural River Water, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (2013) 64 p 420.

Submission on Draft Regional Plan for Northland

/in

23 September 2016

 

Northland Regional Council

Private Bag 9021

Whangarei Mail Centre

Whangarei 0148

 

Submission on Draft Regional Plan for Northland

 

Submission

1.   The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”) makes this submission on the Draft Regional Plan for Northland (“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 and pursuant to the ruling in Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council.[1] This submission relates to the Coastal Marine Area, Soil & Water and tangata whenua sections of the Draft Plan.

Reasons

The Law

  1. Soil & Health was a party to Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council.
  2. That decision ruled that local councils have the power under the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) to control the use of GMOs via their regional planning instruments.
  3. That decision has recently been upheld by the High Court.[2]
  4. Soil & Health therefore considers that there is jurisdiction for Northland Regional Council (“the Council”) to make provision for objectives, policies, rules and other planning tools in relation to GMOs under the Draft Plan.

Integrated Management

  1. GMO proposals require approval from the Environmental Protection Authority (“EPA”) under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (“HSNO Act”).
  2. The HSNO Act consenting process gives particular attention to the technical aspects of managing individual proposals. However, it does not involve:
  • consideration of the geographic distribution of GMO projects;
  • consideration of the need to geographically protect areas of particular value from GMO activities, such as sensitive farming practices (e.g. organic farming);
  • consideration of the preferences of a community; or
  • integration of the management of natural and physical resources, and the effects of GMO activities on natural and physical resources, on a geographic basis.
  1. The HSNO Act does not, therefore, provide a planning framework through which GMOs can be geographically / spatially managed in an integrated manner.
  2. 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.
  3. Consideration of the location and distribution of proposals involving GMOs on a district basis, together with protection of rural resources for organic or biodynamic farming, are important resource management matters for consideration by territorial authorities in carrying out their functions under the RMA.

Potential Adverse Effects

  1. The outdoor use of GMOs has a potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment. Adverse effects could include (inter alia):
  • biological or ecosystem harm;
  • harm to other existing or potential forms of land use including:
  • organic farming (including organic certification and the requirement to be GMO free); and
  • agricultural activities dependent on an uncontaminated environmental brand.
  1. GMOs have the potential to adversely affect ecological, economic, and resource management values, and the social and cultural well being of people, communities and tangata whenua.
  2. 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.

Sustainable Management and Part II

  1. It is consistent with the sustainable management purpose and Part II of the RMA to establish regional 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 other land use activities.

Decision Sought

  1. The decision Soil & Health seeks from the Council is that the Draft Plan be amended to include the following policies:
  2. To include GMO provisions in the ‘Tangata whenua’ section of the Draft Plan.

 

  1. To include GMO provisions in the ‘Coastal space’ and ‘Coastal works’ sections of the Draft Plan that are the same as in the Auckland Unitary Plan, that being to adopt a precautionary approach to the management of GMOs by:
  2. prohibiting the outdoor release of a GMO in the Coastal space
  3. making outdoor field-testing a discretionary activity in the Coastal space; and
  • including performance standards in regard to liability and the posting of bonds.

 

  1. To include GMO provisions in the ‘Land & water’ and the ‘Discharges to land and water’ sections of the Draft Plan that avoids toxic discharges to land & water from GMOs, thereby avoiding transgenic contamination of soils & waterways.

 

  1. To adopt a resource management framework for the management of GMOs that is Regional specific taking into account environmental, economic and social well-being considerations.

 

  1. Soil & Health considers that it is important that there is consistency between the Auckland Unitary Plan and the Regional Plan for Northland, thereby eliminating cross boundary issues.

 

  1. Soil & Health wishes to be heard in support of our submission.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Name: Mischa Davis

Position: Policy Advisor

 

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 340002

Birkenhead

Auckland 0746

Phone: 06 8775534

Mobile: 0212667754

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

[1] Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council [2015] NZEnvC 89.

[2] Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council [2016] NZHC 2036.

Submission on Food Safety Law Reform Bill  

/in

Submission to: Committee Secretariat, Primary Production
Submission Author: Mischa Davis
Thursday, September 22, 2016

 

Submission on Food Safety Law Reform Bill

 

Introduction

1. The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (Soil & Health) was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 4 December 1942. Soil & Health’s objectives broadly include soil health and the promotion of organic gardening and farming. It has approximately 3000 members, chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Its age and membership make it the oldest and largest representative organic organisation in New Zealand.

 

2. Soil & Health welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Food Safety Law Reform Bill (Bill). 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 or buying local and organic 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.

 

3. Soil & Health is committed to advocating for clear and honest food labeling in Aotearoa New Zealand. We believe that transparent food labeling is fundamental in allowing people to make informed choices. Soil & Health therefore opposes any changes in the bill that may undermine food labeling in New Zealand.

 

Detailed submission

 

4. Soil & Health recognizes that food safety is an issue in New Zealand. 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.

 

5. 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 the knowledge to make informed food choices. This is only achievable through clear and transparent food labeling.

 

6. Soil & Health strongly supports:

 

a) Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling (MCooL). We are disappointed that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and successive governments have continually blocked MCooL and that there is only voluntary country of origin labeling by some supermarkets. We know that employment conditions vary between countries and support for different countries can play into people’s food purchasing decisions.

 

b) Labeling of the origin and production method for all meat, eggs and dairy products used in any food, and the source of all seafood. The country where the product is processed should also be identified.

 

c) Labeling standards for animal welfare claims.

 

d) All oils (e.g. palm oil, canola etc.) being specifically declared as an ingredient where used, not just as a ‘vegetable oil’.

 

e) Regulations and guidelines on claims about natural, sustainable, locally produced, fairly traded, and organic, being developed to ensure that people are not misled or deceived.

 

f) GE foods or foods containing GE ingredients being labeled as including or containing GE ingredients. We consider that GE food is inherently risky and is produced unsustainably, mostly with the use of large amounts of glyphosate based herbicides or similar, and can also include toxins engineered to be throughout the food. Trans-Tasman food standards accepted by New Zealand include GE Food labelling, and MPI’s role is to monitor and enforce food standards including that of GE Food, however this has not happened since 2003. We are disappointed that the existing food labeling law is being ignored and that we cannot easily choose between GE or not. Many processed foods have GE components in them however this is almost never declared.

 

g) Labeling of any irradiated food or food ingredient. There have been numerous scientific studies on the harmful effects of food irradiation on human health. Irradiation changes the molecular structure of food, potentially forming toxic chemicals linked to: cancer, organ damage, genetic mutations, immune system disorders, tumours, stunted growth, reproductive problems and nutritional deficiencies. Irradiated foods however, especially from Australia, are becoming more common as some other measures to prevent the risk of Queensland fruit fly coming in through fruit and veges have been stopped. Australian tomatoes, courgettes, capsicum, papaya, mango, lychee, melons and more, are likely to be irradiated. We understand that Queensland fruit fly is an issue, however consider that there are better means of dealing with this issue, such as other phyto-sanitary methods. In in the meantime we consider that all irradiated food should be clearly labeled, as intended by the Trans-Tasman regulations. Currently irradiated food labels are difficult to recognize and causes confusion for consumers. In some cases there may not be any labeling at all. We consider that the words “irradiated” or “treated with irradiation” or “treated with ionizing radiation” should be used very clearly on labels.

 

h) Meaningful pesticide residue testing. MPI has the responsibility of ensuring food is safe from pesticide residues. The Trans-Tasman agency Food Standards Australia New Zealand with input from MPI determines what are said to be safe Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) for fruit and vegetables. MRLs are set so that farmers know how much to limit their pesticide use to stay within the regulators established safety parameters of MRLs. We do not agree with the assumptions made around setting pesticide residue safety limits, as combinations of different types of chemicals are rarely considered, and settings do not adequately consider the vulnerability of developing children. We consider that the safety assessment guidelines have been developed with too much influence from industry and are therefore not independent and miss important human health risks because of narrow guidelines. Further we consider that MPI does not adequately police pesticide residues. MPI is already more than a year late in reporting the normally 5 yearly New Zealand Total Diet Study (NZTDS). The NZTDS assesses exposure to chemical residues, contaminants and selected nutrients from foods representative of the average diet within the New Zealand population. MPI considers any residue under the MRL is safe and focuses on the results that are over MRLs. We consider that MPI misrepresents the results. For example MPI fails to communicate to consumers that not all foods are tested for glyphosate and that most fruit and vegetables in the supermarket will have at least one pesticide residue. We consider that MPI needs to test more often and ensure that consumers know what is really in their food.

 

i) Supporting small scale and local growers and producers. Small food enterprises such as artisan cheese producers, small herd raw milk suppliers, bakers, and preserves sellers, Farmers Markets stall holders and gate sales add to our society and can include the experiences of choice, variety, taste and flavour and closer connection between suppliers and consumers, urban and rural. We consider that exemptions should be included in the Food Act 2014 and Animal Products Act 1999 that explicitly allow for requirements and charges for small business operators to be kept to a minimum and not harmonized with the charges required for larger enterprises, where failure in food safety can result in much more significant outcomes. The Food Act 2014 was never intended to create onerous compliance requirements on small producers and processes, however this is exactly what has happened. The Bill is an opportunity to correct that. We consider that the government should encourage more variety into both rural and urban food choices.

 

Conclusion

7. Soil & Health requests that GE and irradiated food is sufficiently labelled to allow people to make informed choices without being misled and that better compliance enforcement is included in this Food Safety Law Reform exercise.

 

8. We believe in the right of people to be able to access safe and nutritious food, grow diverse and nutritious food, and equip themselves with the resources and knowledge needed to sustain themselves and their communities. The Food Safety Reform Bill should allow and provide for this.

 

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

 

Yours sincerely

 

Name: Mischa Davis

Position: Policy Advisor

 

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 340002

Birkenhead

Auckland 0746

 

Phone: 06 8775534

Mobile: 0212667754

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz 

Pesticide/neonicotinoid submission

/in
Submission to: Hazardous Substances, Environmental Protection Agency
Submission Author: Mischa Davis, Policy Advisor
Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Hazardous Substances
Environmental Protection Authority
Private Bag 63002
Wellington 6140
Submission on application to import the insecticide Celsius

Introduction

1.    The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (Soil & Health) was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 4 December 1942. Soil & Health’s objectives broadly include soil health and the promotion of organic gardening and farming. It has approximately 3000 members, chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Its age and membership make it the oldest and largest representative organic organisation in New Zealand.

2.    Soil & Health is opposed to the use of harmful pesticides in Aotearoa New Zealand. As an organisation we advocate for farmers and growers to adopt natural, organic, non-harmful methods of pest and disease management. We believe that researchers, farmers and growers should be encouraged to develop and implement nonchemical alternatives to pesticides that foster soil microbial life instead of destroying it.

3.    Soil & Health opposes the application to import Celsius into New Zealand due to it containing Thiamethoxam as the active ingredient, which is a toxic neonicotinoid. A number of independent scientific studies have raised serious concerns about the effect neonicotinoids such as Thiamethoxam have on honeybees. A number of countries have banned the use of neonicotinoids due to their harmful effect on bees, until further research is completed. We consider that New Zealand should follow suit.

Detailed submissions

Thiamethoxam
4.    We are aware that Thiamethoxam is already approved for use in New Zealand by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and is registered as an insecticide by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). We understand that this neonicotinoid is already widely used in the New Zealand environment. It was introduced in 1997 in New Zealand, then approved for use in almost all European countries and also registered in the USA and Australia. We consider that the use of this neonicotinoid is already contributing to Colony Collapse Disorder in bees.
EU ban on Thiamethoxam

5.    In 2013 The European Commission voted in favour of a two-year ban of three neonicotinoids, due to their adverse effects on insect populations and a dramatic drop in bee population, and was backed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The three neonicotinoids were banned from use for two years on flowering crops such as corn, oilseed rape and sunflowers, upon which bees feed. Included in these three was Thiamethoxam. 15 out of a total 27 EU member states supported this restriction. It was stated by EFSA that they posed an “unacceptable” danger to bees. EFSA is currently undergoing a review of this ban however the results of the review could strengthen and tighten the current ban.

Adverse effects of Thiamethoxam
a)    Adverse effects on bees
We disagree with the proposition in the application that Celsius is unlikely to pose a risk to bees and other beneficials when used as intended. Since 2006 honeybees have been dying at a staggering rate in many parts of the world due to Colony Collapse Disorder. Research has shown that neonicotinoids, including Thiamethoxam, are highly toxic to a range of insects, including honeybees and other pollinators. Neonicitinoids can cause significant issues for the health of individual honeybees as well as the overall health of the honeybee colonies. Effects include disruptions in mobility, navigation, feeding behaviours, foraging activity, memory and learning and overall hive activity. Scientists are concerned that exposure to even low doses of neonicotinoids can confuse bees, making it difficult for them to source nutrition or safely return to their hives. One study has suggested that Thiamethoxam, at certain levels, can have negative effects on the bees’ pollination abilities, causing colonies to visit fewer flowers and return with less pollen, and resulting in apples with fewer seeds. This in turn can result in poor fruit quality and a risk of decreased agricultural output down the line. Bees and other insects are vital for global food production as they pollinate three-quarters of all crops. New Zealand’s bee population contribute about $5 billion to our economy annually. MPI has even stated: “Bees are crucial to New Zealand’s primary sector, pollinating around one third of our food sources”. New Zealand’s mānuka honey is internationally renowned and a unique high value export. It is some of the highest valued honey in the world.

b)    Adverse effects on waterways
We disagree with the proposition in the application that the use pattern and controls will mean that exposure to aquatic environments is highly unlikely. The application itself states that Thiamethoxam has a high degree of aquatic ecotoxicity and is harmful to aquatic organisms. We consider that exposure to aquatic environments is inevitable through rain and run-off, the application even states this:  “Celsius could be washed off into waterways following application, resulting in exposure of aquatic organisms.“ The application further states “under conditions of normal use, the product is not expected to end up in water bodies or water ways. It is to be applied at a water rate that ensures complete coverage but without runoff into water bodies” and that “Therefore, Celsius is not expected to pose significant risks to the aquatic.” We argue that ‘normal use’ is not a sufficient indicator of what use is, nor does the application describe what normal use is. A report by the organization Arinka funded by the European Union stated that Thiamethoxam is “very toxic to aquatic organisms/may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic Environment.  New Zealand’s waterways are already in a dire state with a staggering 62% of monitored waterways being unsafe for swimming. We consider that allowing the importation of Celsius into New Zealand will further put New Zealand’s waterways as risk.

c)    Adverse effects on humans
We disagree with the application in its statements that “the herbicide presents a low risk to humans and the environment when handled and used correctly.” Due to Thiamethoxam being used as a pesticide on crops we consider that there is a real possibility that residues may contaminate crops. There are various long-term effects associated with particular pesticides that are found in our food, including endocrine or hormonal disruption, cancer, immune system effects, nervous system damage, genetic damage, infertility and birth defects. There is also the risk of occupational exposure, which may occur though inhalation and dermal contact when Celsius is being applied in the field. Mild to moderate poisoning of Thiamethoxam can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, dizziness, headache, and mild sedation. Severe poisoning can cause seizures, coma, respiratory failure, and even death. Furthermore the application admits that there is a risk that spray drift could occur “resulting in off-target effects and bystander exposure”. We consider that merely having “an economic incentive to ensure the product is applied under circumstances that maximize the amount of active reaching the target area” is not going to mitigate the risk of spray drift.
Failure to meet requirements under HSNO Act

6.    Due to the adverse effects of Thiamethoxam listed above, we consider that if the EPA allows for the importation of Celsius into New Zealand it would be failing to recognise and provide for the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems, as required to do under section 5(a) of the HSNO Act.

7.    Section 6(e) of the HSNO Act requires the EPA to take into account the economic and related benefits and costs of using a particular hazardous substance. New Zealand’s agriculture and horticulture industry is an important one. We have a large fruit production and export economy. In light of the importance of honeybees and other pollinators to New Zealand’s agriculture and horticulture we consider that importing Celsius into New Zealand puts these industries at risk. If bee populations continue to decline the cost of replacing bee pollinators by other methods in New Zealand would be impossible. The result therefore would be a drop in crop production, a huge rise in food prices, and probably loss of international markets.

8.    We consider allowing Celsius to be imported into New Zealand would adversely affect the sustainability of native and introduced flora and fauna, the intrinsic value of ecosystems, and the relationship of all New Zealanders, especially Maori over their culture and traditions, regarding valued fauna. We consider that the economic loss involved in the matters outlined above outweighs the economic gains of using the pesticide.
Alternatives to Celsius and other toxic pesticides

9.    Conventional agriculture relies on pesticides to protect crops from pests and diseases, including synthetic herbicides to control weeds, and synthetic fertilisers to promote crop growth. Over time this heavy use of synthetic chemicals reduces the soil biota and the productive capacity of the soil, and creates increased resistance by pests to the chemicals used, as well as the resurgence of secondary pests. These chemicals are also dispersed in the environment, polluting waterways and damaging ecosystems.

10.    Numerous studies on the adverse impacts of pesticides and chemical fertilisers have raised awareness about the use of synthetic chemicals in agriculture, how effective they actually are in treating pests and diseases, and the impact they are having on human health as well as the wider environment. People are turning to more natural forms of pest and disease control that are more effective, sustainable and healthier in the long term.

11.    Organic agriculture has a holistic approach to pest and disease management that avoids the need for pesticides by instead focusing on building healthy fertile soil with abundant microbial life, fostering natural predators and using natural remedies. Truly well-nourished plants do not attract pests or provide a suitable conditions for pests and diseases to develop. Farmers and producers try to create healthy soil so that plants and animals can be healthy, and build up good natural defenses against pests and diseases. The long-term health of the soil is taken into consideration, rather than trying to deal with the immediate problem with synthetic sprays.

12.    There are already many similar insecticides on the market in New Zealand. We consider that even those insecticides currently available can easily be replaced by non-chemical biological controls that do not have an adverse effect on the environment. We therefore consider that Celsius does not provide any extra advantage.

Conclusion
13.    Due to the many adverse effects associated with the use of Celsius as well as the lack of convincing evidence of both its need and safety we consider the EPA must take a precautionary approach as required under section 7 of the HSNO Act, and decline this application.

14.    We further request that all existing products using Thiamethoxam have their approval withdrawn for any importation, storage, sale, copating, or dispersal, until international scientific evidence exonerates this neonicotinoid from any linkage with honey bee deaths and Colony Collapse Disorder.

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

Yours sincerely

Mischa Davis
Policy Advisor

The Soil & Health Association
PO Box 340002
Birkenhead
Auckland 0746
Phone: 06 8775534
Mobile: 0212667754
Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

Next steps for fresh water

/in

Submission to: Ministry for the Environment
Submission Author: Marion Thomson
Monday, May 23, 2016

 

‘Next Steps for fresh water’ consultation document

Submission by the Soil & Health Association

 

Introduction

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (Soil & Health) was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 4 December 1942. Soil & Health’s objectives broadly include soil health and the promotion of organic gardening and farming. It has approximately 3000 members, chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Its age and membership make it the oldest and largest representative organic organisation in New Zealand.

Soil & Health recognises that New Zealand freshwater is in a dire state, with a staggering 62% of monitored waterways being unsafe for swimming. A big factor in this is nitrogen pollution from the increasing intensification of agriculture. Nitrogen pollution is mainly from cow urine diffusing through soils and pasture root zones, so simply planting stream banks and fencing off streams cannot solve this issue. Going organic is part of the solution to fixing polluted fresh waterways in New Zealand. Organic dairy farming involves no soluble nitrogen fertilisers, lower stock numbers, more biodiversity, and grass-fed cows with no GE feed or palm kernel supplements.

This is why we welcome the opportunity to comment on the Next Steps for Freshwater consultation document (the document) which contains the Government’s proposals to improve freshwater management in New Zealand. This submission mainly focuses on the ‘Fresh water and our environment’ section of the document, which proposes to amend the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) to improve national direction on several areas. This submission also addresses some other sections in the document.

Soil & Health supports a number of proposals in the document and believe that they have the potential to improve the management of freshwater in New Zealand. These include proposals for measuring water quality by catchment rather than region, and to exclude stock from waterways through regulation. However Soil & Health has concerns with some of the proposed amendments to the NPS-FM.

Detailed submissions

Weak bottom lines

Soil & Health opposes the proposed national bottom line for human health contained in the National Objectives Framework (NOF), that water bodies be safe for secondary contact i.e. wading and boating. We believe that the bottom line for human health in fresh water bodies should be that they are safe for primary contact i.e. for swimming. No incentive has been proposed to lift water quality standards beyond ensuring waterways are safe to wade in. We need stronger bottom lines for freshwater to ensure that our waterways are safe for swimming, ecological health, and collecting food.

‘Maintain or improve overall’ water quality

Proposal 1.1

Soil & Healthsupports the proposal to amend the NPS-FM so that it measures water quality by a freshwater management unit, rather than across a region.

We propose however that the word ‘overall’ from Objective A2 NPSFM be deleted. This in effect would remove the ability to have ‘unders’ and ‘overs’. We instead propose that objectives and limits be set so that water quality is maintained or improved at all points of all freshwater bodies, and nowhere are they set below national bottom lines. The ‘unders and overs’ approach has been rejected by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment1 and the Environment Court. 2 It is inconsistent with section 6 and section 30 of the RMA. It is unworkable because of the practical difficulties in assessing what beneficial effect would counterbalance an adverse effect. If the ‘unders’ and ‘overs’ provision is retained, Soil & Health proposes that the Government provide guidance on how to maintain overall water quality at the required scale.

We also propose that there be a mandatory standard for dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus within catchments.

Macroinvertebrate Community Index as a measure of water quality

Proposal 1.3

Soil & Health supports the use of a ‘Macroinvertebrate Community Index’ (MCI) in the NOF, as a measure of water quality, and that it be adopted as a mandatory method of monitoring ecosystem health.

Proposal 1.4

We propose that use of MCI be included as an attribute in the NOF. Biological and ecological measures are essential attributes for which the MCI provides.

Significant infrastructure and water quality

Proposal 1.5

Soil & Health opposes the provisions in the NPS-FM that provide for exceptions to meeting the national bottom lines for significant infrastructure, and believe they should be repealed. However if the provision allowing exceptions to meeting national bottom lines for significant infrastructure remains in the NPS-FM, we strongly support the statement in the Consultation document that ‘Any exceptions would require public consultation.’

Intermittently closing and opening lakes and lagoons (ICOLLs)

Proposal 1.6

Soil & Health supports the proposal to amend the NPS-FM so that water quality attributes, including the national bottom lines, apply to ICOLLs.

Stock exclusion from water bodies

Proposal 1.8

Soil & Health supports the creation of a national regulation that requires exclusion of stock from water bodies. However stock exclusion needs to happen as soon as possible if it’s going to have any real effect on waterways. The current deadlines proposed by the Government do not provide any incentive for change. We also propose that clear guidance around the application of the regulation be required, otherwise implementation, monitoring and enforcement will become problematic. We furtherpropose that this regulation override existing provisions in District Plans. Finally we propose that riparian buffers be required as part of the national regulation.

 Technical efficiency and good management practice standards

Proposal 2.1

Soil & Health supports the Government’s proposal to develop national technical efficiency standards.

However wepropose that the technical efficiency standards be introduced to all water catchments, not just in full allocation, or approaching full allocation, catchments. While there may still be some small permitted takes that will be difficult to monitor for efficiency standards, the expectation should still be that all water uses are using water efficiently.

Proposal 2.2

Soil & Health supports the Government’s proposal to develop national standards for good management practices.

However wepropose that the good management practices standards be the minimum requirement for all industries in all catchments, not just for discharge allowances that have been allocated, or in catchments that are over-allocated, or approaching over-allocation. Currently the good practice management standards are vague and the document does not set out how these will be established in regulation, nor how they will be modelled or monitored. More work needs to be done in this area and the Government needs to be leading the implementation of this nationally.

Addressing over-allocation and over-use at least cost

Proposal 2.5

Soil & Health strongly supports the proposal to develop guidance on different methods of addressing over-allocation of water quality and/or quantity, if technical efficiency standards and good management practice standards are insufficient.

We also propose that the development of any guidance material involve the participation of the public and a range of stakeholders, including Regional Councils.

Freshwater decision-making

Proposal 3.6

Soil & Health strongly opposes allowing the Minister for the Environment to delay an application for a Water Conservation Order (WCO). WCOs are about protecting outstanding features of water bodies. If those outstanding features exist then they shouldn’t be undermined by a planning process, which is required to protect them anyway.

Conclusion The Soil & Health Association strongly opposes the inclusion of the proposed bottom line for human health that water bodies be safe only for secondary contact, into the National Policy for Freshwater Management on the grounds that waterways must be able to support a good standard of ecological health. That standard should also equate to being safe for humans to swim, play, and gather food from fresh waterways.

Yours sincerely

Name: Marion Thomson

Position: Co Chair

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 340002

Birkenhead

Auckland 0746

Phone: 06 8775534 Mobile: 0275554014

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

1 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Managing water quality: Examining the 2014 National Policy Statement, June 2015, pages 6-8. 2 Ngati Kahungunu Iwi v Hawkes Bay Regional Council [2015] NZEnvC 50. The references in paragraph 2.9 come from [62], [63], [104], [105].

Submission on Animal Welfare Regulations

/in

Submission to: Ministry for Primary Industries
Submission Author: Mischa Davis for Soil & Health Assn
Monday, May 16, 2016

 

Submission on Animal Welfare Regulations by the Soil & Health Association

TO: Animal Welfare Policy

Ministry for Primary Industries

PO Box 2526

Wellington 6140

FROM: The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 340002

Birkenhead

Auckland 0746

Phone: 0212667754

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

Submission on Animal Welfare Regulations by the Soil & Health Association

Introduction 

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (Soil & Health) was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 4 December 1942. Soil & Health’s objectives broadly include soil health and the promotion of organic gardening and farming. It has approximately 3000 members, chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Its age and membership make it the oldest and largest representative organic organisation in New Zealand.

Soil & Health recognises that New Zealand animal welfare standards need improving. Every year thousands of animals in New Zealand are farmed intensively, fed high doses of antibiotics, and grains with herbicide residues, kept in unhygienic and cramped conditions, with high levels of stress and injury, unable to express normal behaviours, which runs contrary to the stated principles in the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

As an organic organisation we advocate for the highest animal welfare standards. Organic livestock farming is based on the harmonious relationship between land, plants and livestock, respect for the physiological and behavioural needs of livestock and the feeding of good-quality organically grown feedstuffs. We support the Five Freedoms as set out under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. We believe that any farming methods that cause animals to suffer or prevent them from expressing normal patterns of behavior should be phased out. This is why we welcome the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Animal Welfare Regulations discussion document (the document), which contains the Government’s proposals to improve the enforceability, clarity and transparency of the animal welfare system in New Zealand.

The current animal welfare system does not deal properly with lower-level offending. Soil & Health supports the majority of the proposed regulations in the document in general as they enable the Ministry for Primary Industries to better enforce compliance with the Animal Welfare Act 1999. These include proposals for increasing penalties and infringement fees for offences. However Soil & Health has concerns with some of the proposed regulations and believe that a number of cruel practices outlined, such as colony cages and farrowing crates, should be phased out and prohibited altogether.

Detailed submissions

10. – Care and Conduct Regulatory Proposals

All Animals

1.      Electric prodders

Soil & Health supports the proposed regulation in part. Electric prodders are a cruel device. We oppose the exceptions of their use for cattle over 100kg, at a commercial slaughter premise, and for a circus. We believe that alternatives should be found for the intention of moving animals and that electric prodders should only be used when the safety of the handler is at risk. We believe that restrictions should be placed on the possession and sale of electric prodders, as these devices are freely available and sold online with no requirement for information or training to be provided to purchasers. We do however support the proposal being placed in regulation as it means it will be directly enforceable.

2. Use of goads

Soil & Health supports the proposed regulation to prohibit the use of goads to prod an animal in the udder, anus, vulva, scrotum or eyes. The use of goads to move animals causes the animals to become nervous and fearful. The use of electric goads and physical goads such as sticks will obviously cause pain. We support placing the prohibition in regulation as it means it will be directly enforceable.

3. Twisting an animal’s tail

Soil & Health strongly supports the proposed regulation to prohibit twisting the tail of an animal in a manner that causes the animal pain. Tail twisting is an unnecessary and cruel practice often used to restrain and move animals and can risk leading to tail breaking, which causes pain and distress. We support the regulation as it provides an enforceable deterrent to tail twisting.

Goats

13. Tethered goats

While Soil & Health does not support the tethering of goats generally, as they are naturally foraging herd animals and tethering them prevents them from expressing their natural instincts to roam and forage freely, we do support the minimum requirement of constant access to food, water and shelter if tethered. However we believe that the word ‘shelter’ needs to be further defined. Shelter must be defined as providing a space that is clean, dry and has adequate space. As stated in the document, goats are more susceptible to hypothermia than sheep therefore the definition of shelter must also include providing protection from the natural elements including wind and rain, and weather extremes such as snow and hail.

Layer hens

17. Opportunity to express normal behaviours in housing systems

Soil & Health supports the new requirements under 17(a) that hens must have the opportunity to express a range of natural behaviours, becoming part of regulation and thereby becoming directly enforceable.

18. Stocking densities

While Soil & Health supports the proposed stocking regulations becoming part of regulation, thereby making them directly enforceable, we are strongly opposed to the specific stocking densities set out under 18. We believe that stocking hens at this density will not allow them the opportunity to express the range of natural behaviours outlined under 17(a). We believe that for hens to express the range of natural behaviours outlined under 17(a) they must be stocked at 6 birds per m2, with a minimum of 18 cm perch space provided for each bird.

19. Housing and equipment design

While Soil & Health supports the housing and design regulations becoming part of regulation thereby making them directly enforceable, we are strongly opposed to the use of closed cages including colony cages for all poultry, not just laying hens. Closed cages do not allow the animals the opportunity to express the range of natural behaviours outlined under 17(a). Chickens are biologically omnivores and instinctively, when given the opportunity, actively forage for green growing plants, animal foods such as earthworms and insects, wild fruits and some seeds.We therefore believe that if we are going to allow hens the ability to express the range of natural behaviours outlined under 17(a) they must have unrestricted access to outside runs, with at least 50% of the outside run area covered with vegetation at all times, allowing the hens constant access to fresh grass or forage crop containing a diversity of species. We believe that all poultry sheds should have access to good pasture, and be situated to allow for rotation of grazing areas – for example mobile poultry sheds. We believe that adequate nesting space should be provided at a minimum of 7 birds per nest, and that perchesshould be available in all laying hen housing to a minimum of 18cm perch space per bird.

Pigs

24. Dry sleeping area

Soil & Health supports the proposal that pigs must have access to a dry sleeping area. Failure to provide a dry sleeping area can cause distress and ill health, particularly when a sow is pregnant and is trying to create a nest for her piglets. Furthermore pigs have clean toilet habits and in nature would never defecate near where they sleep. However if left in a confined area then pigs may be left to lie in their own excrement. Providing a dry sleeping area means this would not happen.

25. Lying space for grower pigs

Soil & Health strongly oppose the proposed lying space for grower pigs. We do not believe the proposed spacing will allow for improvement of overstocking behaviour issues such as aggression, nor allow for the pigs to express normal behaviours. Keeping pigs at this density does not allow them to roam, play or dig as they would naturally outdoors. We believe that all pigs should have access to outdoor pasture.

26. Dry sow stalls

Soil & Health strongly supports the prohibition of dry sow stalls and placing the prohibition in regulation thereby making it directly enforceable. Dry sow stalls are an inhumane and cruel practice. Pigs are highly intelligent, social animals. Keeping sows in individual stalls deprives them of their most basic needs such as fresh air, sunlight, clean water and soft bedding, as well as their need to socialise. We support this proposal as it places prohibition in regulation, making it directly enforceable.

27. Size of farrowing crates

Soil & Health supports the proposal as it places prohibition in regulation, thereby making it directly enforceable, however we strongly oppose the use of farrowing crates in general and believe that they should be banned altogether. Farrowing crates only allow the sow to either stand up or lie down, thereby preventing her to properly mother her piglets. This causes frustration and depression and is therefore an inhumane and cruel practice that we do not support.

28. Provision of nesting material

Soil & Health supports the use of nesting material in the farrowing system. As stated sows have a strong behavioural instinct to build a nest prior to farrowing. With no material for bedding she would scrape her nose over the bare concrete in an attempt to build a nest for her piglets. Not providing materials that the sow can manipulate prevents her from expressing natural behaviours. We therefore support this proposal as it means that any offences of not providing nesting material for sows will be directly enforceable. We however propose that the wording be changed to state “natural material”, which should be further defined with a list of specific natural materials to be used such as straw, twigs and grasses. We further propose that the nesting material be a mandatory requirement all the way through farrowing until after the piglets have been raised and weaned.

Cattle

31. Milk stimulation

Soil & Health were not aware of this practice still occurring however believe it is unnecessary and cruel. We support the proposal to prohibit stimulating milk let-down by inserting water or air into a cow’s vagina, and placing it in regulation thereby making it directly enforceable. We believe that it warrants regulation so that effective action can be taken if it occurs.

32. Cattle and sheep – vehicular traction in calving or lambing

Soil & Health supports this proposal to prohibit using a moving vehicle to provide tractions in calving or lambing, making it part of regulation thereby making it directly enforceable. We believe it is an unnecessary and unnatural technique that has a high risk of causing injury, pain and distress to both the young and the mother. We support animals birthing naturally without artificial stimulation and force. We believe that it warrants regulation so that effective action can be taken if it occurs.

11.0 Young calf management regulatory proposals

43. Loading and unloading facilities

Soil & Health supports the proposed regulation that facilities must be provided to enable young calves to walk onto and off transportation by their own action. However we believe that the regulation needs to specify acceptable methods of loading and unloading, for example stating that they must be ramps, or electronic lifts. We do not believe that the regulations should allow for flexibility for other methods that would enable calves to walk onto and off vehicles, as this may allow for breaches of welfare. We believe all acceptable methods should be specifically stated to provide for full clarity. Further we believe that the time period to allow farmers and other businesses to make arrangements necessary to put suitable loading and/or unloading facilities in place should not be more than 12 months.

44. Shelter on-farm, before and during transportation and at processing plants

Soil & Health supports the proposed regulation in part. We believe that the regulation on shelter should also cover the stocking density of animals in pens. Stocking density should be at a rate that provides enough room for all calves to lie down.

45. Fitness for transport – age

Soil & Health opposes the proposed regulation that young calves must not be transported for processing and slaughter until they are at least four days of age. We believe four days old is an unacceptable age, being too young for travel. As stated in the document the four-day minimum age is not a guarantee that individual calves will be in a suitable physical condition for transportation. While the intention is for the regulation to be read together with those regulations for the physical condition of young calves we do not believe this will happen in practice, and it will also make it more difficult to enforce. We propose that the age be lifted to match that of the European Union of 10 days old, rising to 14 days old for longer journeys over eight hours. Raising the age to 10-14 days means that there is a strongly likelihood that the young calf will be in a suitable physical condition for transportation.

46. Fitness for transport – physical characteristics

Soil & Health supports this proposed regulation. However as stated above we believe by raising the minimum age for transportation to 10-14 days old that this will help to ensure that the young calves are in suitable physical condition for transportation.

47. Maximum time off feed

Soil & Health supports this proposed regulation to reduce the amount of hours off feed from 30 to 24 however we believe that 24 hours is still too long to go without feed for young calves. Naturally a young calf would feed from their mother every 2 to 3 hours. Calves began to feel hunger soon after 3 hours from their last feed, when plasma glucose begins to decline. Hunger then increases gradually for the next 15 hours and then rapidly over the final 12 hours. Leaving young calves without feed for such a long duration is cruel, and also leaves them physically weak. We believe that 24 hours is an unreasonable maximum period to permit young calves to be off feed when being transported prior to slaughter. We propose that the time period be reduced below 24 hours.

48. Duration of transport

Soil & Health supports the proposed regulation to reduce the maximum amount of time a young calf spends in transportation from 12 hours to 8 hours.

49. Blunt force trauma

Soil & Health supports the proposed regulation to prohibit the use of blunt force trauma for killing calves.

50. Transport by sea across Cook Strait prohibited

Soil & Health supports the proposed regulation to prohibit the transportation by sea of young calves across the Cook Strait. We believe that the infringement fee of $500 rather than $300 is a suitable penalty.

12.0 Surgical and painful procedures regulatory proposal

66. Cattle – tail docking

Soil & Health supports the proposed regulation to prohibit tail docking of cattle. We believe it is a cruel and unnecessary procedure especially when there are other alternatives such as switch trimming. Tail docking can lead to significant health problems, including incontinence, hernias, phantom tail pain and increased sensitivity to pain. Further more tail docking does not improve cow hygiene. Tail docking on cattle is a purely anthropocentric procedure that improves comfort for milking personnel only. We support the proposed restrictions that tail docking only is performed for therapeutic purposes (i.e. in response to disease or injury), that a veterinarian or a veterinary student under the direct supervision of a veterinarian must perform it, and that pain relief must be used at the time of procedure.

67. Cattle and sheep – castration and shortening of the scrotum

Soil & Health supports this proposal in part. We propose that castration and shortening of the scrotum only be permitted at a young age of less than 6 months. Castration beyond 6 months of age should be banned. We support the proposed regulation that only conventional rubber rings must be used for this procedure as it helps to minimise the level of pain and distress an animal experiences. We also support the use of pain relief at the time of the procedure.

69. Cattle, sheep, & goats – dehorning

Soil & Health supports this proposal in part. We propose that dehorning only be permitted in the budding stage. Dehorning is a painful procedure. Studies have shown that dehorning stimulates both an acute pain response and a delayed inflammatory reaction. Young animals tend to recover quicker and have fewer complications than animals dehorned at an older age. It is generally accepted that the younger the animal, the less painful the procedure. We do however support the proposal to make pain relief mandatory at the time of the procedure.

70. Sheep – tail docking

Soil & Health supports this proposal in part. We propose that tail docking be banned on sheep i.e. over 12 months of age. We understand that tail docking of sheep has benefits such as reducing problems like fly strike. However tail docking is a painful procedure so restricting it to lambs will result in less pain and therefore reduce the impact of the procedure on the animal. We support the rest of the proposals for tail docking under 6 months of age and tail docking over 6 months of age and believe it provides a clear mandatory standard for the procedure. However we believe that the tail length should be further specified as the current wording “must not be cut flush” is unclear and confusing.

71. Sheep – mulesing

Soil & Health strongly supports the proposal to prohibit mulesing of sheep and placing this prohibition in regulation, thereby making it directly enforceable. This procedure is one of the most barbaric and cruel practices carried out in the farming industry. It is an extremely painful practice and lambs have been seen to demonstrate abnormal behaviour indicative of extreme pain for days afterwards. We believe that the most humane alternative to sheep mulesing is to breed sheep to have low wrinkles, fewer dags and less wool around their breech, and that this should be a stated objective. Other effective alternatives are tailing docking of lambs, timing of shearing and crutching, effective natural control of scouring (especially the control of intestinal worms), strategic application of natural treatments to prevent flystrike, and regular inspection of the flock especially daily during high risk periods.

72. Deer – develvetting

Soil & Health opposes this proposal, as we believe that the develvetting of deer should be prohibited. However if it is to go ahead we do not believe that farmers should undertake this procedure themselves, even if given veterinary approval. It should be made mandatory that only a vet or veterinary student under direct veterinarian supervision should undertake this procedure.

74. Horses – tail docking

Soil & Health supports the proposed regulation to prohibit tail docking of horses. We believe it is a cruel and unnecessary procedure. We support the proposed restrictions that tail docking only is performed for therapeutic purposes (i.e. in response to disease or injury), that a veterinarian or a veterinary student under the direct supervision of a veterinarian must perform it, and that pain relief must be used at the time of procedure.

80. Pigs – castration

Soil & Health supports this proposal in part. We propose that castration of pigs only be permitted at a young age of less than 6 months. Castration beyond 6 months of age should be banned. We support the proposed regulation that a veterinarian or a veterinary student under the direct supervision of a veterinarian must perform the procedure, and that pain relief must be used at the time of procedure.

81. Pigs – tail docking

Soil & Health opposes the regulation to allow for tail docking of pigs. We believe it is a cruel and unnecessary practice. The reason tail docking of pigs is performed is to reduce the incidence of tail biting. However tail biting is a result of keeping pigs in high-density stocking numbers and pigs become frustrated and distressed. Pigs are highly intelligent, inquisitive animals and need intellectual stimulation such as natural material to play with. Studies have shown that providing straw or other manipulable materials and keeping a lower density of pigs in a pen could largely prevent tail biting.

Conclusion

As set out above, Soil & Health supports the majority of the proposed regulations in in the document in general, however we oppose a number of the proposed regulations as they either prevent animals from expressing normal patterns of behaviour, or they are cruel mutilation practices that cause harm and distress, thereby running contrary to the Animal Welfare Act. We believe that animals should not be kept in closed cages. Instead all animals should have unrestricted daily access to pasture. We therefore strongly oppose the use of colony cages for poultry and farrowing crates for pigs and believe they should be prohibited. In summary, while we commend the government for their efforts to tighten animal welfare regulation and create better enforcement with the Animal Welfare Act, we believe there is still much room for improving New Zealand’s animal welfare standards to better meet the physiological and behavioural needs of animals.

Yours sincerely

Name: Mischa Davis

Position: Policy Advisor

 

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 340002

Birkenhead

Auckland 0746

Phone: 0212667754

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

 

Natural Health & Supplementary Products Bill – Ministry of Health’s consultation paper ‘The Regulation of Natural Health Products’

/in
Submission to: Ministry of Health
Submission Author: Philippa Jamieson and Marion Thomson
Friday, March 4, 2016

Submission on the Natural Health & Supplementary Products Bill
Ministry of Health’s consultation paper ‘The Regulation of Natural Health Products’

TO:
Natural Health Products
Ministry of Health
PO Box 5013
Wellington 6145
naturalhealthproducts@moh.govt.nz

FROM: Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
PO Box 340002
Birkenhead 0746
Auckland

4 March 2016

 

Re: the Ministry of Health’s consultation paper ‘The Regulation of Natural Health Products’

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Incorporated (‘Soil & Health’) is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand, and is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, formed in 1941. We are committed to advocating our maxim ‘Oranga nuku – Oranga kai – Oranga tangata’ meaning ‘Healthy soil – Healthy food – Healthy people’ and to creating an organic New Zealand.

 

The Soil & Health Association of NZ opposes the Natural Health Products Bill and requests that it be removed from the Order Paper.
Our opposition to this Bill includes the following reasons:

 

1.     The Bill would drastically reduce access to, and options for, safe and effective healthcare for New Zealanders.

 

a)     Natural medicines have been used safely and effectively for thousands of years. The Bill would, however, ban numerous natural health product ingredients without just cause. Some of these ingredients could in fact be everyday foods with a long history of safety.

b)    The proposed regulations would severely limit health options for consumers by allowing only a very limited number of permitted ingredients on a ‘white list’.

c)     The limited ‘white list’ approach would mean that many safe and effective natural health ingredients would become illegal.

d)    Many of the ‘white list’ ingredients have severe dosage and application restrictions placed on them. There is no scientific or medical justification for this, and no history of risk to human health.

e)     Soil & Health asks that the current, sensible ‘black list’ approach is retained, so that natural health products are ‘innocent until proven guilty’. If they are shown to cause harm, they are banned and added to the black list.

 

2.     The Bill would severely affect natural health practitioners, who would be robbed of numerous safe and effective health products to recommend to their patients. This would limit or destroy their businesses, as well as impacting on their ethical duty of providing the best care for their patients.

 

3.     The Bill would severely affect New Zealand natural health producers and suppliers, driving many small-to-medium enterprises out of the market.

 

a)     The Bill introduces significant new compliance costs on New Zealand businesses to prove that a natural health ingredient to be safe so it can be added to the proposed ‘white list’.

b)    The compliance costs for businesses go well beyond proving that an ingredient is safe. Costs include notifying the regulator about each ingredient, paying annual fees, providing information about health benefit claims, obtaining a licence to manufacture the product, and complying with the Code of Manufacture Practice. The sum total of compliance costs will be out of reach of many businesses as it could reach into the tens of thousands of dollars or even more.

c)     Businesses will not be able to provide as great a range of natural health products, for sale in New Zealand, or for export.

d)    The only manufacturers likely to be able to survive will be the larger ones.

e)     If consumers are unable to find the products they want in New Zealand they will buy online and import them, therefore bypassing our local industry.

 

This is a Bill whose only benefits are for large and/or multinational companies who can afford to stay in business under this regime, and for the pharmaceutical industry. The primary goal of health legislation or regulation must be the health of New Zealanders. However this Bill does nothing to improve people’s health – in fact it will worsen the health of New Zealanders, as we would lose numerous safe and effective healthcare options.

 

REQUEST

Soil & Health asks that the Bill and associated proposed regulations be abandoned.

Submission in opposition to clause 105 of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015

/in

 

14 March 2016

 

The Committee Secretariat

Local Government and Environment Select Committee

Parliament Buildings

Wellington

 

 

Submission in opposition to clause 105 of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015

 

 

Introduction

 

  1. The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (Soil & Health) was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 4 December 1942. Soil & Health’s objectives broadly include soil health and the promotion of organic gardening and farming.  It has approximately 3000 members, chiefly composed of organic agriculturalists (incl. farming and horticulture), secondary producers, retailers, restauranteurs, and enthusiasts.  Its age and membership make it both the oldest and largest representative organic organisation in New Zealand.

 

  1. Soil & Health welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (the Bill), which seeks to amend the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). This submission concerns clause 105 of the Bill, which proposes to include new ministerial regulation-making powers under section 360D into the RMA.

 

 

  1. Soil & Health opposes proposed section 360D on the grounds that ministerial regulations would override the power of local authorities to control land uses under the RMA, and the participatory and evidentially based decision-making process under the Act, and require the removal of provisions in RMA plans which conflicted with such regulations.

 

 

Detailed submissions

 

  1. Clause 105 of the Bill proposes to insert section 360D, which would give the Minister for the Environment (Minister) the power to issue regulations to prevent, or remove, rules in council planning documents that in his or her opinion duplicate, overlap with, or deal with the same subject matter in other legislation.

 

  1. Section 360D risks ministerial regulations that override planning decisions designed to address particular local needs and conditions. In particular, it would override participatory and evidentially based decisions under the RMA concerning the:

 

  1. objectives, policies and the rules designed to achieve integrated management of resources and land-use:
  2. environmental effects which are appropriate when use and development occurs; and
  3. adverse effects which cannot be appropriately avoided, mitigated or remedied.

 

 

Genetically Modified Organisms

 

  1. Soil & Health is particularly concerned that proposed section 360D would likely be employed by the Minister to overrule RMA planning documents which seek to regulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs) on the basis that they duplicate central government regulation of GMOs under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO).

 

  1. Such an approach would be contrary to Principal Environment Court Judge Newhook’s decision in Federated Farmers of New Zealand Ltd v Northland Regional Council [2015] NZRMA 217.

 

  1. Judge Newhook’s decision makes it clear that HSNO is limited to making decisions about the import and release of new organisms (including GMOs) into New Zealand. The RMA, on the other hand, is concerned with planning for the integrated management of resources and land-use in light of unique regional/district needs and conditions.

 

  1. Accordingly, Judge Newhook states at paragraphs [48] to [49] of his decision that:

 

[48]  … I find that there is nothing present in these pieces of legislation to prevent the establishment of objectives, policies and methods to achieve integrated management of natural and physical resources in the broad terms directed by the RMA.

 

[49]  I consider that there is a readily identifiable policy reason for that in these pieces of legislation, read together. Once having been approved for import and release into New Zealand under HSNO, regional authorities can provide for use and protection of them together with other resources in a fully integrated fashion, taking account of regional needs for spatial management that might differ around the country for many reasons, not the least of which might include climatic conditions, temperatures, soils, and other factors that might drive differing rates of growth of new organisms and/or of other organisms, as just a few of perhaps many examples. I agree with the opposition parties that the RMA and HSNO offer significantly different functional approaches to the regulation of GMOs.

 

  1. Soil & Health acknowledge that Judge Newhook’s decision was appealed by Federated Farmers. The appeal was heard in early February of this year, and it is anticipated that a decision will be available for the Select Committee at the time public submissions on the Bill are to be heard.

 

  1. Soil & Health does not consider Federated Farmers was able to raise any points of law in support of its appeal, and fully expects that the High Court will uphold the Environment Court’s decision and dismiss the appeal.

 


Conclusion

 

  1. The Soil & Health Association strongly opposes the proposed insertion of section 360D into the RMA on the grounds that it will enable the Minister to override regional and district plans that have been implemented in order to achieve integrated management of local resources and land uses.

 

  1. It is clear that the Minister could use section 360D to pursue the incumbent National Government’s policy of limiting GMO decision making to central government bodies (i.e. the Environmental Protection Agency).

 

  1. However, the use of ministerial a regulatory power to override RMA plans concerning the use of GMOs would be highly inappropriate in light of the Environment Court’s ruling that the RMA is the only statutory instrument through which GMO use can be managed so as to address the unique needs and conditions to different regions and districts.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Name: Marion Thomson

Position: Co Chair

 

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 340002

Birkenhead

Auckland 0746

Phone: 06 8775534

Mobile: 0275554014

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz