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

 

National Environmental Standard, Plantation Forestry

/in
Submission to: Ministry for Primary Industries
Submission Author: Soil & Health Association
Monday, August 10, 2015

To:  Ministry for Primary Industries

NES-PFConsultation@mpi.govt.nz

Submitter:Soil & Health Association of NZ (‘SHANZ’)

Soil & Health Association of NZ makes this submission partly in support and partly in opposition to the proposed National Environmental Standard Plantation Forestry.

Support: SHANZ supports the NES Plantation Forestry insofar as it seeks to codify activity status and conditions for physical plantation forestry activities on the basis of land and plant related classifications.

The proposed erosion susceptibility classification, wildings spread risk calculator and fish spawning indicator are useful tools capable of measurement and calculation and will provide a degree of rigour to the regulation process.

To that extent, SHANZ agrees that the NES Plantation Forestry will provide a nationwide standard basis for regulation of forestry activities to achieve the stated objectives of change of regulation.

 

Opposition: SHANZ strongly opposes:

a)    the proposal that planting or replanting using genetically modified tree stock (GMO) be a permitted activity, or be provided for under the NES Plantation Forestry at all.

b)    Limiting the pre-requisite approval for permitted activity use of a GMO to EPA approvalunder the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO).

c)    The statement in 6.4 of the consultation document that GMOs are regulated by the EPA under the HSNO, without any mention of the role of territorial authorities under the Resource Management Act, 1991.

d)    The absence in the consultation document of any information or discussion about the risks attendant on use of GMOs. Although the objectives of the change (see executive summary) include:-

Understanding the risk of adverse effects on the environment around the country should be informed by up-to-date science.

 

There is no discussion of up-to-date science with respect to GMOs to underpin the provision for use of GM tree stock as permitted activities. Given the controversial nature of this topic and potential adverse effects, this shows a lack of balanced consideration.

 

 

Soil & Health Association of NZ

Soil & Health Association of NZ is the largest membership organisation supporting sustainable, organic food and farming in New Zealand and one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. Our aim is to empower people and communities to grow, buy and support locally based sustainable, safe, GE Free and organic food in Aotearoa NZ. In this process our role is to advocate on behalf of our 3,000+ membership and the general public for safe, healthy food and environmental sustainability for today and future generations.

 

Reasons for Opposition to provision for GM Tree Stock

1.     Genetically Modified Tree Stock Provisions.

a)    Providing for the use of GM tree stock as a permitted activity with no conditions relating to assessment or management of risk leaves land owners, farmers, foresters and people using land and waterways for other activities (including recreation) at risk of adverse effects and without any say in the location or type of GM stock used. This is contrary to the scheme of the RMA. Any potential adverse effects are of particular concern to organic farmers and to foresters with sustainable certification such as the Forest Stewardship Council certification, as all the certification standards for these farmers and foresters do not allow the presence of genetically modified organisms on the land or in the primary products produced

b)    Unlike most other topics covered by the consultation document, the use of genetically modified organisms is not the subject of settled science.  It has been argued by proponents of GM tree stock that the risk of escape of GM material from a plantation is low. However, this is far from settled. Sterile GM trees that do not produce pollen have been in development for some years with no success to date. SHANZ considers that the risk of escape by wind- or insect-borne pollen or seed is in fact high, and pollen from forestry plantations can travel several kilometres. Potential adverse events are very significant and range from the loss of individual enterprises such as organic farms and the loss of Forest Stewardship Certification for foresters, to the loss of whole markets for districts, regions and even New Zealand.  Stringent criteria apply to certification for organic producers and sustainable foresters and some important international markets also require GE-free status certification.

c)    Economic analysis carried out as background to the proposed NES Plantation Forestry did not include economic impact on local and international produce markets arising from the use of GM tree stock. This means that one if not the most significant impact of the proposed NES has not been analysed and the risk of acting as proposed is unconscionably high.

d)    Potential impacts range across virtually all primary production including forestry – horticulture, animal husbandry, honey production and dairy products.  Much wider analysis and consultation is essential before assigning activity status to the use of GM tree stock, let alone the high risk level of permitted activity.

e)    The only condition for this permitted activity is prior approval by the EPA under HSNO and this only applies to planting and replanting. The whole issue of management of slash involving GM material has not been addressed. Potential impacts of GM species on soil ecosystems, water ecosystems and indigenous species ecosystems has not been addressed.

 

2.     Jurisdiction

a)    The Ministry will be well aware of the Environment Court decision in Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council 2015NZEnvC89.  That decision pointed to the different functional approach between HSNO and the RMA and the complementary roles they play.

b)    SHANZ submits that making the use of GM tree stock a permitted activity under the NES Plantation Forestry flies in the face of the Environment Court decision and purports to limit the regulation of that activity to the EPA acting under HSNO alone.

c)    Regional and district councils have clear duties under sections 30 and 31 for the integrated management of resources and the integrated management of the effects of the use and development of resources. Localised effects of plantation forestry such as erosion, wilding management and fish spawning areas are clearly able to be managed using national standards. However, the use of GMOs which may have region- and district-wide adverse economic, environmental and cultural effects depending on the pattern and type of resources and land-use activities in any given area, cannot be managed through a national permitted activity status. These region- and district-wide functions are very important and would not be addressed by regulation under HSNO.

d)    Attention is drawn to RMA section 43A(3) which states:

If an activity has significant adverse effects on the environment, a national environmental standard must not, under sections (1)(b)  and (4), –

(a) allow the activity, unless it states that a resource consent is required for the activity; or

(b) state that the activity is a permitted activity.

e)    There is risk that the use of GM tree stock could have unmanageable and significant adverse effects over a wide area through, for example, seed spread and pollen blow over many kilometres. Such effects would devastate all GMO Free producers including all certified organic producers and FSC-certified foresters.  SHANZ submits that this activity cannot be made a permitted activity under the NES Plantation Forestry. This activity should be a non-complying activity if it is provided for at all.

 

3.     Assessment

SHANZ opposes the provision for the use of any GMO material under the NES Plantation Forestry. However, if it is so provided for, then comprehensive assessment criteria should also be incorporated that would include reference to the following categories of effects:

a)    Risk of spread of GM material beyond the forest site

b)    Economic and particularly with respect to GE Free producers, organic farmers, FSC-certified foresters and marketing;

c)    Cultural

d)    Social

e)    Mitigation by way of bonds or other financial instruments.

 

4.     Notification

Use of GMOs is an environmental topic with widespread implications for whole communities as well as numerous individuals dependant on maintaining GE Free markets and organic certification for their enterprises and products. Applications for the use of GM tree stock should be publically notified.

 

5.     Relief sought

SHANZ requests the following changes to the proposed NES:

a)    Remove all provision for the use of GM tree stock from the NES

Without prejudice to the above strong first preference, if provision for the use of GM tree stock tree stock is retained, then

b)    Make the use of GM tree stock a non-complying activity;

c)    Make jurisdiction for applications for the use of GM tree stock a regional council responsibility.

 

Signed this 10th day of August 2015

Marion Thomson, Co-chair

Soil & Health Association of New Zealand

Environment Bay of Plenty Proposed Regional Policy Statement

/in
Submission to: Environment Bay of Plenty
Submission Author: Steffan Browning, Soil & Health Association
Tuesday, February 8, 2011

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc (Soil & Health) is 70 years old, and is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand, and as such advocates for healthy and safe food and environmental sustainability.

Soil & Health has a membership of about 3000 members and a readership of its retail magazine publication Organic NZ of many thousands.

The Soil & Health Association has many members in EBOP’s rohe which share concern over poor environmental outcomes of many land and water use activities. Genetic engineering (GE) within the region has no real controls besides those of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and that agency has glossed over the risks.  An holistic approach to land and water use is required if land is to retain its productive capacity, and fresh water and marine habitats are to be restored. Air quality objectives must take special account of methyl bromide use and other pesticide use in the region.

Soil & Health in its submission will refer to a few points but wishes to speak at the EBOP-PRPS hearings.

 

Part One 1.5.1 NPS and NES must always be seen as the lowest common denominator and EBOP must be bold and not allow the national statements and standards to be seen at an aspirational level. They should be the base or beginning of direction. Eg the NES-Plantation Forestry under development is an enabling document designed to smooth the way for forestry development, but would it stop the high sedimentation levels created by existing forestry practices in the region. NO!

This NES is looking to be a rather enabling approach to future plantation forestry especially in light of the ETS, but the environment and forestry needs to be looked at beyond issues of carbon and forestry interests. There a many alternatives to the current pine/conifer/eucalypt plantation models that are far more sustainable, and even in the current dominant plantation models, much more care could be taken through the NES to ensure significant improvements on current practice. There are very serious issues of sedimentation from current forestry roading and  harvesting practices, and a number of marine and fresh water effects are covered in the Ministry of Fisheries report in the link here;     http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=113&dk=22003

EBOP should look to the National documents not as a form of consistency, but as the starting point for objectives that will lift the regions practices into world leader class.

 

1.7 Precautionary Approach

Soil & Health (S&H) commends EBOP for its precautionary approach statement, especially its extension into issues surrounding genetic engineering (GE). S&H has monitored over the last few years most of NZ’s GE field trials and discovered and reported on significant compliance breaches. EBOP has at least two sites of active GE work. Scion’s Rotorua facility and ArborGen’s site near Whakatane. All GE sites need to be logged as contaminated sites, as touted research, eg  on horizontal gene transfer and invertebrates at the field trial sites, has been woefully inadequate and has yet to be published credibly.

Experimenters and regulators have been duplicitous in their portrayal of safety of GE projects, and Scion’s most recent GE approval for thousands of GE pines has large scope for human error that will mean leakage of GE pollen. Developing a Plan that has strong precaution around GE, nanotechnology and other yet to be actualised technologies, or activities is critical. How little was known about GE at the last RPS formation and still is, except for the contamination events worldwide, loss of biodiversity, the stock poisonings, and now in animal feeding studies, the effects on endocrine – reproductive functions. Nanotechnology has also been developed significantly since the last RPS & Plan formation, and emerging information shows some real and possible hazards, such as some nano-materials(nanotechnology) having the same effects as asbestos. The RPS must anticipate emerging technologies such as bioengineering that require the most extreme precaution.

Liability and compensation is poorly provided for by government and until meaningful liability provisions are in place, no GE trials, plantings or animals should be permitted. Co-existence between GE primary production and non-GE production is somehow anticipated by pro-GE groups, however internationally that has proved impossible unless some degree of contamination is accepted by the non-GE producers. This is not acceptable and NZ has a zero tolerance on unintended contamination currently and organic certification systems and many export markets share that position, especially at a consumer level. EBOP must allow for the clean green 100% Pure New Zealand branding to remain as an achievable vision, with GE contamination unacceptable on non-GE producers and the environment.

Nanotechnology needs to be considered in a whole of life way to anticipate some risks, and again liability or the lack of systems to properly assess or apportion liability must be considered.

S&H would like to present its experience and knowledge to appropriate EBOP councillors and staff on the GE activity in the BOP region and the associated risks.

 

1.8 Integrating management of natural and physical resources

Soil & Health supports the whole of catchment approach. However, this needs stronger direction deeper in the RPS to ensure the approach is always used, from how soil is managed at the finest levels of biological activity possible, through to land disturbance and waterways management and extraction, and the human overlay. Soils need development, protection, and restoration to optimum biological states to provide the climate resilience and life supporting capacity that also reduces the need for toxic interventions. Best practice soil management provides significant buffers against flooding damage and conversely the effects of drought.

2.10.2 Soil health and productivity, goes someway to understanding some of what is involved but avoids discussion of the increased use of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides that degrade biological activity. Active promotion of Organic, Biodynamic and Biological farming systems that have been shown to have more climate resilience and incur significantly less externalities needs to be repeated through the RPS’s structure.

A search found the word organic just once and that was “municipal organic waste.” The PRPS appears to be working in another past era in this respect. Organic production methods are recognised by FAO and other key international organisations to be the most resilient for the environment and food supply, even in key areas of concern such as Africa. That recognition need to be part of the RPS as climate change and peak oil threaten negative effects within the life of the RPS and subsequent plans.

Policy WL 9B: Managing rural development and protecting versatile land

This policy appears to totally fail recognition of the difference between different farming management systems, and in respect of Rotorua Lakes and nutrient inputs, suggests that Rural Subdivision may be preferable to pastoral farming. Soil & Health recognises that some small block development can in fact be preferable productively, both economically and environmentally, to larger pastoral units, however some organic and biological farming units have nutrient discharge levels that will be well within EBOP’s targets. A case of maybe not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

EBOP could look at some of the outcomes from the ARGOS project where comparatives of energy use, economics, nutrient discharge and social outcomes between ‘conventional’ and organic and biodynamic primary production are explored.

An example of how the RPS requires more strength is in

3.2.1 Directive methods

“Method 27: Provide information about sustainable land management practices

Prepare and disseminate information about sustainable land management practices, including:…”

The educative approach is not strong or urgent enough. Wording should follow that LTA’s will ensure the outcomes recognised by EBOP as desirable.

Soil & Health supports Method 35: “Take a whole of catchment approach to the management of natural and physical resources within the coastal environment, Adopt a holistic catchment-based approach that recognises the inter-relationships among all elements of the environment …”

As part of a whole of catchment approach EBOP should include pesticide reduction as a desirable outcome, with objectives, policies and directions that ensure recognition of the human and environmental health externalities and the need for either a polluter pays approach where possible or development of a meaningful strategy to reduce pesticide use. ERMA does not, and the new EPA is unlikely to, set adequate controls for human and environmental safety but is strongly affected by the balancing it does with political direction and the market economy.

Not only toxins, as in pesticides including herbicides used directly in primary production, but release to air of fumigants such as methyl bromide, as is used extensively in the BOP must be actively and quickly reduced or recaptured. ERMA has set a decade before recapture of methyl bromide is mandatory, however very clearly allowed for stricter controls to be set by LTAs. The EBOP-PRPS must actively recognise that and set the parameters for definitive action for reduction, reuse and recovery of toxins, especially reduction.

In regards methyl bromide;

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

And from the ERMA decision following reassessment of methyl bromide

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

Port Tauranga and the related LTAs should be installing recapture of methyl bromide immediately due to worker and community exposure health risks and the effects on the global community. The PRPS should set the scene for this and reduction of other pesticides.

Soil & Health appreciates the opportunity to submit to the development of the Regional Policy Statement and wishes to be heard to present further.

Section 274 interested party in support of Bay of Plenty Regional Council along with GE Free Northland, Zelka Grammar and Anna Murphy, GE Free NZ, Claire Bleakley, John Sanderson, Karen Summerhays

NZ Forest Research Institute Limited (Scion) v Bay of Plenty Regional Council

Appeals against decisions on the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement  (excluding Coastal Environments & Water Quality & Land-use sections)

 

Relief sought by NZ Forest Research Institute Limited (Scion) via Appeal

Deletion of the following statement from section 1.7 of the proposed Regional Policy statement

a) The existence of genetically modified organisms in the environment has generated community concern.  Of particular concern is the placement and location of trial and containment facilities.  The Bay of Plenty Council promotes a precautionary approach to the release, control and use of genetically modified organisms within the region.  The precautionary approach is a necessary response to unresolved issues of potential liability, environmental risks, economic costs and cultural and social effects.  The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms act 1996 contains specific legislation for managing genetically modified organisms.  These legislative functions are carried out by the Environmental Protection Authority. Current legislation may be inadequate to manage potential adverse effects from the use of genetically modified organisms in the region.

 

b) Such further orders, relief, consequential amendments or other amendments as are considered appropriate and necessary to address the concerns set out above and;

c) Costs of and incidental to this appeal.

Soil & Health stands by it’s original submission 146-2, accepted by BOP Regional Council, requiring a precautionary approach with regards to genetic engineering.

Submissions Against GE Brassicas

/in
Submission to: Environmental Risk Management Authority
Friday, December 8, 2006

Dec 8, 2006

Dear Members

Re: GE Brassica Field Trial

Crop & Food Research has applied to ERMA (Environmental Risk Management Authority) to spend taxpayers’ money on a 10-year field trial of genetically engineered brassicas: specifically cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower and forage kale. Plants would have genes spliced from bacteria and viruses, including ‘Bt’ (Bacillus thuringiensis), in order to kill cabbage white butterfly and diamond backed moth.

Soil and Health is supporting Organic Aotearoa New Zealand’s substantive submission opposing the trial, and putting in our own submission. We encourage members to write submissions to ERMA opposing the field trial.

SUBMISSIONS ARE DUE BY TUES 12 DECEMBER 2006

You should quote Crop and Food Research’s application GMF06001. Submit in writing to ERMA NZ, PO Box 131, Wellington, 6140, by fax to ERMA NZ, 04 914 0433, or online at www.ermanz.govt.nz. Include name, contact details, signature, the date, reasons for your submission, and the decision you seek.

As follows are some points you may wish to use, and websites for further information.
www.gefree.org.nz
www.giantexperiment.co.nz
www.GEinfo.org.nz
www.i-sis.org.uk
www.gmwatch.org

Thanks for considering this! We hope our submissions will lead to a rejection of the trial and protection of organic and GE-free crops and food. Let’s work together towards an Organic 2020.

Mike Palmers, Co-Chair

 

——-

I/We strongly urge ERMA to decline this application for the following reasons:

Environmental Risks and Lack of Long-term Sustainability

* There is no point approving this field trial for genetically engineered brassicas unless they are to eventually be grown commercially. However, if grown commercially, these GE brassicas will cause GE contamination of other brassica crops and honey, and destroy New Zealand’s clean, green image.
* Target insect pests will become resistant to crops genetically engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), as has happened overseas.
* Insect resistance could result in more use of toxic sprays to control pests.
* Brassica pollen is readilty spread by insects, and GE brassicas would cross easily with dozens of wild and cultivated cousins.
* Any short-lived benefits before white cabbage butterfly and diamond backed moth are resistant comes at the cost of irreversible GE contamination.

Removal of Farmer Choice

* Insect resistance to Bt-engineered plants will result in the loss of a safe and important tool (natural Bt) for organic and conventional farmers.
* Contamination will remove farmer choice to grow GE-free food.
* If commercially grown, GE brassicas will contaminate GE-free crops, potentially making farmers liable for having illegal GE plants.

Removal of Consumer Choice

* Contamination will remove people’s right to buy and grow GE-free food. New Zealanders have stated clearly and often that they want to protect the availability of safe, natural and organic food.

Loss of Markets

* GE contamination – even trace levels – threatens our economy because of loss of exports to overseas markets, which have rejected GE foods.
* This field trial would tarnish New Zealand’s clean green image and reputation for producing safe and natural foods.

Liability

* Current liability laws are not strict enough to hold GE experimenters financially accountable for unintended or unforseen adverse impacts on farmers, consumers or the environment.
* Communities face paying (through rates, taxes or indirectly) the costs of clean-up, compensation and dealing with insect pests that have become resistant.

Use of Public Money

* Public money should not be spent on GE products, which the majority of New Zealanders (67% in recent surveys) do not want.
* GE-free methods of pest control in brassicas are already being practiced in organic systems. Public funds should be used for further research into sustainable, organic spest reduction methods.

Potential Negative Health Impacts

* Evidence of health impacts from Bt crops on people and animals must be fully investigated before the application is even considered.
* GE plants containing antibiotic-resistant marker genes can add to existing problems in controlling disease.
* Some forms of Bt toxins have been identified as potential allergens in humans.

Lack of Information from Applicant

* ERMA should not approve this field trial because the precise combination of plant, bacteria, virus and other genes is not known.
* Blanket approval cannot be justified, as different re-combinations may present different risks and therefore should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
* Independent scientists cannot provide expert advice on proper risk-management without knowing the gene-profile of the GE plants created.

Decision Sought
The risks of this field trial far outweigh any potential benefits. For all the above reasons, this field trial application must be rejected.

Mandatory fortification of iodine in bread

/in
Submission to: Food Standards Authority New Zealand
Submission Author: Steffan Browning, Soil & Health Association
Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Below is the Soil & Health NZ submission to FSANZ’ Proposal for Mandatory Fortification of Iodine in bread.

Bar influence by Food Safety Minister Annette King at the October 25 Ministerial Council meeting, folic acid which has already been recommended by FSANZ, will be likely joined by iodine to be included in NZ bread including organic bread.

Annette King can either press her Australian equivalents, state and federal, to call for a review of the FSANZ decision to allow, for example, an exemption for organics from any mandatory fortification, or the Minister can take New Zealand down a different path than the Australians as happened with Country of Origin Labelling. The Minister has the power. Or of course Australian ministers can call for an organic exemption.

Mandatory fortification of any NZ foods has not occured before. All fortification has been voluntary, including the high uptake of iodised salt in the past. This is a serious intrusion into free choice of all consumers and the integrity of NZ organics.

We have been given support by MPs from two parties so far and given opportunity it would be useful to put our concerns to any MPs that you come in contact with, particularly those close to the Labour Government. This is not new legislation it is over to the Minister.

Remember FREE CHOICE and an ORGANIC EXEMPTION.

Thanks
Steffan
Spokes
person

———

Submission to Food Standards Australia New Zealand

Re: PROPOSAL FOR MANDATORY FORTIFICATION WITH IODINE (Proposal P230)

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc is 65 years old, and is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand, and as such advocates for a healthy natural diet derived from food produced organically and free from additives.

In the event of mandatory fortification of either or both, iodine and folic acid, Soil & Health recommends an exemption for organic foods.

Soil & Health is conscious of the need for good nutritional education and supports strategies that explain the necessity and sources of iodine in diet, and those factors which suppress adequate iodine uptake.

Soil & Health is concerned that other components such as some soy products and fluoride in the contemporary diet may be factors in the rise in iodine deficiency. Organic consumers prefer a solution to the cause, rather than focus on treatment of symptoms.

In the event of need for supplementation, natural products as ingredients are preferred.

Seaweeds are used by some organic consumers with an awareness of the added need for minerals such as iodine, and certified organic kelp – seaweed products exist with that market in mind.

Acknowledging the high level of nutritional and health awareness of organic consumers, in the event of an exemption for organic foods from fortification, monitoring will show any need for increased education or recommendations to that consumer sector.

Fortification with any synthetic additive is contrary to the ideals of the consumer base of Soil & Health’s membership, and mandatory fortification will reduce choice for those wanting to avoid additives.

That said, many pregnant and breastfeeding women in Australia and New Zealand, in the absence of adequate iodine intake or subject to goitrogenic factors, may require daily iodine supplements.

FSANZ states in the draft assessment report that fortification will not be enough to address iodine status shortfalls.

Soil & Health agrees that an education program through the health system, including information on iodine sources and inhibitors is required, with optional supplementation a possibility.

This does not necessitate mass medication and in that event, broader consumer choice than unleavened bread and a few cereals is appropriate. Considering typical diets, the unfortified choices suggested in the Proposal assessment report are not really choice at all.

Soil & Health is aware of small domestic market focused bakeries that would have difficulty complying with the proposed standard for mandatory fortification with iodine. Those bakeries, and also access to markets requiring no added iodine, need to be allowed for in the interests of fair trade. Regulation as recommended so far disadvantages small commercial operations. An exemption for organic foods would reduce the level of commercial disadvantage.

Organic production and processing is based on minimum alteration or addition to food composition. Organic processing standards restrict additives in bread. BioGro for example would have to change its standard to something less than consumer expectations if mandatory fortification was introduced.

The current voluntary fortification regime allows consumer choice and fair trade as long as clear labelling is present.

FSANZ’ Proposal states, ‘Food labeling or promotional claims must be factually correct and not misleading or deceptive under the fair trading legislation of Australia and New Zealand. FSANZ intends to discuss the use of descriptors such as ‘natural food’, and ‘organic foods’ with the

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the New Zealand Commerce Commission, to clarify the status of foods using iodised salt with regards to fair trading”

An appropriate descriptor or definition of ‘organic’ produce or goods is likely and appropriately that which has been produced according to either a ‘National’ organic standard, or is organically certified. The 12 month transition period for implementation allows more than sufficient time for that mechanism to be established.

At least three organic certification organisations in New Zealand:
1. Organic Farm NZ Incorporated
2. BioGro Producers and Consumers Council owners of BioGro NZ Certification and BioGro Domestic Organic Certification
3. The Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association, Demeter certifier in New Zealand, do not agree with mandatory fortification of organic food and in principle agree with an exemption for organic food.

The Soil & Health motto is Healthy Soil , Healthy Food , Healthy People.

Below a paragraph that expresses the principle as presented by one of our prolific members.

“Under genuine organic management the inherent expectation and principle is that the produce grown takes up and produces enough iodine and folic acid to satisfy a person’s need when consuming a balanced organic diet.

While this is not yet necessarily always the case it is the aim of the organic production system to produce ‘whole foods’ in the true sense of the word. We are better off exploring what is required to get acceptable levels in our food crops again and pay the true and fair price for producing quality food.

Giving in to external pressure to fortify foods takes away the only natural option to explore what is required to grow ‘quality’ food and gives producers and wholesalers a cheap and easy way out. It encourages a commodity/quantitative approach (factory farming vs organic farming) and prevents a focus on quality food production. A regulation that encourages fortification encourages poor food production systems!

An exemption would allow the organic producers to continue exploring genetic material and growing methods that deliver ‘genuine’ organic whole foods and will also give consumers a choice”.

Summary

* The Soil and Health Association of New Zealand does not support Mandatory Iodine Fortification.
* Soil & Health supports public education of the need for iodine, sources of iodine and factors that inhibit the uptake of iodine.
* Soil & Health supports informed and fair consumer choice.
* In the event of FSANZ choosing to pursue a Mandatory Fortification regime, Soil & Health requests that an exemption be made for Certified Organic producers and processors.
* Soil & Health and other organic organisations in New Zealand and Australia wish to explore with FSANZ, options for an organic foods exemption from mandatory fortification.

Folic Acid

/in
Submission to: Food Standards Authority New Zealand
Monday, July 31, 2006

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc is 65 years old, and is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand, and as such advocates for a healthy natural diet derived from food produced organically and free from additives.

This submission will look at the issue of fortification in terms of the Policy Guideline and the original discussion options.

Policy Guideline, Fortification of Food, Vitamins & Minerals.
The FSANZ Act 1991 (the Act) Section 10 contains ‘High Order’ Principles

Objectives
1. (a) – the protection of public health and safety
(b) – provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices.
2. (a) – the need for standards to be based on risk analysis using the best available scientific evidence
(c) – the desirability of an efficient internationally competitive food industry.
(d) – the promotion of fair-trading in food.

Options Considering Fortification with Folic Acid as in the Initial Assessment Report 2004
1. Maintenance of the Status quo
2. Extension of Permissions For Voluntary Folate Fortification
3. Mandatory Folate Fortification
4. Increased Health Promotion and Education strategies to increase folate intakes.

The Soil & Health Association supports the education of consumers on healthy diet and nutritional needs. Soil & Health believes that a healthy diet negates the need for fortification and in the absence of quality national education campaigns promoting healthy diet (option 4), The Act Section 10 Objective 1 (a) is not met.

Objective 1 (a) is also not met considering the risks associated with mandatory fortification as outlined in the submission of the ADHD Association and GE Free NZ in food and environment.

Soil & Health shares the concerns outlined in these submissions. Adequate science has not been researched by FSANZ and NZFSA, and interpretation of the science researched does not appear to be impartial or precautionary. Our members do not share the approach of the authorities.

Soil & Health is conscious of the links between environmental toxins and Neural Tube Defect, for example with dioxin, as in the submission of ADHD Association and others, and Objective 2 (a) should ensure that other causal effects on NTD occurrence are taken into account when or before considering a dietary solution.

FSANZ’s Publication; “Mandatory Folic Acid Fortification – A short guide to the development of a food standard for Australia and New Zealand” includes as a question-answer the following;

Are there any potential adverse effects from taking folic acid?

High doses of folic acid are not known to have any adverse effects on healthy individuals. The US and Canada have had mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid since 1998 and have found this to be a successful and effective means of reducing the rate of NTDs.

This answer does not seriously answer the question and shows a bias towards a mandatory fortification outcome. It is known that high doses of folic acid can have adverse effects, and certainly unhealthy individuals appear not to have been considered. The second part of the answer is not an answer to the question. This type of question-answer PR spin does not meet Objective 1 (a) or (b).

The reduction of options to 1) Status quo & 3) Mandatory Fortification also does not meet Objectives 1 (a) (b), & 2 (a).

There has been no comprehensive promotion and education strategies to increase folate intakes (option 4) in New Zealand, and consequently an appropriate NZ study base on which to use or discount that option, the one preferred by several original submitters and Soil & Health.

Soil & Health is conscious of the need for good nutritional education and supports strategies that explain the necessity and sources of folate in diet. (Option 4)

Fortification with any synthetic additive is contrary to the ideals of the consumer base of Soil & Health’s membership, and mandatory fortification will reduce choice for those wanting to avoid additives.

The Act Section 10 Objective 1 (b) will not be met if any particular food or sub group has mandatory fortification.

For example if white bread or whole grain bread or trim milk were used as a vehicle for fortification, then that food group is no longer a choice for those wanting to avoid fortification.

Informed choice may allow a decision away from that food group, but real informed choice would allow a consumer to have fortified white bread or non-fortified white bread for example. This would favour options 1 or 2 and 4. Certainly not 3. However if option 3 was pursued, an exemption for organic foods would allow consumer choice.

The growth in farm based flourmills and Farmers Markets has not been taken into account in the recommendation to use bread flour as a vehicle for folic acid fortification. Small mills will have difficulty in equipping for fortification and this would be a barrier to fair trade as promoted in Objective 2 (d).

With environmental pressure by primary production intensification, being in part driven by downward pricing mechanisms as identified by The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, in the Growing for Good Report, smaller value added, more direct sales based production is to be encouraged. Objective 2 (d) would encourage such.

These mills invariably are involved with whole grains which have not had the natural folate removed as in the more refined flours, meeting Objectives 1 (a), 2 (d), and fit well into Option 4.

Organic processing standards restrict additives in bread and do not permit the addition of synthetic vitamins. BioGro for example would have to change its standard to something less than consumer expectations if mandatory fortification was introduced.

The current voluntary fortification regime (Option 1) allows consumer choice and fair trade, which could largely remain with Option 2 as long as clear labelling was present.

Organic production and processing is based on minimum alteration or addition to food composition. Pre-mixes for bread have been suggested as an alternative vehicle for fortification, by which some organic bread may be excluded, increasing choice, depending on the bread type/s chosen. However this still is contrary to the expectation of organic consumers, as represented by Soil & Health, that organic food does not have synthetic additives.

With significant growth in organic trade internationally and the New Zealand Organic sectors aim at $1 billion value by 2013, it can be expected that growth in exports of organic flour and baked products from ‘Clean Green NZ’ will increase. There are international variations to acceptance of additives such as folate in organic products, generally based on the domestic market in the importing country, and of course as a trade barrier.

An exemption for organic products from any mandatory folic acid fortification will give New Zealand and Australia’s value added growth industry greater options for trade. The point of difference marketing benefit meets Objective 2 (c & d).

Summary

* The Soil and Health Association of New Zealand does not support Mandatory Folic Acid Fortification.
* Soil & Health supports an Option 4 educative approach to health and nutrition.
* Soil & Health shares the concerns expressed in the submissions of ADHD Association, and GE Free NZ in food and environment.
* Soil & Health supports the submission of Organics Aotearoa New Zealand to which it is a party.
* In the event of FSANZ choosing to pursue a Mandatory Fortification regime, Soil & Health requests that an exemption be made for Certified Organic producers and processors.

GE lucerne / alfalfa

/in
Submission to: Biosecurity New Zealand
Submission Author: Steffan Browning, Soil & Health Association
Sunday, July 30, 2006

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc is 65 years old, and is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand, and as such advocates for a GE Free environment and diet.

Soil & Health is concerned at the risks of GE contamination to organic production from seed imported into New Zealand and requests that Biosecurity NZ maintains a strong stance to negate that risk. Soil & Health supports the setting up of an effective protocol that will ensure New Zealand gardeners and primary producers do not have to deal with issues of GE contamination.

Organic producers operate with a consumer expectation of 0% GE contamination in their products, and so Soil & Health is in full support of the submission by GE Free in Food and Environment. Organic producers and consumers share many of the issues their conventional counterparts do concerning possible GE contamination, eg market access, liability in the event of contamination, ability to save seed, new weeds, possible health effects, loss of choice.

While supporting GE Free NZ’s position, the Soil & Health Association of NZ also wishes to speak to its position and of the issues significant to organic producers.

 

Sent to:
Arun Siva
Plant Imports
Biosecurity New Zealand
PO Box 2526
Wellington