Posts

Soil & Health submission on the Gene Technology Bill

17 February 2025/in GE, GM, Submissions

17 February 2025

To the Health Select Committee, New Zealand Parliament

Recommendations

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand opposes the Gene Technology Bill in its entirety.
We recommend the Bill be withdrawn.
HEARING: We wish to be heard

Introduction: Who we are

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand is an incorporated society and not-for-profit registered charity founded in 1941, and is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world. We champion society’s collective responsibility to protect the health of our soils for future generations. We do this to promote the development of the best physical health and spiritual well-being of all people.

Our motto is ‘Oranga nuku – oranga kai – oranga tāngata / Healthy soil – healthy food – healthy people’.

We advocate for organic and regenerative production that works with nature and avoids synthetic fertilisers and pesticides. We’re the largest flaxroots membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in Aotearoa New Zealand. Soil & Health is also the owner of BioGro NZ Ltd, the largest organic certification agency in New Zealand.

We represent approximately 17,000 members and supporters around Aotearoa New Zealand, including consumers, home gardeners, farmers, business people, chefs, scientists and more. Soil & Health provides education and information on the benefits of organic growing, healthy eating and healthy lifestyles for Aotearoa New Zealand and the world.

Our members and supporters value food and lifestyles that enhance the environment and nourish people and animals. Organic and regenerative farming offer solutions to the threats we are facing today: climate change, soil and water pollution, loss of biodiversity, topsoil loss, degrading health and fertility both for people and nature.¹

The Soil & Health Association (hereafter Soil & Health, or the Association) welcomes the opportunity to submit on this Bill.

Definitions

We recognise that gene technology encompasses a range of technologies. What we are most concerned about is keeping robust and precautionary regulation for genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering (GE): in our submission we use this term for all types of genetic engineering, including gene editing techniques (like CRISPR-Cas9), synthetic biology, anything with “novel” DNA and “new breeding techniques”, recombinant DNA techniques and RNAi (“gene silencing”).

What the Bill calls genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are therefore included in the above definition.

Submission

Summary and Overview

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand opposes the Bill in its entirety and asks for it to be immediately withdrawn.

Our members and supporters are extremely concerned about the Bill, which represents unprecedented deregulation of the use and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Aotearoa New Zealand.

This Bill, if enacted, would mean that New Zealand would have one of the weakest regulatory regimes for GE in the world, leaving us open to being a global outlier and guinea pig. The Bill lacks the rigour, checks, balances and liability provisions that would safeguard people and the environment.

We are highly concerned about the short timeframe allowed for the drafting of the legislation and for public consultation. If the Bill is not withdrawn, we submit that at least six more months be given for adequate public consultation.

Gene technology is a huge topic with ramifications for food, agriculture, tikanga Māori, te Tiriti o Waitangi, biodiversity, conservation, economics, trade, health and medicines, science and research, animal welfare, ethics and more. New Zealanders deserve a fair, transparent and thorough process, which the Bill and its development fails to offer.

The Regulatory Impact Statement, compiled by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, acknowledges the gaps in the RIS, including the uncertainty of benefits. It fails to adequately explore the risks, the economic impacts, and the opportunity costs.

The provisions in the Bill leave New Zealanders and our environment wide open to risk; and the Bill only covers “regulated organisms” – omitting those genetically engineered organisms that the Regulator (a single person) can deem to be safe and therefore not covered by regulation at all.

The lack of safeguards in the Bill pose a threat to home gardening, farming, forestry and all forms of primary production. The removal of the precautionary principle means farmers and any other primary producers risk increased costs, unwanted GE contamination, devaluation of their products and organic certification loss.

The Bill disregards consumer choice; it would take away our right to know what we are eating, how it’s produced, and the right to choose GE-free foods, seeds and other products.

The Bill is a direct breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and marginalises the interests and concerns of Māori. There has been inadequate consultation with Māori. Genetic engineering goes against spiritual beliefs, whakapapa, mana, mauri, wairua and tino rangatiratanga.

We cannot afford the potential for risks to our unique and fragile indigenous ecosystems. Why spend millions each year on pest control, biosecurity research and infrastructure if we allow GMOs with unknown risks to spread throughout the entire country?

New Zealand’s fortunate GE-free status is the envy of other countries and gives us great economic advantages on the world market. If the Bill proceeds, markets could be lost and farmers and food producers could lose millions of dollars in export income.

While the Bill does not mention climate change, proponents of GE claim that GMOs could help reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions – this was referred to in the Regulatory Impact Statement compiled by the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment. However this kind of “quick fix” is primarily promoted by vested interests, and based on a reductionist, rather than holistic and interconnected, world view.

Such an approach also comes with a huge opportunity cost – it takes investment and focus away from regenerative, organic agriculture and research, which provide long-term, sustainable, nature-based environmental and climate mitigation solutions for future generations.

We must keep striving for a real “clean and green” Aotearoa New Zealand, for the benefit of all. We cannot allow companies and institutions to release GE products with little or no regulatory oversight, while the liability for, and impacts of, any adverse effects would fall to GE-free producers, the public and the wider environment.

Specific Points

Regulation of Risk and the Precautionary Principle

The Gene Technology Bill’s stated purpose is “to enable the safe use of gene technologies and regulated organisms by managing their risks to—

the health and safety of people; and
the environment.”

This wording is not strong enough for robust regulation, and weakens the protections we currently have.
Soil & Health advocates for the retention of our existing robust and precautionary legislation (the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act – HSNO Act), which has served us well and protected us against adverse effects of GMOs that have been experienced overseas.
The HSNO Act states its purpose to be: “to protect the environment, and the health and safety of people and communities, by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.”
This wording acknowledges there are or can be adverse effects, and preventing them – not only managing them – is the purpose of the legislation. Soil & Health wishes first and foremost to prevent adverse effects of GMOs.
The current Bill has no mention of the precautionary principle, while the HSNO Act states “the need for caution in managing adverse effects where there is scientific and technical uncertainty about those effects.”
While scientific knowledge is increasing, there continues to be much uncertainty about the effects of GE, so it’s vital to keep the precautionary principle.
One of the objectives of the Bill is to create “risk-proportionate regulation”. However it fails in this purpose.
The four risk tiers include exempt activities: “minimal-risk products of gene editing, for example, products of editing techniques that result in organisms that cannot be distinguished from those produced by conventional processes”.
Given the lack of long-term use of gene editing globally, especially outside the laboratory, Soil & Health contends we need a robust and precautionary approach. ALL GMOs must be regulated, with NO exemptions, as per the HSNO Act.

Removal of Choice for Consumers

The Bill takes away choice from consumers about the food we eat and grow, and the products we buy.
Our members and supporters, and the wider public, want to know not just what is in our food (and other products), but also how it is produced. We want food that is natural and unadulterated, ethically produced, free from harmful chemicals and toxins, free from GMOs, and produced in ways that enhance our soils, environments and communities.
We want to know how products are produced – for example whether child labour is involved, or GE or herbicides. This is because we are concerned not solely with our own and family health, but also with the health of the wider environment and of the people who produce our food.
We want transparency, traceability and labelling on food and all other consumer products. Regulation must ensure that any products using GE at any stage of production are clearly labelled as such, to allow for consumer choice and transparency.
Therefore, regulation of GMOs must be both process-based and product-based (not either/or).
At present, many products carry either an organic certification label, and/or a GE-free or non-GMO label. Woolworths and Foodstuffs supermarket chains both have non-GMO brand policies.
However this Bill would put this kind of labelling at risk, and consumers would be left in the dark.
It would also probably make organic and non-GMO products more expensive for the consumer as it would be more onerous for producers to ensure their production is GE-free.
GE products are NOT the same as natural products and therefore must not be allowed to be exempt from regulation. Unintended changes in gene edited organisms occur, and are different from random mutations in nature.²
The Bill allows one person – the Regulator – to decide whether a GE process or product is to be regulated or not. If not regulated, GMOs would be invisible and could enter our food chain and environment with no safety assessment, no public notification, no labelling, no traceability, and not be subject to any controls or monitoring.
This creates unacceptable levels of risk and lack of choice.
Lack of adequate labelling poses a health risk, as allergens and toxins can be produced as a result of gene technologies.
Even though humans have been eating GE ingredients for some years, we don’t know enough yet about the effects of GE foods on the human body, or on epigenetic effects, as there has been very little research on this. GE foods and ingredients may contain combinations and components never seen before by our gut bacteria and other bodily systems.
We are concerned not just about the potential for adverse effects directly as a result of genetic engineering, but also any adverse effects of other technologies used in combination with GMOs. This includes herbicide residues in herbicide-resistant crops.
Other emerging technologies – such as synthetic biology, generative artificial intelligence (AI), and nanotechnology – are beginning to be used in combination with GE. An example is the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in the creation of GE plants.³
Given the known and unknown risks of GE and AI, and the increasing ease and speed of developing gene-edited products, such combinations of risky technologies must be strictly regulated.
Therefore the precautionary principle needs to be retained in our legislation of GE.

Risks for Farming, Forestry and Other Primary Production

The Bill gives the Regulator the ability to allow some gene technologies to go completely unregulated. This means some GMOs could be released into the outdoor environment, and/or into agricultural and veterinary inputs, with no controls or monitoring. This puts at risk all forms of primary production in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Farmers, growers, beekeepers, foresters, aquaculture operators and other primary producers would risk losing markets, organic or non-GMO certification if they have it, income and time, and potentially face legal costs, as has happened already in a number of other countries.⁴
In particular the Bill puts at risk primary producers who want to remain GE-free, including organic production. GE agriculture is completely incompatible with organic and regenerative agriculture. Organic standards around the world specify that GE techniques and organisms are not to be used in certified organic systems.
Co-existence of GE and non-GE crops is virtually impossible due to the many vectors of DNA. In the case of plants for example GE contamination can be spread by pollen, and by seed spread via wind, water, animals, human activity.
GE ryegrass for example, if introduced, would inevitably spread across boundaries and contaminate farms, gardens and natural ecosystems, with unknown effects. In the USA, GE bentgrass spread from supposedly controlled plots.⁵
Farmers across the board are concerned about contamination because of potential impacts on productivity, market resistance, livelihood and ecological concerns, and want strong legislation to prevent GE contamination.
Forestry must not be put at risk by any form of GE. Both main sustainable forestry certification schemes in New Zealand – Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Programme for the Endorsement of Forestry Certification (PEFC) maintain GE-free policies for all forests certified to their standards.

GE is Not a Solution to Climate Change and Pollution

A permissive GE regime is not a coherent response to the interconnected issues of climate change, loss of biodiversity, global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, topsoil loss and nitrate leaching from farming into waterways.
New Zealand is in a prime position to implement coherent climate, environmental and agriculture policies. A huge part of that advantage is this country’s existing robust and precautionary policy on GMOs.
GE ryegrass and clover have been mooted as part of the solution to reducing New Zealand’s methane emissions from ruminant animals. However this is far from proven, they may have adverse effects, and are not part of the holistic approach that is needed.
Many GE crops are designed to be used with harmful herbicides which are contributing to environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and herbicide resistance.
Farmers and the New Zealand public need time to assess the risks and benefits of continuing research into GE, who would benefit from it, and how it compares with other strategies to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Tikanga Māori

Soil & Health is a Treaty partner with Te Waka Kai Ora,⁶ the Kaitiaki of the Hua Parakore verification system, the world’s first indigenous verification system for food and primary products.⁷
Te Waka Kai Ora has expressed complete opposition to the Bill for several reasons. We fully support their submission.
The Crown has not engaged with Māori adequately or sufficiently in the development of the Bill. Māori are rights holders, not stakeholders, and should be treated as such. This is stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples.
The Bill gives the Regulator the power to exempt specific gene technologies from regulation, allowing Aotearoa New Zealand to be subject to assessments made by overseas regulators.
This constitutes a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as it grants sovereignty to external entities, rather than to iwi and hapū, who never ceded sovereignty over their lands. Article 2 of Te Tiriti recognises Māori rangatiratanga over their lands and taonga.
The Bill has the potential to devastate the Hua Parakore verification system, which is recognised globally for its holistic approach to food and primary products. This system is grounded in Te Ao Māori, derived from the wisdom of Māori tūpuna (ancestors) and supported by both tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti, who are seeking indigenous growing kaupapa led by indigenous knowledge reclamation. Hua Parakore offers pure products based on integrity and whakapapa. However, the introduction of gene technology, particularly in outdoor applications, risks compromising traceability within this verification system.
One of the Bill’s stated objectives is “to provide for ways to recognise and give effect to the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi”. There is already one claim before the Waitangi Tribunal that involves genetic engineering, namely Claim WAI262.⁸ Until this claim is settled to the satisfaction of Māori, no changes to legislation involving GE should proceed.
Furthermore, the Bill provides for the establishment of a Māori Advisory Committee, while ensuring that the power of this Committee remains weak. The Bill states only that the Regulator should “have regard to advice” from the Committee, which will have no decision-making authority, nor the power of veto.
The Bill marginalises Māori as it does the public and wider community. It limits the scope of the Māori Advisory Committee to gene technology issues involving indigenous species or “material adverse effects on kaitiaki relationships”. Therefore the Bill does not take into account whakapapa and a range of cultural and ethical considerations, including mana, mauri, whakapapa and wairua, while also recognising that Māori concerns extend beyond indigenous species.

Risk to Ecosystems, in Particular Native Ecosystems

Aotearoa New Zealand has a unique environment with 80% of its native species being endemic.
Many native species are already threatened, endangered, or at risk of extinction. Because we don’t know the impacts of GMOs within ecosystems, introducing GE could put native species even more at risk.
GE plants – and the pesticides frequently used with them as part of the package – are a risk to bees and other pollinators. The flow-on multiplier effect within ecosystems is potentially enormous.
While GE has been posited as a solution for pest control, there are risks and we may end up creating more problems.
Scientists estimate that so far they have only identified a small proportion of the microorganisms in the soil,⁹ and there are many other species that are yet to be discovered and identified, such as invertebrates and marine organisms. We simply do not know enough about the complex interactions in ecosystems to risk releasing GMOs into the environment.
Once GMOs are released into the environment, there is no turning back. We can’t contain or recall the crops, animals, fish, insects or microorganisms.
Examples of unwanted GMO escapes include fluorescent zebrafish (“Glofish”) which are now wild in Brazilian rivers, and reproducing rapidly. Researchers are concerned about adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems and endemic species.¹⁰
The approval of GE salmon in North America was challenged in a federal court in California by Earthjustice and other claimants. GE fish could breed with, or outcompete, their wild counterparts.¹¹
Monarch butterfly numbers in the USA have plummeted over the past couple of decades, and GE crops have been cited as part of this decline. GE maize pollen has been found to harm monarch larvae,¹² and other researchers have pointed to glyphosate-resistant GE crops as being a major factor in monarch butterfly decline.¹³

Economic and Financial Impacts, and Opportunity Costs

The regulatory impact statement compiled by MBIE focuses strongly on the potential economic benefits of loosening the regulation of GE. However, it includes no assessment of economic losses resulting from this legislation, nor the opportunity costs.
The RIS simply says there would be “Unquantified costs to organic/non-GMO primary producers.”
The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has produced a report detailing the economic risks of this legislation, and has estimated that “environmental release of GMOs in New Zealand could reduce exports from the primary sector by up to $10 billion to $20 billion annually”.¹⁴
There are cases where countries have rejected crops and products contaminated by GMOs.¹⁵ This would be a significant risk for our export sector. Once GMOs are released in our environment, there is no turning back. Contamination will be inevitable.
New Zealand has enjoyed an image of being clean and green, which has attracted tourists and our overseas export markets. This Bill risks damaging this image, our export and tourism sectors, and our economy.
Organic exports would be particularly at risk because organic standards, driven by consumer demand, allow no GE use. According to the Organic Exporters Association of New Zealand, “in 2022–2023, New Zealand’s organic exports were valued at over $560 million, with $164 million exported with official MPI assurance. The remaining value was exported to markets without organic bilateral arrangements.”¹⁶
The European Green Deal¹⁷ offers an enormous opportunity for New Zealand to build its GE-free and organic export production. Allowing the introduction of GMOs would take that incredible opportunity away from us.
Opportunity costs would include missed opportunities to focus on research and investment into organic and regenerative farming systems that would mitigate climate, enhance soils, waterways, animal and human health, seeking to understand and work with nature, rather than trying to manipulate it.
An example of this non-GE research and development is a lower methane-emitting sheep developed through selective breeding by AgResearch.¹⁸ New Zealand is a world leader in plant and animal breeding that doesn’t use GE, and this is what we need to build on.
The benefits to a few corporations that develop and sell GE technologies must not come before people’s health, farmers’ ability to carry on biological, regenerative, GMO-free and organic farming, our unique environment and our chance to genuinely live up to our clean and green reputation in the global market.

Spiritual, Philosophical and Ethical Considerations

Many of our members and supporters feel an intuitive discomfort and a deep spiritual dis-ease about genetic engineering. Many people feel we shouldn’t be engaging in the types of technology that seek to ‘play God’ and change the building blocks of life.
Animal welfare is a high priority for our members, who are concerned about the ethics of GE animal experiments.
We oppose the use of animals as “bioreactors” to produce therapeutic substances. GE experimentation on animals here in New Zealand for such purposes has produced no medical benefit and has resulted in much suffering. A report by GE Free NZ, drawing from AgResearch annual reports, catalogues the deaths, deformities, abortions, sterility and numerous other health problems that the GE research animals have been subjected to.¹⁹
We are also opposed to the patenting of all life forms.
This bill would allow international corporations and a small number of shareholders to control and own life in New Zealand. This will never benefit New Zealand and New Zealanders in a long-term and meaningful way.

Liability

The Resource Management Act provides the ability for territorial authorities to make provision for liability, including the ability to require a bond from users of GE in the event of any adverse effects. We support this as it provides some financial protection for councils and communities.
The Gene Technology Bill however contains no provisions for liability of the users of gene technologies should anything go wrong. The users of any gene technologies must be held legally and financially liable for any adverse effects of their processes, activities and products – including any waste products.
If anyone has gone through a strict assessment process to use GE in the outdoor environment, they must be required to have commercial insurance in case of adverse effects. The Bill fails to require this.
Previous outdoor GE trials in New Zealand have breached their conditions – all users of GE must be legally and financially liable for any breaches and escapes. The Bill fails to ensure this.

Local Democracy

All councils from Auckland to Northland, and Hastings District Council, currently have precautionary, protective and/or prohibitive policies and plans.
This has been at the behest of their communities, who want an extra level of protection from any adverse effects of GE in the outdoor environment, and/or to enable regions to promote their region and their products as GE-free.
Soil & Health has supported councils in the Environment Court, which confirmed this right under the Resource Management Act to choose GE policies at city, district and regional levels.
The Bill however expressly removes the right and ability of territorial authorities to determine their own GE policies and plans, as they currently enjoy.
We oppose the specific removal of this right, because it is undemocratic, and a heavy-handed overreach of central government into the realm of local government decision-making.

GE in Health and Medicine

The precautionary principle must apply to all gene technologies including those for medical purposes.
Any uses of any gene technology for human health must be fully transparent and only used with genuine informed consent. Therefore we oppose the emergency authorisation of medical products using gene technology.
Soil & Health opposes the Bill’s proposed mandatory medical approval of human medicines that have been approved by at least two overseas regulators. This could result in the forced use of a product with insufficient oversight, disregarding specific circumstances in Aotearoa New Zealand, including Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori. It fails to ensure informed consent, and could undermine protections outlined in the Bill of Rights. It fails to address the risk of regulatory capture by pro-GE interests in overseas jurisdictions.
We oppose the use of animals as “bioreactors” to produce therapeutic substances, given the unnecessary harm, suffering and failures that have resulted from experiments using animals.

In summary

In summary, the Soil & Health Association rejects the Gene Technology Bill, and supports retaining the precautionary and protective GE legislation of the HSNO Act.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit on this critical issue and are available for further discussion or to provide additional information as needed.

References

https://rodaleinstitute.org/science/ and https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/renewable-agriculture-and-food-systems/article/organic-agriculture-and-climate-change/74A590FA3F35A79A858336CF341F416C ↩︎
Lazar, NH et al. 2024. High-resolution genome-wide mapping of chromosome-arm-scale truncations induced by CRISPR–Cas9 editing Nature Genetics 56, 1482–1493, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-024-01758-y and brief analysis by Test Biotech here: https://www.testbiotech.org/en/unkategorisiert/crispr-the-unintended-genetic-changes-caused-by-gene-scissors-are-different-to-random-mutations/ ↩︎
Save Our Seeds. 2025. When chatbots breed new plant varieties. http://upd-sos.zs-intern.de/fileadmin/files/SOS/ai/SOS_When_chatbots_breed_new_plant_varieties.pdf ↩︎
For example Western Australian organic canola farmer Steve Marsh lost organic certification and income, and faces over A$800,000 in legal costs. https://www.ecowatch.com/organic-farmer-dealt-final-blow-in-landmark-lawsuit-over-monsantos-gmo-1882173163.html ↩︎
Center for Biological Diversity. 2016. “Commercial Approval of Engineered Bentgrass Given Despite Failed Efforts to Stop Its Spread From Old Experiment Plots” https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2016/bentgrass-12-07-2016.html ↩︎
Te Waka Kai Ora, the National Māori Organics Authority, https://www.tewakakaiora.co.nz/ ↩︎
Hua Parakore verification system, https://www.tewakakaiora.co.nz/whatishuaparakore ↩︎
Wai 262 Taumata Whakapūmau – claimants and their descendents, Waitangi Tribunal claim 262, https://www.wai262.nz/ ↩︎
Fierer, N. 2017. Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 15 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro.2017.87 ↩︎
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network briefing. 2022.
https://cban.ca/wp-content/uploads/GM-Contamination-Animals-Feb-2022-Update.pdf ↩︎
Earthjustice media release. 5 November 2020. Federal Court Declares Genetically Engineered Salmon Unlawful. https://earthjustice.org/press/2020/federal-court-declares-genetically-engineered-salmon-unlawful ↩︎
Losey, JE et al. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399
https://www.nature.com/articles/20338 ↩︎
Pleasants, J. 2017. Milkweed restoration in the Midwest for monarch butterfly recovery. Insect Conservation and Diversity 10(1)
https://resjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/icad.12198 and Flockhart DTT et al. 2015. Unravelling the annual cycle in a migratory animal: breeding-season habitat loss drives population declines of monarch butterflies. Journal of Animal Ecology 84(1) https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2656.12253 ↩︎
New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. 2024. Potential costs of regulatory changes for gene technology: Economic assessments of an MBIE proposal. https://drive.google.com/file/d/17fC5qTDVscJBfuKGIG1oopjnXI0oib1b/view ↩︎
EU detects GM rice in Pakistan’s basmati consignment. 7 August 2024. The Hindu. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/agri-business/eu-detects-gm-rice-in-pakistans-basmati-consignment/article68497159.ece ↩︎
Organic Exporters Association of New Zealand, retrieved from their website 16.2.2025 : https://www.organictradenz.com/who-we-are ↩︎
European Commission. Retrieved from their website 16.2.2025 https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en ↩︎
Low methane sheep: Breeding for the future. AgResearch website, retrieved 17.2.2025. https://www.agresearch.co.nz/our-research/low-methane-sheep/ ↩︎
Claire Bleakley. 2015. GE Animals in New Zealand: The First Fifteen Years. GE Free New Zealand (in food and environment) https://www.gefree.org.nz/assets/pdf/GE-Animals-in-New-Zealand.pdf ↩︎

Soil & Health submission on the EPA’s chlorpyrifos reassessment – proposed ban

12 February 2025/in GE, GM, Submissions

12 February 2025

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, representing a diverse community of organic producers, consumers, and advocates, submits this response to the proposed reassessment of chlorpyrifos under the current Evironmental Protection Authority review.

Our association is committed to advocating for the production and consumption of organic food under the motto ‘Healthy soil – healthy food – healthy people: Oranga nuku – oranga kai – oranga tāngata.’ It is from this foundation that we express our concerns regarding the continued use of chlorpyrifos in agricultural practices in New Zealand.

Recommendation

Soil & Health fully supports the EPA’s proposal to ban the use of chlorpyrifos by revoking its approvals.

Reasons

1. Environmental and Health Risks

Chlorpyrifos is widely documented as a persistent environmental pollutant with significant detrimental effects on wildlife and human health. Its persistence in ecosystems and its ability to degrade slowly in environmental conditions pose a long-term risk to ecological health and biodiversity.

Notably, chlorpyrifos has been linked to developmental delays and other health risks in humans, which is particularly concerning for communities in agricultural areas and for consumers globally. Babies in the womb and young children are at greater risk of neurological damage and developmental disorders, even when exposed to very low levels of chlorpyrifos.

2. Global Regulatory Actions

We note that several international jurisdictions, including the European Union and Canada, have moved towards severe restrictions or outright bans of chlorpyrifos, reflecting growing scientific consensus and public health policy shifts towards more sustainable and safe agricultural practices. This global trend underscores the need for New Zealand to consider similar actions to align with international health and safety standards.

3. Incompatibility with Organic Standards

Chlorpyrifos use is incompatible with organic farming principles, which focus on maintaining ecological balance and avoiding synthetic toxins in agriculture. Continuing its use undermines the integrity of New Zealand’s organic sector and the trust of domestic and international consumers in New Zealand’s organic produce.

4. Advocacy for an Outright Ban

Given the substantial evidence of chlorpyrifos’ adverse impacts, and in support of a precautionary approach to pesticide regulation, Soil & Health advocates for an outright ban on the use of chlorpyrifos in New Zealand. We recommend that the EPA facilitate a transition to safer, sustainable, and equally effective alternatives that are available and increasingly being adopted worldwide.

5. Support for Affected Farmers

We propose that the EPA and relevant agricultural bodies work together to support farmers who may be affected by such a ban, including providing access to training in alternative pest control methods and financial support and/or peer support network facilitation during the transition period.

In conclusion

Soil & Health wishes to reiterate the importance of a proactive regulatory approach that prioritizes public and environmental health. We believe that banning chlorpyrifos will represent a significant step forward in protecting our environment, health, and the integrity of our agricultural sector.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit on this critical issue and are available for further discussion or to provide additional information as needed.

Warm regards,

Charles Hyland

Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand

References

Re-evaluation Note REV2021-04, Cancellation of remaining chlorpyrifos registrations under paragraph 20(1)(a) of the Pest Control Products Act. Health Canada. (2021). Retrieved from Health Canada website: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/decisions-updates/reevaluation-note/2021/cancellation-remaining-chlorpyrifos-registrations.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2020). Revised human health risk assessment on chlorpyrifos. Retrieved from EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/chlorpyrifos

White, Alison (2024). Neurotoxic Pesticide in our Food. Retrieved from Organic NZ magazine: https://organicnz.org.nz/magazine-articles/neurotoxic-pesticide-in-our-food/

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2019). Statement on the available outcomes of the human health assessment in the context of the pesticides peer review of the active substance chlorpyrifos. Retrieved from EFSA website: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5809

Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific. (2022). Children at risk from toxic pesticide: New Zealand should urgently reassess chlorpyrifos. Retrieved from https://panap.net/2022/06/children-at-risk-from-toxic-pesticide-new-zealand-should-urgently-reassess-chlorpyrifos/

Changing the definition of GE in food would leave consumers in the dark

6 September 2024/in Media Releases, News

Soil & Health Association stands firm against redefinition of gene technology in food standards

MEDIA RELEASE

For immediate release 6 September 2024

Aotearoa New Zealand – The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand has officially submitted its comprehensive response to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), rejecting Proposal P1055, which seeks to change the definition of genetic engineering technologies used in food production. The association also urges FSANZ to extend the consultation period by at least a month to allow for sufficient time to make submissions.

Charles Hyland, soil scientist and co-chair of the Soil & Health Association, says: “Redefining gene technology to exclude new breeding techniques (like gene editing) without proper labels and safety checks threatens our ability to choose what we eat. We stand for transparency and informed choices in food consumption, not ambiguity.”

Echoing this sentiment, Jenny Lux, organic producer and co-chair of Soil & Health, highlighted the potential impacts on the organic sector. “Introducing gene-edited products into our food system without clear labels could inadvertently lead organic foods to contain genetically engineered ingredients. This is unacceptable and undermines the trust consumers place in organic labels.”

“People are concerned not just about what’s in their food, but also about how it’s been produced. The global market for non-GMO foods is growing.”

Philippa Jamieson, Soil & Health spokesperson on GE issues, emphasised the need for rigorous safety assessments. “Gene editing and NBTs bring significant risks and uncertainties. Any food product derived from these technologies must undergo stringent safety evaluations and be clearly labelled to ensure public health is not compromised.”

The Association also acknowledges the deep cultural, ethical, intellectual property and spiritual concerns associated with gene technology expressed by Te Ao Māori. Soil & Health aligns with the perspectives of our Treaty partner organisation, Te Waka Kai Ora, that the proposal does not support their cultural expressions and rights as guaranteed under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The public is urged to participate actively in the consultation process by making individual submissions to FSANZ. The deadline for these submissions is the 10th of September 2024, at 8 PM New Zealand time. Submissions can be made via email or through the FSANZ consultation hu b. The association encourages individuals to also communicate their concerns directly to MPs and through media channels to amplify their voice.

For further guidance on making submissions, or to read the full Soil & Health Association submission, please visit the Soil & Health Association website.

Contact:
Rebecka Keeling, Communications Specialist, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand

Email: editor@organicnz.org.nz

Phone: 021 202 7664
Website: www.soilandhealth.org.nz

Submission of the Soil & Health Association on the Therapeutic Products Bill

20 February 2023/in Submissions

The Therapeutic Products Bill is intended to replace the Medicines Act 1981 and Dietary Supplements Regulations 1985 and brings natural health products (NHP) into the regulation system for health products within Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Read our full submission here.

Summary of our submission

This submission from Soil & Health focuses on the regulation of natural health products.

Soil & Health agrees with the Purpose of the Therapeutic Products in relation to natural health products:

‘to protect, promote, and improve the health of all New Zealanders by providing for the—…

acceptable safety and quality of natural health products across their life-cycle.

but we consider that the Bill is written primarily from a western reductionist viewpoint, considering natural health products rather than natural health systems:

Much of the Bill is concerned with defining therapeutic products and decisions on this will be made by experts in the field. Soil & Health is concerned that registered naturopaths, medical herbalists and homeopaths are not included as health practitioners under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, nor are they recognised as experts in natural health products in this Bill. In contrast pharmacists are recognised in the Bill and sell natural products although they are not trained as experts in this field.

We recommend that the Naturopaths & Medical Herbalists of NZ (Inc).(NMHNZ)(https://naturopath.org.nz), New Zealand Association of Medical Herbalists (NZAMH) (https://nzamh.org.nz/) and the New Zealand Council of Homeopaths (https://homeopathy.co.nz/) be recognised as responsible authorities under the HPCAA and that those registered by these authorities be included in the Bill as NHP practitioners.

The Bill allows for the definition of natural health products to include synthetic ingredients and additives.

We recommend synthetic ingredients and additives be limited to 5% of the product and controlled.

The Bill also allows for exceptions to the requirement for regulations for low concentration natural health products.

Soil & Health recommends that the risk assessment of dilute NHPs such as homeopathic remedies apply not to the origin of the remedies (whether plant, mineral or animal), but instead to the final products, which contain no DNA and therefore no disease risk.

We recognise that large manufacturers of natural health products want and need regulations for export. BUT it is our view that these market regulations should not apply to the domestic market.

We recommend that a list of prohibited ingredients be developed for the domestic market.

The Bill currently applies to rongoā.

We recommend that the Bill not proceed until there is a Tiriti-based process in place for rongoā.

The Bill does not provide any protection for source ingredients.

Soil & Health recommends that plant ingredients be harvested in a way that protects their sustainability and avoids depletion of any endangered species.

Submission of the Soil & Health Association on definitions for gene technology and new breeding techniques

14 December 2021/in Submissions

The Soil & Health Association welcomes the opportunity to submit on this proposal to revise and update the definitions in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (the Code) for ‘food produced using gene technology’ and ‘gene technology’, to make them clearer and to better reflect existing and emerging genetic technologies, including new breeding techniques (NBTs)

Read our full submission here.

Submission of the Soil & Health Association on the Emissions Reduction Plan

24 November 2021/in Submissions

Our submission focuses on agriculture and organic waste and states that more can be done, sooner, by supporting a faster transition to regenerative organic farming.

Emissions from organic waste and from agriculture can be reduced through conversion of farming to regenerative organic systems alongside better organic waste collection and processing for composting and soil-building.

To do this the government needs to prioritise support for existing available solutions such as organics rather than focusing on new technologies. We agree that rural extension services, research and better waste regulation are key tools to deliver this change.

Read our full submission here.

EPA Call for Information on glyphosate, September 2021

22 September 2021/in Submissions

Summary of our submission

A GLYPHOSATE RISK ASSESSMENT IS NEEDED URGENTLY

We welcome the opportunity to respond to this Call for Information on glyphosate.

We submit that Aotearoa New Zealand urgently needs a genuine risk assessment of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (commercial products containing glyphosate and other chemicals) that are being sold and used in this country.

New Zealand has never conducted a risk assessment of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs). This Call for Information effectively delays the long overdue risk assessment of GBHs

This delay pushes back appropriate regulatory measures that might be enacted as a response to risk assessment to protect health.

SURVEY OF COUNCIL USE OF GLYPHOSATE

Our submission includes survey information collected from territorial and regional authorities around the country about their current use of GBHs.

This survey demonstrates both the widespread use of GBHs and the increasing community pressure to eliminate GBHs

THERE ARE KNOWN HEALTH RISKS FROM GLYPHOSATE

There are known health risks of GBHs to humans, domesticated animals, and to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.

We provide evidence of these risks our submission document.

Given its widespread use, producers and consumers cannot be confident they’re avoiding GBH health risks under the current regulations.

We urge the government to take a strict precautionary approach.

GLYPHOSATE USE LEADS TO INCREASING HERBICIDE RESISTANCE

Herbicide resistance – including resistance to GBHs – is a growing problem globally and here in New Zealand.

Herbicide resistance is leading to the use of several different herbicides together or in rotation.

Farmers and growers (conventional as well as organic) are increasingly seeking safe non-chemical weed management options.

Organic producers are able to successfully employ a range of non-toxic methods of weed management, reducing herbicide resistance pressure

ECONOMIC RISKS OF GLYPHOSATE-BASED HERBICIDES

International demand for safe, healthy food is strong and growing. Our international markets are extremely sensitive to pesticide residues.

For example Japan has rejected New Zealand honey imports this year due to glyphosate residues.

SOIL & HEALTH’S GLYPHOSATE PETITION

We need our Government to hear our concerns, and to that end have established a petition. For further information, and to sign the petition, please see here.

Supporters of our petition are calling on the government to:

Ban the use of glyphosate in public places and around waterways;
Ban foliar sprays (pre-harvest) of glyphosate formulations on human and animal feed crops; and
Conduct a first-ever risk assessment of the active ingredient glyphosate, and the retail formulation sold in shops, using independent published and openly available scientific data.

OUR FULL SUBMISSION

Included in our submission are

Submission on application APP203660 To reassess methyl bromide

29 August 2019/in Submissions

29 August 2019

Environmental Protection Authority

Private Bag 63002

Wellington 6140

New Zealand

Submission on application APP203660

To reassess methyl bromide

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tauranga example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monitoring and modelling

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

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

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

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

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

Worker and community safety

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

Ozone depletion

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

Health effects.

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

The solution – dedicated containment and recapture.

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

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

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

Conclusion.

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Steffan Browning

021 804 223

greeny25@xtra.co.nz

Position: National Councillor

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 9693,

Marion Square,

Wellington, 6141

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

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

Submission on an organic standard in New Zealand.

18 June 2018/in Submissions

11 June 2018

Ministry for Primary Industries

PO Box 2526

Wellington 6140

Submission on MPI Discussion Paper N0: 2018/19

Background

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Paper Questions

Part 1: Introduction, purpose and context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue 1: Should a new standard be voluntary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We consider that the correct options have been identified.

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

No other positive or negative options are suggested.

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

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

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

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

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

Summary of proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 3: If needed, proposed features of empowering legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Part 4: General comments and next steps

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Name: Lucy Blackbourn

Position: Acting General Manager

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 9693

Marion Square

Wellington, 6141

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

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

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

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

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

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

19 April 2018/in Submissions

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

Introduction

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

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

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

Detailed submission

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Name: Mischa Davis

Position: Policy Advisor

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

Posts

Recommendations

Introduction: Who we are

Definitions

Submission

Summary and Overview

Specific Points

Regulation of Risk and the Precautionary Principle

Removal of Choice for Consumers

Risks for Farming, Forestry and Other Primary Production

GE is Not a Solution to Climate Change and Pollution

Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Tikanga Māori

Risk to Ecosystems, in Particular Native Ecosystems

Economic and Financial Impacts, and Opportunity Costs

Spiritual, Philosophical and Ethical Considerations

Liability

Local Democracy

GE in Health and Medicine

In summary

References

Recommendation

Soil & Health fully supports the EPA’s proposal to ban the use of chlorpyrifos by revoking its approvals.

Reasons

1. Environmental and Health Risks

2. Global Regulatory Actions

3. Incompatibility with Organic Standards

4. Advocacy for an Outright Ban

5. Support for Affected Farmers

In conclusion

References

Summary of our submission

Summary of our submission

Content

About

Privacy

Social