Tag Archive for: submission

 11 June 2018

 

Ministry for Primary Industries

PO Box 2526

Wellington 6140

 

Submission on MPI Discussion Paper N0: 2018/19

Background

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

Introduction

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

3. 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.

 

4. 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.

 

5. 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.

 

6. 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.

 

7. 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.

 

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

 

Discussion Paper Questions

 

Part 1: Introduction, purpose and context

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

2. 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.

 

3. 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.

 

4. 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.

 

5. 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

 

6. 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?

 

7. 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.

 

8. 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.

 

9. 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.

 

10. 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?

 

11. 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.

 

12. 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.

 

13. 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.

 

14. 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

 

15. 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.

 

16. 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.

 

17. 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

 

18. 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.

 

19. 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.

 

20. 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

 

21. 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.

 

22. 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

12th March 2018

New Plymouth District Council

Submission on Draft District Plan for the New Plymouth District Council

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

Yours sincerely

Name: Mischa Davis
Position: Policy Advisor

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