Organic farmer new chair of Soil & Health

/in

8 August 2017

A fourth-generation farmer has been selected as the new chair of the Soil & Health Association, following its AGM. Until 2014 Graham Clarke was a sheep and beef farmer for over 30 years in South Otago at Marama Farm, which was certified organic by BioGro for close to 10 years. “I’m passionate about sustainable food production and see organic food as being essential to getting better quality nutrition to New Zealanders,” says Graham Clarke.

Mr Clarke, who was first elected onto the National Council of Soil & Health in July 2016, brings experience and enthusiasm for organics to the council table. He has had governance experience with Federated Farmers, the Beef Council and the Animal Health Board.

“I have now chosen to serve Soil & Health in the hope that this can mean more farmers can be supported to grow great nutrition for New Zealanders, and more people can achieve good health through their food. Organics needs to go mainstream,” said Mr Clarke.

Having experienced huge health improvements himself through eating well, Mr Clarke is now a certified Integrative Nutrition health coach and helps people improve their health and their lives through what they eat and other lifestyle choices. In his spare time, he leads a team of caregivers who look after a young man with disabilities caused by a car accident, with nutrition one of the key planks in his greatly improved health.

Graham Clarke paid tribute to outgoing chair Marion Thomson: “Marion has dedicated a huge amount of energy to Soil & Health for many years, particularly championing the rights of communities to control or ban GE in their areas, via several court cases. The Association is lucky to have her stay on as a member of the National Council and continue our important work,” said Mr Clarke.

“Times are changing locally and globally and the weight of evidence concerning the challenges of many of the current farming methods and the consequences of some of them continues to grow. This is both a health and environmental concern. Soil & Health is aiming for a fully organic New Zealand to address these concerns.”

 

Contact: Graham Clarke
Chair, Soil & Health Association
027 226 3103

Health not herbicides: time to phase out glyphosate

/in , , ,

Our public agencies must protect human health and ecosystems, and use rigorous independent science rather than industry data, says the Soil & Health Association. Soil & Health welcomes the release of a paper by the Green Party that exposes many flaws in an Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) report on glyphosate-based herbicides (such as Roundup).

The EPA commissioned a report last year that found glyphosate to be safe and unlikely to be carcinogenic.   Only months before, the world-leading authority International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate was a ‘probable carcinogen’.

The paper released by the Green Party last week revealed that the EPA’s conclusion was based on flawed science and data provided by industry. The paper dispels the so-called safety claims made by the EPA and highlights the urgent need to reassess the authorisation of products like Roundup that contain glyphosate.

“Many countries have banned the use of glyphosate due to its toxicity,” says Soil & Health chair Graham Clarke, who is a fourth generation farmer. “Even exposure to very low doses, below the risk analysis guidelines, creates a very real risk to human health. This paper raises serious concerns about the adequacy and quality of the EPA’s hazardous substances assessments.”

“Roundup in particular has been a cornerstone of chemical agriculture in New Zealand for decades but as each day goes by new compelling evidence emerges showing the downside of this product,” says Clarke.

“Soil & Health congratulates organic farmers, home gardeners and others who are using safe and effective ways to grow food and to control weeds, with no need for harmful herbicides. We’d like to see more government support for research into non-chemical alternatives to glyphosate as demonstrably the high chemical input system is not serving anyone in New Zealand well except the marketers of said products.”

Glyphosate is sprayed on numerous crops, including about 80% of genetically engineered crops that are bred to be tolerant to the herbicide. It is also used in New Zealand and overseas as a pre-harvest desiccant, so crops such as wheat are uniform at harvest time, and to make crops like potatoes easier to harvest. Residues of glyphosate (or its metabolites) are likely to be in many foods that Kiwis are eating every day, with the notable exception of organic foods. Buying certified organic foods is the best consumer guarantee to avoid residues of harmful chemicals such as glyphosate. The herbicide is also widely used in home gardens and public places including roadsides, parks and playgrounds.

“By deeming glyphosate safe and allowing for its widespread sale and use in New Zealand we believe the EPA has failed in their statutory obligation to protect the health and safety of people and communities, by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances,” says Clarke.

Soil & Health believes that glyphosate should be phased out immediately.

“The use of glyphosate in public places, home gardens and for pre-harvest desiccation should cease immediately as these are the routes that expose most people to glyphosate. Other uses should be restricted and phased out as soon as possible,” says Clarke.

 

Links

Soil & Health’s policy on pesticides:

https://soilandhealth.org.nz/policies/pesticides/

Green Party paper:

https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/Published%20Paper%20-%20Why%20did%20the%20NZ%20EPA%20ignore%20the%20World%20Authority%20on%20Cancer%20-%20July%202017.pdf

IARC report:

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf

EPA report:

http://www.epa.govt.nz/Publications/EPA_glyphosate_review.pdf

Joint Submission on the A1139 Potato to Food Standards Australia New Zealand

/in

 Introduction

GE Free New Zealand in Food and Environment and the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand (“we” and “the submitters”) welcome the opportunity to comment on the application A1139 Food derived from Potato Lines F10, J3, W8, X17 & Y8 (“Application”).

GE Free New Zealand in Food and Environment (“GE Free NZ”) is an Incorporated Society.  It is a non-Governmental Organisation governed by a Board and has a nationwide membership base. It represents its members when making submissions and helps with gathering and disseminating information concerning genetically modified organisms (“GMO”) to its members and the wider public through regular newsletters and its website (www.gefree.org.nz).

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.

We recommend that FSANZ decline the Application. We submit FSANZ cannot approve the potato lines in the Application without a serious breach of its duty of care as well as the principles of its own mission statement.

We note that there are insufficient data on both the sprays and novel proteins detailed in the Application.

We note that FSANZ’s legal requirements as stated in its mission statement are:

To protect, in collaboration with others, the health and safety of people in Australia and New Zealand through the maintenance of a safe food supply.

FSANZ Values are:

  • To be impartial, open and accountable;
  • To use the best available sciences and evidence to guide decision-making; and
  • To seek, respect and be responsive to the issues raised by others.

FSANZ Responsibilities are:

  • Provide information to consumers to enable better consumer choice;
  • Undertake dietary exposure modeling and scientific risk assessments; and
  • Provide risk assessment advice on imported food.

We have read the assessments for this Application and consider that FSANZ have led stake holders and consumers astray. We outline our concerns below.

Detailed submission

It is illegal to import viable GE plants or plant parts into New Zealand. Potato plants can readily regenerate from even small parts of raw tubers, therefore making any raw imported GE potatoes equivalent to live GE plant material. This will endanger the biosecurity status of New Zealand. It would be illegal to approve the entry of these GE potatoes/potato pieces into the country.

Not labeling GE-containing foods at the point of sale is a breach of consumer rights. The lack of labeling of GE potatoes sold in any form by restaurants is deceptive, as consumers will be unaware of this.  FSANZ should support rather than oppose the enforcement and monitoring of compliance around GE food labeling.

No independent food safety experiments have been carried out on these GE potato lines. Instead FSANZ has relied on data from within the GE industry, i.e., the applicant data.  This shows that FSANZ has not been impartial, open or accountable to the public. FSANZ has not required that any independent experimental food safety assessments be undertaken on these potatoes.  It can therefore not provide advice on the safety of these imported potato lines, such advice being its core responsibility.

The executive summary of the FSANZ evaluation reads:

The changes to levels of free amino acids and reducing sugars are not nutritionally consequential as they do not affect the levels of essential amino acids or other key nutrients important to potato.

This statement assumes that any changes in the amino acids, free or otherwise, do not affect the levels of all other compounds present in the GE potatoes. The amino acid glutamine, for example,  plays an important role in maintaining a healthy immune system, digestive tract and muscle cells.  Any changes to amino acid balance may cause alterations to the assimilation of other amino acids.  Studies have shown glutamine to reduce morbidity and mortality in periods of critical illness. [1]  This demonstrates that any changes to endogenous amino acid levels should not be ignored.

Statement on Compositional analyses:

A detailed compositional analysis was performed on W8, X17, Y9, F10 and J3 to establish the nutritional adequacy of tubers produced from these lines and to characterise any unintended compositional change. Analyses were done of proximates, fibre, vitamins, minerals, total amino acids, free amino acids, sucrose, reducing sugars (fructose and glucose), and anti-nutrients (glycoalkaloids). These showed that, even with the intended changes to sucrose, reducing sugars and asparagine, the levels of all analytes fell within the natural variation found across the range of conventional potato lines used for human consumption. No conclusion could be reached in relation to line E56 as no compositional data was provided. (iii)

The changes in concentrations of glutamine and asparagine in the GE potato lines may be of some concern.  Altered levels of asparagine can result in complications in fetal development, causing brain and neurological problems.[2]

There are concerns over the meaning of “biological relevant differences” as stated in the summary document:

Analysis of the events W8, X17, and Y9 have not revealed any biologically relevant differences compared to the conventional varieties, except for the intended late blight protection, low free asparagine, low reducing sugars, and low polyphenol oxidase activity.

Assuming “biologically relevant differences” translates as food safety, there are no feeding studies to back up this statement, so such assumptions are unable to be made.

Published research on GE potatoes has shown unexpected harmful effects on animals fed with these crops.  A 1999 study (Ewen and Puzstai) conducted on rats fed with  transgenic potatoes found that abnormalities occurred in the gastrointestinal tract (small intestine and caecum) within a short time.[3] This study found that the GE potatoes caused gut abnormalities with or without (an ‘empty construct’) the lectin gene.  Lectin is a harmless insecticidal compound produced by a number of plants. The authors concluded that:

“(b)ecause caecal thickness was similar in rats given boiled parent potatoes in the presence or absence of spiked GNA (a harmless lectin from the plant species Galanthus nivalis), we suggest that the decrease in caecal mucosal thickness seen in rats fed boiled GM-potato diets was the consequence of the transfer of the GNA gene into the potato.”

These GE potatoes were not subsequently commercialised.

Similar results were obtained in feeding experiments using GE potatoes by Fares et al.[4] , who found that there were changes to the mucosal lining and other cells of the ileum of mice. They called for comprehensive feeding tests to avoid any potential risks:

“Although transgenic crop plants used in food and feed production carry different beneficial transgenes… before releasing for marketing thorough tests and all possible consequences of these new types of heredity and new genetic structures must be evaluated to avoid any potential risks”

A 2007 study showed that the consumption of GE potatoes has been observed to cause an increase in immunoglobulin (Ig) levels in human participants.[5]

This is cause for concern, as antibody levels may well have increased as a result of novel proteins present in the GE food.

These afore-mentioned studies are but three of many published studies on the harmful effects of GE foods.  Please refer to the submission of the Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR) for a more comprehensive list of publications on the harmful effects of GE crops, as observed in feeding experiments.

The obligation of FSANZ is to make themselves aware of such studies and treat all GE foods as potentially harmful.  It would be completely irresponsible to allow these potatoes onto the market. Feeding studies need to be conducted on the GE potato lines in this application before the potatoes are released. This will determine whether these lines have negative health impacts, or even life threatening responses, such as an allergic reaction.

Changes in Metabolites

Cellini et al. (2004) reported widespread changes to metabolite levels, both expected and unexpected in GE potato lines.  They recommended that data analysis tools need to be used.[6]

A study of potato metabolite production has found that field-grown vs laboratory-grown potato tubers showed a tenfold and greater differences across a range of compounds.[7] The potatoes with modified sucrose metabolism or inhibited starch synthesis revealed unexpected disaccharides (trehalose, maltose and isomaltose).[8] Such changes in metabolites cannot be overlooked, when assessing this application.

A particular cause for concern is that FSANZ has deemed the six GE potato lines  in this application as “safe”,  when there is no compositional data on one line E56.

Applicant data to APHIS[9]

We have outlined the comments from the data provided to APHIS about the potatoes.

7.3 Soft root testing with tubers

Of the events in that trial (E12, E24, F10, J3, J55, and J78), the only significant difference was that event F10 was more resistant  to this disease than the control. (APHIS p.46)

Late blight foliage testing

Considering both studies, we conclude that the events have similar susceptibility to bacterial soft rot as the controls. (APHIS, p.46)

7.4 Reducing Sugars.

Tubers of the events G11, H37, and H50 contain the same amount of reducing sugars as tubers of their untransformed (non-GE) counterparts. The inability of the silencing construct to limit glucose/fructose formation in H37 and H50 may be due to the fact that the H variety is naturally low in glucose and fructose. Thus, we concluded that silencing of the promoters associated with the PhL/R1 genes effectively lowered reducing sugars near the time of harvest in most events but these differences were not sustained throughout storage for 2-5 months”. (APHIS,p. 47)

Disease susceptibility – Appendix 8

Thus, independent lines of two chipping varieties and two French fry varieties with low Ppo expression in tubers were shown to have similar susceptibility to bacterial soft rot to the corresponding untransformed control for each variety.

Considerations

The APHIS document on the GE potatoes details some significant differences in the  compositions between the GE lines and non-GE controls.  These GE potatoes are of no nutritional benefit to consumers and could contain higher levels of anti-nutrients.

FSANZ has overlooked three fundamental issues, when allowing this application to proceed:

  1. There are currently non-GE potato varieties available that are ideal for chipping and processing .

In section 2.4.3 of the application it states that the applicant has indicated that reduced blackspot bruising of these GE potato lines can reduce wastage during storage and processing, and that the potatoes are resistant to the fungal disease known as foliar late blight.  There are already several non-GE varieties of blight-resistant potatoes (including ‘Waneta’ and  ‘Lamoka’), which have been released by plant breeders from the University of Cornell (US). These varieties are ideal for chips, because they store very well and produce a good colour when cut 9. The Cornell breeding programme develops chipping and tabletop varieties, focussing on colour, size, shape, texture and disease- and pest-resistance.

  1. New Zealand has a range of excellent climates and soils in which to grow these non-GE varieties of potatoes. This would support NZ growers and potato processing plants. Furthermore, the importation of potato products from the other side of the world, is an unnecessary source of carbon emissions that will contribute to what is already a major world problem.
  2. Acrylamide production can be reduced by the use of sensible cooking methods. There is much information available on this topic.

Conclusions

We ask that FSANZ decline approval of A1139.

  • An adequate risk assessment and evaluation of the effect/s of novel genes/proteins and subsequent changes in the A1139 potato lines has not been carried out.
  • No independent feeding test risk assessments have been undertaken or evaluated by FSANZ.
  • The Applicant information provided on safety is insufficient and lacking up to date metabolic profiling using proteomic testing for entry into the food chain.
  • The lack of information does not allow the consumer to make informed decisions and removes consumer choice
  • By not allowing for labeling of A1139, FSANZ has not provided information to consumers that will enable better consumer choice.
  • The assessment has no information about any novel protein/s, which may have been produced during the GE process.
  • There is a lack of scientific data necessary to protect and maintain a safe food supply for the health and safety of people in Australia and New Zealand.

The best available science has not been used to properly guide decision-making.

  • The reliance on applicant’s data has not shown impartiality, openness and accountability.

 

[1] Lacey, J., & Wilmore, D. (2009). Is Glutamine a Conditionally Essential Amino Acid?. Nutrition Reviews, 48(8), 297-309.

[2] Ruzzo,E., Capo-Chichi, J., Ben-Zeev., Chitayat, D., Mao, H., & Pappas,A. et al. (2013). Deficiency Asparagine Synthetase Causes Congenital Microcephaly and a Progressive Form of Encephalopathy. Neuron, 80(2), 429-441.

[3] Ewen, S., & Pusztai, A. (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet, 354(9187), 1353-1354.

[4] Fares, N., & El-Sayed, A. (1998). Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on δ-Endotoxin-Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes. Natural Toxins, 6(6), 219-233.

[5] Tacket, C. O. (2007). Plant-Based Vaccines Against Diarrheal Diseases. Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, 118, 79–87

[6] Cellini, F., Chesson, A., Colquhoun, I., Constable, A., Davies, H., & Engel, K. et al. (2004). Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. Food And Chemical Toxicology, 42(7), 1089-1125.

[7] Roessner, U., Wagner, C., Kopka, J., Tretheway, N., Willmitzer, L., 2000. Simultaneous analysis of metabolites in potato tubers by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Plant Journal 23, 131–142.

[8] Acrylamide Potential and Reduced Black Spot Bruise: Events E12 and E24 (Russet Burbank); F10 and F37 (Ranger Russet); J3, J55, and J78 (Atlantic); G11 (G); H37and H50 (H)  – 2013  https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/13_02201p.pdf

[9] www.isaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=7422

GE free

GE potatoes set to sneak into our food

/in , , , ,

The Soil & Health Association has serious concerns about another GE food line being approved in New Zealand – this time for six food lines derived from potatoes.

Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), the organisation that controls food approvals for New Zealand and Australia, is calling for submissions on an application to permit GE potatoes for human consumption. The potatoes have been genetically engineered to reduce bruising, to reduce acrylamide formed during cooking, and to protect the potatoes from a type of blight.

Soil & Health is concerned about the growing number of genetically engineered foods approved for sale in New Zealand and the long-term and cumulative health effects of consuming them. While New Zealand does not grow any GE crops or animals, there are many imported GE ingredients in food for sale here.

“Since 2000 FSANZ has approved every single application for GE food lines, and there are now a staggering 71 different GE food lines approved for sale in New Zealand,” says Soil & Health chair Marion Thomson.

“An estimated 70% or more of processed non-organic foods for sale in New Zealand contain genetically engineered ingredients, but consumers have no idea because our labelling laws mean that almost all GE ingredients don’t have to be listed on the packaging.”

“In addition to human food, New Zealand imports large quantities of animal feed that is almost certainly genetically engineered, but again, not labelled as such,” says Marion Thomson.

While a FSANZ safety assessment on the GE potato application has not identified any public health and safety issues, previous FSANZ assessments have been shown to be incomplete, with an absence of biological studies on the impacts of the foods when eaten. Further, assessments have largely been reliant on industry assurances of safety, with no independent science to back up industry assertions.

“One of the main concerns about eating GE foods is that many have been grown with dangerous levels of pesticides,” says Thomson. “Many GE crops are designed to be resistant to pesticides. These crops are designated ‘safe’ for human consumption by FSANZ and the Ministry for Primary Industries, despite not having undergone adequate safety tests independent of the companies developing them.”

The best way to avoid consuming GE foods is to grow, buy and eat certified organic food, says Soil & Health.

The GE potatoes application is open for public submission until 7 July 2017.

Nitrogen fertiliser: the elephant in the room

/in , ,

High nitrate levels recently measured in the Tasman’s Waimea Plains signal yet another alarm bell for the health of our waterways, and the urgent need to reduce or eliminate the use of soluble nitrogen fertilisers, says the Soil & Health Association.

“Fencing off waterways and riparian planting is all well and good, but it’s not enough on its own to reduce the nitrogen leaching through soils to groundwater. We need to stop the problem at its source, namely the soluble nitrogen fertilisers being used by many farmers. It’s the elephant in the room,” says Marion Thomson, chair of the Soil & Health Association.

“The introduction of a resource consent for fertiliser use is a step in the right direction, but what is ultimately required is a transition to more sustainable methods of farming and cropping that do not rely on soluble nitrogen fertiliser applications,” says Thomson.

“We applaud the Freshwater Rescue Plan launched last week, and would like to see taxpayer money diverted from the Government’s irrigation fund put towards helping farmers transition towards high-value, climate-friendly organic and sustainable farming practices.”

“Healthier fresh water is achievable by shifting to organic and biological fertilising regimes and it’s heartening to see increasing numbers of farmers adopting these sustainable practices. Organic farming methods improve the soil biology and soil structure, which means better water retention and less nutrient leaching. Organic and biological farmers also make use of natural fertilisers, instead of soluble nitrogen fertilisers that are more prone to leaching.”

The soil is not a lifeless medium to pour nutrients into, according to Soil & Health. Organic farming encourages healthy living soils teeming with a biodiversity of species that all play their part in the ecosystem and the food chain, helping to make nutrients available to plants and animals.

Demand for organic food is growing exponentially as consumers seek out produce that is residue-free, tasty, nutritious and better for the environment and waterways.

https://www.freshwaterrescueplan.org

Take off the blindfold and eat!

/in ,

Kiwis want to take off the blindfold we have when it comes to buying food. That’s the message of the Soil & Health Association, which welcomes the Consumers’ Right to Know (Labelling of Country of Origin of Food) Bill currently before a parliamentary select committee. The Bill requires all single component foods, packaged and unpackaged, to display their country of origin.

Soil & Health has been campaigning for mandatory country of origin labelling for over a decade, since the government opted out of joining Australia in mandating country of origin labelling under the Food Standards Code on the grounds it would be an impediment to trade. With the exception of wine, country of origin labelling is only voluntary in New Zealand.

“All of New Zealand’s major trading partner countries have country of origin labelling including Australia, the US, the UK, countries in Europe and many Asian countries,”  says Karen Summerhays, spokesperson for Soil & Health.

“While footwear and clothing is required to identify where it comes from, food isn’t. This bill aims to extend that requirement to fresh fruit, meat, fish and vegetables, and other single component foods such as grains, nuts, bulk flour and oil.”

“It’s becoming more common that New Zealanders are wanting to avoid genetically engineered food, food with pesticide residues, or food coming from countries with poor labour conditions, poor environmental and animal welfare standards, but cannot easily choose to avoid products from those countries when shopping here.”

“Pesticide residues in imported food and the health effects of them are an urgent consumer and health issue. Although good labelling exists in some supermarkets, voluntary labelling is often either not working or is poorly utilised, and is definitely not enforceable under the law.”

“Consumers must be able to make their own, informed food choices. Mandatory country of origin labelling is a step towards allowing consumers to do this,” says Summerhays.

There has been widespread support in New Zealand for country of origin labelling. A recent survey conducted by Consumer NZ and Horticulture NZ found that 71% of Kiwis want mandatory country of origin labelling and 65% said they looked for country of origin labelling when they were shopping.

The submission period for the Bill closes this Thursday the 18th of May at 5pm.

Soil & Health is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world and advocates for the consumer’s right to have fresh, healthy, organic food free of GE, pesticides and additives, and the right to know what is in their food and water.

Contact:  Karen Summerhays
Spokesperson, Soil & Health Association
021 043 7858

Submission on Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill

/in

Committee Secretariat

Primary Production

Parliament Buildings

Wellington

 

Introduction

  1. The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill (“Bill”).
  2. Soil & Health was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 4 December 1942. Soil & Health’s objectives broadly include soil health and the promotion of organic gardening and farming. Its membership is chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Its age and membership make it the oldest and largest representative organic organisation in New Zealand.
  3. Soil & Health believe in the right of people to be able to access safe and nutritious food, grow diverse and nutritious food, and equip themselves with the resources and knowledge needed to sustain themselves and their communities.
  4. We are committed to advocating for clear and honest food labelling in Aotearoa New Zealand. We believe that transparent food labelling is fundamental in allowing people to make informed choices. Soil & Health therefore strongly supports the changes in the bill that support country of origin food labelling in New Zealand.
  5. 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.

Detailed submission

  1. 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.
  2. 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. However the right to know exactly what we are eating is often taken away and even routinely denied to us. Many consumers assume, in the absence of country of origin labelling, that traditional foods such as meat, fruit, fish, and vegetables are produced in New Zealand. As more and more food is imported into New Zealand, accurate and consistent country of origin labelling is even more important for consumers.
  3. While growing our own food or buying local and organic food remain the best ways 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. We consider that mandatory country of origin labelling is a step towards allowing people to do this.
  4. Under the Fair Trading Act, any claims about a product’s origin must not be misleading or deceptive. If a product claims to be a “Product of New Zealand”, the essential character of the food must be created in New Zealand. The phrase “Made in New Zealand from local and/or imported ingredients” however gives no guarantees about the product’s origin. Packaged food must have contact details for distributors or manufacturers but, with the exception of wine, country of origin labelling is only voluntary in New Zealand.
  5. All of New Zealand’s major trading partner countries however have country of origin labelling including Australia, the US, the UK, countries in Europe and many Asian countries.
  6. Statistics show that the majority of New Zealand consumers want country of original labelling required by law. In the Consumer NZ and Horticulture NZ Survey conducted earlier this year:
  • 70% of the respondents want to buy fresh fruit and vegetables
  • 72% of the respondents want to know where their fresh fruit and vegetables come from.
  • 71% of the respondents want country of origin labelling required by law for fresh fruit and vegetables.
  • 65% of the respondents said they looked for country of origin labelling when they went shopping.
  • Only 9% of respondents didn’t support mandatory labelling.
  1. The survey also showed the existing voluntary approach to labelling isn’t giving consumers the facts they need to make informed choices.
  2. There are many reasons why consumers want to know which country their food comes from, and why consumers may wish to avoid consuming foods from certain countries.
  3. Some consumers simply want to support local producers and the local economy. Some are concerned about the environmental and other costs of transporting food long distances. Some are concerned about the adequacy of food safety standards in some countries we import food from. Others want to support countries with fairer working conditions. Employment conditions vary between countries and support for different countries can play into people’s food purchasing decisions.
  4. Some consumers make food purchasing decisions based on health choices. There is a growing demand world-wide for grass-fed beef due to its high omega 3 value and we know that beef products coming from the United States are likely to be from grain-fed beef, which consumers might want to avoid.
  5. Some are concerned about the use of post-harvest fumigation and other treatments such as irradiation on imported produce. It has been clearly established that irradiation does severe damage to most vitamins in food. There are also large areas of scientific uncertainty regarding chemicals that could be created by irradiation and the long term effects of these on humans. Irradiated foods however, especially from Australia, are becoming more common as other measures to prevent the risk of Queensland fruit fly coming in through fruit and vegetables have been stopped. Australian tomatoes, courgettes, capsicums, papayas, mangos, lychees, melons and more are likely to be irradiated. Consumers might therefore avoid purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables from Australia to avoid irradiation contamination.
  6. Genetically engineered (“GE”) foods are also relevant for country of origin labelling. This is because just 10 countries account for almost all (98%) of the GE hectares around the world. For example 95% of canola grown in Canada is GE. Consumers may choose not to purchase canola oil from Canada knowing that it will most likely contain GE canola. Consumers need to be able to differentiate.
  7. Some consumers are concerned about the potential residues of pesticides and other contaminants in imported foods. We know that there will be different residue contaminants from different countries. For example tinned stoned fruit from China is more likely to contain greater levels of pesticide residues than tinned stoned fruit from New Zealand. GE foods usually have high levels of pesticides in them. Some people have chemical sensitivities. Consumers need to be able to make that distinction for their health, and the health of their families and others.

Conclusion

  1. It is clear from the Consumer NZ and Horticulture NZ survey that there is widespread support across New Zealand for country of origin labelling. People simply want to know where their food is grown.
  2. Soil & Health supports the requirement that all single-origin food products, including packaged and unpackaged, display their country of origin on the label to allow people to make informed choices without being misled.
  3. Soil & Health further considers that packaged fresh ingredient mixes should also be required to be labelled, identifying the origin of the fresh fruit and vegetables in the package.
  4. Soil & Health wish to be in heard in support of our submission.

Yours sincerely

 

Name: Mischa Davis

Position: Policy Advisor

 

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 340002

Birkenhead

Auckland 0746

Phone: 06 8775534

Mobile: 0212667754

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

Clean Water Consultation 2017

/in

 

Clean Water Consultation 2017

Ministry for the Environment

PO Box 10362

Wellington 6143

 

                         Clean Water Consultation 2017

 

  • This submission is on behalf of the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”). Soil & Health was incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 on 4 December 1942. Soil & Health’s objectives broadly include soil health and the promotion of organic gardening and farming. It has approximately 3000 members, chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Its age and membership make it the oldest and largest representative organic organisation in New Zealand.
  • Soil & Health appreciates the opportunity to comment on the consultation document Clean Water Package 2017 (Consultation Document).

Overview

  • Soil & Health supports a number of underlying concepts in the Consultation Document and National Policy Statement Freshwater Management (NPSFM) and believe that they have the potential to improve the management of freshwater in New Zealand. These include proposals for “swimmable rivers”, stock exclusion, clarification of “maintain or improve”, and the use of MCI (macroinvertebrate community index), DIN and DRP.
  • However Soil & Health has concerns with how the above proposals are to be incorporated. For environmental limits-based water management to be successful central government needs to install clear, directive, policy at a national level. Further the Consultation Document does little to address the issues of stock density and the excess application of nutrients on farms which leach through soils and into waterways.
  • The government has failed to take the steps necessary to prevent the freshwater crisis effectively leaving waterways across the country in a dire state and continuing to deteriorate. This is reflected in the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (NPSFM) which sets bottom lines at levels which are toxic to aquatic life. These bottom lines have been incorporated into regional plans, leaving no prospect that water quality in rivers will ever return to ecological health.
  • Further the main factor in the deterioration of waterways is due to nitrogen and phosphate pollution from the increasing intensification of (non-organic) dairy farming, which the government continues to actively promote.
  • Various mitigating measures that the government has so far suggested, including in this Consultation Document, such as fencing off waterways, planting stream banks, and establishing initiatives like the Clean Streams Accord and Healthy Rivers, for the most part, are only bandaids that attempt to address the symptom and do little to address the actual cause of the problem – that being the excess application of nutrients and in the wrong form. An estimated 750,000 tonnes of urea was applied in 2014 the majority of which was onto dairy farms. This is a 38-fold increase from the 20,000 tonnes applied in 1983.
  • Soil & Health strongly advocates for a transition to organic farming as part of the solution to fixing polluted fresh waterways in New Zealand. Organic dairy farming involves no soluble nitrogen fertilisers, lower stock numbers, more biodiversity, and grass-fed cows with no GE feed or palm kernel supplements.

Detailed submissions

Macroinvertebrate Community Index

  • Policy CB1 requires regional councils to monitor macroinvertebrate communities. Soil & Health considers this requirement to be weak and not directive. The requirement does not  implement the Land and Water Forum’s (LWF) recommendations that (in summary):[1]
  1. Plans be required to have a trigger for action if there is a downward trend in MCI, or it is below 100.
  2. The required action is to investigate and develop an action plan to either maintain or improve MCI scores in the water body. The key points in this process are:
  3. If the natural state is below 100, then the requirement is to maintain MCI at that level.
  4. If the MCI score in a water body is below 100 for human-induced reasons, then the requirement is to develop an action plan to improve the MCI score.
  • If there is a downward trend in MCI then the requirement is to develop an action plan to reverse the trend.
  • The LWF’s recommendations are based on advice given from a panel made up of independent scientists that MCI is scientifically robust and fit for purpose.

Relief:

  • MCI and the planning system proposed above be incorporated into the NPSFM as per the LWF’s recommendations.

Dissolved inorganic nitrogen and dissolved reactive phosphorus

  • The Consultation Document incorporates the setting of maximum concentrations of DIN and DRP through a “note” attached to the ecosystem health periphyton attribute table. This requirement is not sufficiently directive, and its legality and enforceability is unclear. It does not accord with or implement the LWF’s recommendations that (in summary):[2]
  1. The NPSFM include a requirement to set instream concentrations for DIN and DRP as objectives in regional plans.
  2. The development of a mandatory decision support tool to be used by regional councils to derive and set DIN and DRP concentrations.
  3. Research and develop a multivariate “look-up” table for DIN and DRP concentrations.
  4. The NPSFM incorporate nitrogen and phosphorus standards in order to achieve ecosystem health as measured through a desired MCI.

Relief:

  • The NPSFM be amended to include setting of DIN and DRP concentrations in the NOF at ecosystem health levels.
  • That a decision-support tool as per the flow chart attached to the LWF’s letter to Ministers of 19 August 2016 be confirmed and appended to the NPSFM. The text of the NPSFM must make clear that setting of DIN and DRP concentrations is to follow that process.

Gaps

  • The NPSFM Consultation Version does not reflect the full range of attributes that need to be managed. The most important missing parameters are:
  • Excessive sediment runoff from land is seen to be one of the main causes of water quality issues in New Zealand. Sediment however is not explicitly addressed in the Consultation Document. The four modes of impact from sediment are visual clarity, light penetration, suspended sediment concentrations, and deposited sediment. These are all capable of being included as attributes in the NOF.
  • Stormwater drains from roads and other impermeable surfaces like roofs contain dissolved metal contaminants such as zinc and copper. Another more potent source is from motor vehicle tyre and brake wear on cars. These heavy metal contaminants are now commonly found in waterways, and once carried through can accumulate in muddy sediment. These are difficult to control however as local government has no control over motor vehicle brake-pads and its control over roofing and building materials is not clear due to ambiguities of overlap with the Building Act and regulations.
  • Cadmium, which is a carcinogenic heavy metal, however has accumulated in soils and steams which is the result of the heavy use of superphosphate. Cadmium is something that we therefore can control by simply using fertilisers that don’t contain cadmium. The issue with cadmium is that it doesn’t readily leave the environment and can bioaccumulate in fish, plants and animals.
  • Inadequate focus on urban water issues has been evident at all stages of the freshwater reform process. This needs to change.

Relief:

  • Include sediment attributes in the NOF or signal intention to include sediment attributes in the NOF and begin development of those and in the interim, include policy direction on sediment management.
  • Include copper, zinc and cadmium attributes in the NOF.
  • National regulation for vehicle brake-pads should be investigated and developed.
  • Control of heavy metals from building materials should be investigated and legislative amendments/guidance/regulation ensuring effective local government control for NPSFM purposes developed.

Swimming

  • Soil & Health supports the underlying concept of a time-based approach to achieving water quality suitable for “swimming”. However the detail underpinning this concept and providing the course of action for its achievement need significant work.

Terminology

  • The Consultation Document refers to improving water quality to enable “swimming”. The document refers to a target of 90% of rivers and lakes being “swimmable”[3]. This is not defined and not referred to elsewhere in the document. Instead the concept of “suitable for immersion” is applied.
  • Lack of consistency in terminology is confusing and unclear. Reference solely to “swimming” is misleading as swimming is only one of many activities involving immersion or primary contact.
  • The objective that water quality is “suitable for immersion more often” is not sufficiently directive. As defined any reduction in frequency and magnitude of coli exceedances over any time frame would qualify as achieving the NPSFM’s proposed new objectives and policies.[4]
  • Consistent and clear terminology should be used. The NPSFM should set a clear and definitive goal that water quality be suitable for primary contact recreation.

Relief:

  • Replace references to “swimming”, “swimmable, “suitable for immersion” in the Consultation Document preamble, Objective A3, Policy A5, Policy CA2(f) with “primary contact recreation”.
  • Delete definition of “suitable for immersion” and insert the LWF definition of “primary contact recreation”.

Qualifying as swimmable

  • It appears that amended Appendix 2 is inaccurate. It does not reflect the categories and attribute states and defining metrics set out by the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) on its website as being proposed to be inserted in the NPSFM. It is unfortunate that the table was not included in the Consultation Document’s NPSFM Consultation Version.
  • Those parameters should not be left to a “readers note”. The legality and enforceability of a “readers note” in national policy is unclear.

Relief:

  • That the coli attribute table in NPSFM Consultation Version be amended to incorporate in full the tables as set out on MfE’s website.

Waterbodies to which the target applies

  • The Consultation Document’s “swimming” proposals only apply to “large rivers and lakes” which is defined to capture 4th order rivers or above and lakes large than 1.5km in perimeter on average. This excludes the vast majority of waterbodies. Because the current coli attribute table is deleted in the NPSFM Consultation Version to make way for that applying to “swimming” there is no is no E.coli attribute table or bottom line applying to those other ‘smaller’ waterways. This is a serious oversight.
  • The “swimming” proposal is also inconsistent with the interconnectedness of freshwater bodies and the ocean. Failure to appropriately control contaminants in smaller streams that may themselves not necessarily be frequently used for swimming can result in significant pollution of the coastal environment into which they flow. This is a significant issue for Auckland City.
  • This interface issue with the coastal environment may result in the proposed additions to the NPS being inconsistent with the provisions of the NZCPS.

Relief:

  • That the new primary contact coli attribute table apply to all waterbodies. Primary contact recreation targets should be set for all regions.

Monitoring

  • Soil & Health supports the inclusion of monitoring requirements for coli in Policy CB1 and Appendix 5 in principle. As drafted Appendix 5 is not sufficiently clear. It fails to identify that there are 2 separate monitoring requirements:
  1. Monitoring for meeting Coli freshwater objectives in the long term.
  2. Monitoring for surveillance to inform the public on suitability for primary contact recreation at various times and locations.
  • Appendix 5’s monitoring guidelines are based on the 2003 microbiological guidelines which are outdated. Many councils’ are employing more sophisticated methods.

Relief:

  • Amendments to ensure the 2 separate monitoring requirements are clear.
  • Urgent review of the 2003 microbiological guidelines.

Overarching Goal

  • The preamble to the NPSFM Consultation Version sets an overarching goal that 90% of rivers and lakes will be swimmable by 2040 and an interim goal of 80% to be swimmable by 2030. This goal is supported in principle. However it is undermined by 2 issues:
  • The rivers and lakes to which this goal will apply have not been defined. It is not clear whether only large rivers and lakes will be relevant or a broader group.
  • The goal is not legally enforceable. It is only set out in the NPSFM Consultation Version preamble. No relevant objectives or policies are proposed. Instead it is proposed that a letter from the Minister to regional councils outlining the goal is distributed. This lacks regulatory compulsion.
  • It is not clear how this goal is intended to be worked into existing plan processes/plans recently amended to give effect to the NPSMF 2014.

Relief

  • Incorporate the goal of 90% of rivers and lakes to be suitable for primary contact recreation into the NPSFM provisions. This should apply to all rivers and lakes.
  • Provide policy direction on how this goal is to be incorporated into plans at different stages of the planning process.
  • The year by which 90% of rivers by suitable for primary contact recreation be changed to 2030.

NPSFM Consultation version text

  • Comments and relief relating to the NPSFM Consultation Version text in relation to the issues discussed above are not repeated.

Timeframes

  • Freshwater objectives need to be set, and they need to be set fast. Implementation needs to be accelerated for public confidence in the fresh water reforms to be retained. This is particularly so given the controversy subsequent to release of the Consultation Document. The timeframes in the consultation version are to drawn out to impress any urgency on regional government or land users to change. They need to be revisited.

Relief:

  • The NPSFM be amended to set minimum timeframes for when regional freshwater objectives are to be met.
  • The date of implementation of the NPSFM in Policy E1 be brought forward to 31 December 2020. Any extension should be limited to 2025.

Objectives A2 and B1 – economic wellbeing

  • The Consultation Document amends Objectives A2 and B1 to refer to providing for economic wellbeing and opportunities. It is not clear why this is necessary or why the amendment to each objective is different. If the intention is to clarify that use of water for inter alia economic purposes can only occur only within environmental limits then this should specifically addressed.
  • Of particular concern is the amendment to B1 which requires economic wellbeing to be provided for “while” meaning “at the same time as” safeguarding the life supporting capacity of freshwater. This is inconsistent with an environmental limits approach to water management based on providing for use within the capacity of the environment to sustain itself.

Relief:

  • Delete the proposed amendments to Objective A2 and B1 referring to provision for economic wellbeing.
  • If references or new provisions are to be included these must be drafted to ensure that water quality based on ecosystem and human health is the first priority. Promotion of and provision for economic opportunities must be within environmental limits.

Objective A2 – maintain or improve

  • The clarification of the “maintain or improve” requirement in Objective A2 needs further work. Soil & Health supports the requirement that water quality be maintained or improved within a FMU in principle. It allows for natural fluctuations and is consistent with the scale at which freshwater objectives are set.
  • However, the adequacy of that requirement turns on the definition of FMU. Currently that definition is extremely broad and affords regional councils’ unfettered discretion to identify FMUs at as large or small a scale as they please. Setting of large FMUs allows for gaming of the system and an ‘unders and overs’ calculation due to power imbalances. A desire to avoid these outcomes was one of the drivers behind the proposed amendments. Fish and Game submitted on this issue in 2014, and it has not been addressed.

Relief:

  • The NPSFM provide guidance on appropriate minimum scale/scale-setting process for FMUs. Consequential amendments to the FMU definition will likely be required.

Policy A3 and Appendix 3

  • Appendix 3 has not been populated. This should occur. Policy CA3 only applies to infrastructure listed in the Appendix.
  • The Consultation Document includes amendments attempting to define “benefits provided by listed infrastructure”. This singles out renewable electricity generation and then lists employment and economic wellbeing as “benefits”. This is unhelpful. First, there are many different types of hydrological modification that may qualify as significant infrastructure. It is not necessary to single out electricity generation. Second, a general statement that employment and economic wellbeing are sufficient benefits to trigger application of the exception in Policy A3 is too broad. Almost any activity will have employment and economic outcomes. A higher threshold should be applied in the context of freshwater limits. Care needs to be taken in determining criteria allowing infrastructure to qualify for an exception. In some instances poor water quality results from infrastructure that may be regionally significant but which is outdated and should be upgraded.
  • The amendment clarifying that Appendix 3 only applies to infrastructure exiting prior to the date on which the NPSFM 2014 came into effect is supported.

Relief:

  • Appendix 3 be populated. This should include the infrastructure title and its specific benefits.
  • The final paragraph to Policy CA3 be deleted.
  • Appendix 3 include specific, detailed criteria that must be considered when determining whether an Appendix 3 exception is appropriate.

STOCK EXCLUSION

  • The stock exclusion proposals are broadly acceptable. Two crucial elements are missing:
  1. A workable scheme for deciding what slope class a parcel of land falls within. Such a scheme exists within the new NES on Plantation Forestry, and it could be used in this case.
  2. Integrating stock exclusion fencing requirements with riparian management. This is a significant omission, ignores recommendation 31 of the LWF’s 4th Report, and is not consistent with integrated and strategic resource management. Stock exclusion and riparian setbacks are intimately linked. Although exclusion prevents stock from entering waterways it does not prevent overland or subsurface flow of nutrients. Setbacks, in particular vegetated setbacks, act as a filter. They preserve and enhance natural riparian habitats and prevent erosion. Without a complementary setback requirement, any stock exclusion regulation risks placing a significant cost on land owners for insignificant environmental outcomes. Setbacks and riparian management are heavily influenced by context and depend on factors such as terrain, soil, and flow patterns.

Relief:

  • The Consultation Document’s stock exclusion proposal and any subsequent regulation(s) include a scheme for consistent slope class assessment and a requirement that fencing erected to exclude stock be placed at an appropriate distance from the waterbody, with appropriateness being determined by reference to a nationally applicable assessment tool as outlined above.

Measures not addressed in the Consultation Document

  • Soil & Health strongly believes that limits on stock numbers need to be set, and strictly enforced. The Consultation Document makes no mention at all on limiting stock numbers on farms. A large factor in nitrogen pollution in waterways is cow urine diffusing through soils and pasture root zones. A landmark report released by the Ministry of the Environment on the 27th of April highlighted that there has been a 69 percent increase in dairy cattle numbers between 1994 and 2015.[5] The report found that freshwater biodiversity was declining and 72 percent of native fish were threatened or at risk of extinction.  The fact remains that even if farmers adopt mitigation techniques like riparian planting, stock exclusion from waterways, water quality will keep declining if we continue to expand dairying in this way.

 

  • Further, with this expansion of dairying there has been an overreliance on nitrogen fertizliers to get pastures to grow. There are however many efficient and cost effective ways of applying nitrogen that ensure pasture gets all the nitrogen required to grow and at a significantly lower environmental cost. These include:
  1. Converting the nitrogen into effluent ponds that are less leachable, organically bound forms, and applying the effluent to folia as opposed to discharging to waterways.
  2. Increasing clover cover and promoting nitrogen fixing pasture species, effectively increasing the health of the soil, the structure of soil and its moisture holding capacity.
  3. Promoting the drawdown of the 78 percent free nitrogen in the atmosphere by promoting the free-living and associative nitrogen-fixing bacteria and archaea in soils.

 

  • The above are productive, smart management practices that would allow for significant cost savings for farmers and would reduce nitrogen leaching through soils and into waterways. Putting in place these measures, as regulatory requirements, would effectively address the cause of the problem and in doing so work to reverse the damage already caused to waterways.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Name: Mischa Davis

Position: Policy advisor

 

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 340002

Birkenhead

Auckland 0746

Phone: 021 266 7754

Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz

Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

 

[1] LWF letter to Ministers 19 August 2016.

[2] LWF letter to Ministers 19 August 2016.

[3] NPSFM Consultation Version pg 5 preamble.

[4] NPSFM Consultation Version 1 pg 10 interpretation, pg 23 Objective A3, pg 14 Policy A5.

[5] Ministry for the Environment & Stats NZ (2017). New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series: Our fresh water 2017. Retrieved from www.mfe.govt.nz and www.stats.govt.nz.

 

Photo credit: Mischa Davis

Food Sovereignty policy

GE-Free Zones partially protected in RMA amendments

/in ,

5th April 2017

The Soil & Health Association welcomes a change to the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill regarding genetic engineering, but says it still does not go far enough.

Yesterday the controversial RLA Bill passed the committee stage, meaning that amendments can no longer be made to the Bill. The Bill is now expected to have its third and final reading on Thursday.

However the controversial section 360D – known as ‘the dictator’ clause – has not been removed from the final version of the RLA Bill. This clause allows the Minister for the Environment to bypass parliament and make fundamental changes to the law if he deems council plans duplicate or deal with the same subject matter as central Government laws. Instead section 360D now contains an exemption that prevents the minister from imposing GM crops on regions that want their territorites to remain GM Free.

“We are pleased that the Maori Party has stood strong on their promises not to support the changes that would have allowed the Minister to strike out GE-free zones. We commend the Maori Party for this,” says Soil & Health chair Marion Thomson.

While section 360D is still in the final version of the Bill, the exemption means that the Minister cannot strike out GE-free zones.

“The word ‘crop’ has a wide definition and we understand that the Maori Party secured the amendment on the basis that the term also covers grasses and forestry, while the term ‘growing’ could also cover field trials and releases,” says Thomson.

Of concern for Soil & Health however is that the exemption does not apply to animals, meaning the Minister could override local authorities on any decisions about GE animals if he chose to.

“We have been kept on the edge of our seats through this long process and have had to keep faith in the Maori Party that they would do the right thing and not support the amendments that would abolish GM-free zones,” says Thomson.

“Ultimately we are happy with this result, while animals are not covered, GM grasses, forestry, field trials and releases are.”

 

Contact:  Karen Summerhays
Spokesperson, Soil & Health Association
021 043 7858

GE-FREE ZONES UNDER THREAT FROM RMA AMENDMENT

/in

The Government seems hell-bent on denying the rights of communities to have GE-free zones, which are under threat from a ‘dictator clause’, says the Soil & Health Association.

“We are continuing to stand by all the communities around New Zealand who, quite rightly, want to have control over what happens with GMOs in their regions,” said Marion Thomson, chair of Soil & Health.

Yesterday Parliament heard the second reading of the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill, which contains proposals that would allow Minister for the Environment Nick Smith to strip councils of their ability to create GE-Free food producing zones.

The Local Government and Environment Select Committee report on the Bill was released last week with the controversial section 360D still in the Bill.

Section 360D – known as ‘the dictator’ or ‘Henry VIII’ clause – would allow the Minister to bypass parliament and make fundamental changes to the law if he deems council plans duplicate or deal with the same subject matter as central Government laws.

Of further concern to the Soil & Health Association is the introduction of a new section – 43A(3A) – that would give the Minister another avenue to strike out local GE-free zones.

This new amendment was introduced at the select committee stage, meaning it wasn’t made available for public consultation.

“This latest move runs firmly against principles of natural justice and the democratic right of the public to have their say on matters that affect them,” said Marion Thomson.

The environment minister is looking to the Maori Party for the votes needed to get these anti-democratic provisions through.

However, during the reading yesterday Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox declared that they support achieving a GE Free New Zealand and that this has always been their policy.

In a letter to the Minister in December last year the Maori Party stated that it does not support changes to the RMA “if they extend to allowing the Minister to overrule a provision in a plan, for example, to have a GMO Free Zone.”

The Far North and Whangarei District Councils as well as Auckland Council have all prohibited the outdoor release of GMOs via their local plans, creating a GE-Free northern peninsula from the Bombay Hills to Cape Reinga.

“These council decisions have been driven by local communities and the mana whenua and iwi authorities in the regions. The Maori Party has made firm promises to stand by communities that want their territories to be GMO Free. We are confident that they will not go back on their word and that they will vote against the 360D and 43A clauses,” says Thomson.

Note to editors:
Nick Smith’s view that the EPA, not local councils, can control the release of GMOs has been found wrong by both the Environment Court and the High Court which have ruled that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act for local councils to control the outdoor use of GMOs via regional policy instruments. The EPA approves, approves with controls, or turns down applications for genetically engineered organisms under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Councils can control, restrict or ban GMOs within their territories, under the RMA.

Contact:  Marion Thomson
Chair, Soil & Health Association
027 555 4014

Photo credit: Nick Holmes