To: Ministry for Primary Industries
NES-PFConsultation@mpi.govt.nz
Submitter:Soil & Health Association of NZ (‘SHANZ’)
Soil & Health Association of NZ makes this submission partly in support and partly in opposition to the proposed National Environmental Standard Plantation Forestry.
Support: SHANZ supports the NES Plantation Forestry insofar as it seeks to codify activity status and conditions for physical plantation forestry activities on the basis of land and plant related classifications.
The proposed erosion susceptibility classification, wildings spread risk calculator and fish spawning indicator are useful tools capable of measurement and calculation and will provide a degree of rigour to the regulation process.
To that extent, SHANZ agrees that the NES Plantation Forestry will provide a nationwide standard basis for regulation of forestry activities to achieve the stated objectives of change of regulation.
Opposition: SHANZ strongly opposes:
a) the proposal that planting or replanting using genetically modified tree stock (GMO) be a permitted activity, or be provided for under the NES Plantation Forestry at all.
b) Limiting the pre-requisite approval for permitted activity use of a GMO to EPA approvalunder the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO).
c) The statement in 6.4 of the consultation document that GMOs are regulated by the EPA under the HSNO, without any mention of the role of territorial authorities under the Resource Management Act, 1991.
d) The absence in the consultation document of any information or discussion about the risks attendant on use of GMOs. Although the objectives of the change (see executive summary) include:-
Understanding the risk of adverse effects on the environment around the country should be informed by up-to-date science.
There is no discussion of up-to-date science with respect to GMOs to underpin the provision for use of GM tree stock as permitted activities. Given the controversial nature of this topic and potential adverse effects, this shows a lack of balanced consideration.
Soil & Health Association of NZ
Soil & Health Association of NZ is the largest membership organisation supporting sustainable, organic food and farming in New Zealand and one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. Our aim is to empower people and communities to grow, buy and support locally based sustainable, safe, GE Free and organic food in Aotearoa NZ. In this process our role is to advocate on behalf of our 3,000+ membership and the general public for safe, healthy food and environmental sustainability for today and future generations.
Reasons for Opposition to provision for GM Tree Stock
1. Genetically Modified Tree Stock Provisions.
a) Providing for the use of GM tree stock as a permitted activity with no conditions relating to assessment or management of risk leaves land owners, farmers, foresters and people using land and waterways for other activities (including recreation) at risk of adverse effects and without any say in the location or type of GM stock used. This is contrary to the scheme of the RMA. Any potential adverse effects are of particular concern to organic farmers and to foresters with sustainable certification such as the Forest Stewardship Council certification, as all the certification standards for these farmers and foresters do not allow the presence of genetically modified organisms on the land or in the primary products produced
b) Unlike most other topics covered by the consultation document, the use of genetically modified organisms is not the subject of settled science. It has been argued by proponents of GM tree stock that the risk of escape of GM material from a plantation is low. However, this is far from settled. Sterile GM trees that do not produce pollen have been in development for some years with no success to date. SHANZ considers that the risk of escape by wind- or insect-borne pollen or seed is in fact high, and pollen from forestry plantations can travel several kilometres. Potential adverse events are very significant and range from the loss of individual enterprises such as organic farms and the loss of Forest Stewardship Certification for foresters, to the loss of whole markets for districts, regions and even New Zealand. Stringent criteria apply to certification for organic producers and sustainable foresters and some important international markets also require GE-free status certification.
c) Economic analysis carried out as background to the proposed NES Plantation Forestry did not include economic impact on local and international produce markets arising from the use of GM tree stock. This means that one if not the most significant impact of the proposed NES has not been analysed and the risk of acting as proposed is unconscionably high.
d) Potential impacts range across virtually all primary production including forestry – horticulture, animal husbandry, honey production and dairy products. Much wider analysis and consultation is essential before assigning activity status to the use of GM tree stock, let alone the high risk level of permitted activity.
e) The only condition for this permitted activity is prior approval by the EPA under HSNO and this only applies to planting and replanting. The whole issue of management of slash involving GM material has not been addressed. Potential impacts of GM species on soil ecosystems, water ecosystems and indigenous species ecosystems has not been addressed.
2. Jurisdiction
a) The Ministry will be well aware of the Environment Court decision in Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council 2015NZEnvC89. That decision pointed to the different functional approach between HSNO and the RMA and the complementary roles they play.
b) SHANZ submits that making the use of GM tree stock a permitted activity under the NES Plantation Forestry flies in the face of the Environment Court decision and purports to limit the regulation of that activity to the EPA acting under HSNO alone.
c) Regional and district councils have clear duties under sections 30 and 31 for the integrated management of resources and the integrated management of the effects of the use and development of resources. Localised effects of plantation forestry such as erosion, wilding management and fish spawning areas are clearly able to be managed using national standards. However, the use of GMOs which may have region- and district-wide adverse economic, environmental and cultural effects depending on the pattern and type of resources and land-use activities in any given area, cannot be managed through a national permitted activity status. These region- and district-wide functions are very important and would not be addressed by regulation under HSNO.
d) Attention is drawn to RMA section 43A(3) which states:
If an activity has significant adverse effects on the environment, a national environmental standard must not, under sections (1)(b) and (4), –
(a) allow the activity, unless it states that a resource consent is required for the activity; or
(b) state that the activity is a permitted activity.
e) There is risk that the use of GM tree stock could have unmanageable and significant adverse effects over a wide area through, for example, seed spread and pollen blow over many kilometres. Such effects would devastate all GMO Free producers including all certified organic producers and FSC-certified foresters. SHANZ submits that this activity cannot be made a permitted activity under the NES Plantation Forestry. This activity should be a non-complying activity if it is provided for at all.
3. Assessment
SHANZ opposes the provision for the use of any GMO material under the NES Plantation Forestry. However, if it is so provided for, then comprehensive assessment criteria should also be incorporated that would include reference to the following categories of effects:
a) Risk of spread of GM material beyond the forest site
b) Economic and particularly with respect to GE Free producers, organic farmers, FSC-certified foresters and marketing;
c) Cultural
d) Social
e) Mitigation by way of bonds or other financial instruments.
4. Notification
Use of GMOs is an environmental topic with widespread implications for whole communities as well as numerous individuals dependant on maintaining GE Free markets and organic certification for their enterprises and products. Applications for the use of GM tree stock should be publically notified.
5. Relief sought
SHANZ requests the following changes to the proposed NES:
a) Remove all provision for the use of GM tree stock from the NES
Without prejudice to the above strong first preference, if provision for the use of GM tree stock tree stock is retained, then
b) Make the use of GM tree stock a non-complying activity;
c) Make jurisdiction for applications for the use of GM tree stock a regional council responsibility.
Signed this 10th day of August 2015
Marion Thomson, Co-chair
Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
Climate-friendly farming: we have the solutions
/in Farming, Media ReleasesWe have good news for John Key! At the climate talks in Paris, Prime Minister John Key said that cost-effective technologies for reducing New Zealand’s agricultural emissions were not yet available.
However, according to the Soil & Health Association, not only do we already have the technology and the know-how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, but using this technology will also have multiple other benefits for our economy, our environment, our soils and waterways, and our health.
“We already have low-emission climate-friendly farming practices – it’s called organic farming,” said Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health.
Because nearly 50% of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions come from farming, we cannot continue to ignore this. By moving towards organic and biological farming, we will reduce carbon, methane and nitrous oxide emissions.
“Soil & Health is calling on the government to reinvest the taxpayer money going to the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, and instead use it to help farmers transition to organic practices,” said Thomson.
“The $20 million Mr Key just promised to the Alliance would be infinitely more effectively invested in growing the organic farming sector. Helping farmers transition to eco-friendly, climate-friendly organic farming will be good for our health, wealth and environment. What’s not to like about that?” asked Thomson.
The organic approach ticks all the right boxes. By farming organically, farmers can reduce stock numbers and still get the same income, because global markets are crying out for clean, green, pasture-fed, GE-free and organic food, and are prepared to pay a premium for it.
Lower stock numbers mean lower greenhouse gas emissions, as well as reducing the impacts on soils and waterways, which desperately need to be cleaned up.
Mixed pasture species including those with high tannins like birdsfoot trefoil can be grown to reduce methane emissions from ruminant animals.
In addition, organic farms have better soil structures and better soil moisture-holding capacity, which will help farmers cope with the effects of climate change that we are seeing already. Organic farms are more resilient in the face of floods and droughts.
Non-organic farms generally use pesticides that are either known or suspected carcinogens, so going organic will also reduce the nation’s health bill by reducing or eliminating the use of harmful chemicals.
MEDIA CONTACT:
Marion Thomson, co-chair, Soil & Health
027 555 4014
GE animal experiments: expensive, unethical failures
/in GE, GM, Media ReleasesExperiments to genetically engineer animals in New Zealand over the past 15 years have proven to be expensive and unethical failures, says the Soil & Health Association, and must be stopped. Soil & Health commends GE Free NZ’s report ‘GE Animals in New Zealand’ for providing a clear overview of animal genetic engineering research in Aotearoa using sheep, cattle, and goats.
“The suffering that hundreds of animals have endured is totally unacceptable and goes way beyond the guidelines of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,” said Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “This report catalogues all the documented deaths, deformities, abortions, sterility and numerous other health problems that the GE research animals have been subjected to.”
“We can’t afford to waste any more taxpayer money on these unethical experiments that have failed to produce any medical benefit,” said Thomson. “Instead we need to redeploy the skills of AgResearch scientists into sustainable and ethical research, such as into organic practices, that will benefit our farming, environment and health.”
The GE animal experiments have been completely unnecessary, as they have used animals as ‘bioreactors’ to produce therapeutic substances that are already available in other forms, says Soil & Health.
One point highlighted in GE Free NZ’s report is the fact that AgResearch has refused to release photographs of the animals involved in the experiments. “If these photos were released, people could see for themselves the needless suffering experienced by these animals,” said Thomson.
Together with Soil & Health’s promotion of healthy organic food and farming, the Association supports high standards of animal welfare, based on the ‘five freedoms’ that have been adopted by many organisations around the world.
Childhood obesity plan a fat lot of good
/in Health, Media ReleasesThe government’s Childhood Obesity Plan doesn’t go nearly far enough to address the alarming increase in childhood obesity, according to the Soil & Health Association.
“There are some commendable actions in this plan, but the rise of obesity in children is serious and we need much bolder action to prevent major costs to the health system and to society,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health.
“Diet is a major part of the problem. We need nutrition education for children and adults, and need to promote healthy food choices in a variety of ways,” says Thomson.
“We would like to see more healthy food options available in schools, and the removal of junk food, including sugar-laden fizzy drinks and diet drinks – neither of these are healthy options. Instead we recommend that good quality pure water should be promoted and readily available in schools.”
“Soil & Health supports a tax on sugary drinks, echoing the World Health Organization’s Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity in their draft report,” says Thomson. “More evidence of the effectiveness of a sugar tax will become available as more countries implement such taxes.”
The government’s Childhood Obesity Plan acknowledges that ‘children’s food choices and requests are strongly influenced by advertising’, but leaves it to the Advertising Standards Authority to review their Code for Advertising to Children and the Children’s Code for Advertising Food.
“We should not be leaving this to industry. We ask the government to take strong leadership on this, andlegislate or regulate to restrict the advertising and marketing of unhealthy food to children,” says Thomson.
For nearly 75 years Soil & Health has promoted safe, natural, unprocessed organic food. Through the magazine Organic NZ the Association educates people about healthy food, healthy soil and healthy lifestyle choices.
MEDIA CONTACT
Marion Thomson,
Co-chair, Soil & Health Association of NZ
027 555 4014
References
· NZ Government’s Childhood Obesity Plan:
http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/obesity/childhood-obesity-plan
· World Health Organization Draft Final Report of the Commission on Ending Childhood Obesity:
http://www.who.int/end-childhood-obesity/commission-ending-childhood-obesity-draft-final-report-en.pdf?ua=1
Celebrating NZ’s first official GE-free food producing region
/in Food, GE, GM, Media ReleasesHastings District Council’s decision to ban GE in their district is welcome news, says the Soil & Health Association. The just-released Hastings District Plan prohibits the release and field trialling of genetically engineered organisms, creating the first official GE-free food-producing region in New Zealand, and joining a number of regions around the world.1
“With a regional economy that relies on high-quality horticulture and agriculture and New Zealand’s clean green image, this decision makes sound business sense,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health.
Retaining and strengthening the district’s valuable GE-free status is important for export and local food production. There is a strong and increasing demand for high-value, safe, GE-free food, and customers are paying a premium for it.
“The Council has acted on the wishes of 85% of the community,” says Thomson, “and the leadership shown by primary producer group Pure Hawke’s Bay has been absolutely brilliant.”
Soil & Health’s submission to the Council, in support of a GE-free district, drew attention to the 340-plus certified organic producers in the wider Hawke’s Bay. Organic producers would lose their certification if contaminated by GE organisms.
Soil & Health has made submissions to several councils around New Zealand in support of GE-free districts and regions. The Association has also invested significant amounts of money from members’ donations and participated in two landmark Environment Court cases.
One of the most significant Environment Court cases of 2015 was one in which Soil & Health and GE Free Northland led a group of section 274 (interested) parties in supporting Northland Regional Council’s precautionary wording on genetic engineering. Principal Environment Court Judge Newhook confirmed that there is jurisdiction under the RMA for regional councils to make provision for GMOs through regional policy statements and plans. [2]
This decision by the Environment Court was pivotal in the final decision made by the Hastings District Council. Soil & Health is supporting many communities around New Zealand – including Auckland Council, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Whangarei District Council, Northland Regional Council, and Far North District Council – strengthening their GE-free status via district or regional plans.
“The GE-free movement is strong and growing, and community-led, similar to the nuclear-free movement of the 80s,” says Thomson. “New Zealand’s national legislation is inadequate to properly protect communities from the potential adverse effects of GE, so communities are acting to reinforce their existing GE-free status.”
CONTACT
Marion Thomson, co-chair, Soil & Health Association of NZ
027 555 4014
References
Links accessed Sept 2015
1. https://www.hastingsdc.govt.nz/files/all/Proposed%20DP/Plan%20Text/29.1HazardousSubstancesAndGeneticallyModifiedOrganismsDistrictWideActivity.pdf
2. http://www.organicnz.org.nz/node/1020
Notes
The Soil & Health Association of NZ is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand, and one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. Our aims are to empower people and communities to grow, buy and support locally based sustainable, safe, GE-free and organic food in Aotearoa New Zealand. Soil & Health’s flagship magazine is Organic NZ, produced 6 times per year and sold nationwide.
Maize spill shows risks of GE seed escape
/in Farming, Food, GE, GM, Media ReleasesNew Zealand’s valuable GE-free status is under threat from biosecurity breaches, says the Soil & Health Association. Two spills in New Plymouth last week of maize imported from the USA show how it’s possible for genetically engineered seed to escape containment – and potentially grow.
“Well over 80% of maize grown in the US is genetically engineered, so there is a high likelihood of this seed being GE,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “MPI has claimed that the maize is not GE, but we want to see the documentation, such as certification and test results, to be assured of this.”
New Zealand imports hundreds of thousands of tonnes of seed to be milled for stock feed. Much of it, including maize/corn, soy, canola and cottonseed, comes from countries where these GE crops are widespread.
“Have there been other spills of viable GE seed that we don’t know about?” asks Thomson. “The longer we continue to import this seed, the greater the risks are from contamination, and reputation to New Zealand’s clean, green image and primary exports – including GE-free maize.”
“New Zealand needs to be more self-sufficient and grow more of our own maize,” says Thomson. “Especially in terms of pastoral and dairy farming we need to focus on healthy, biodiverse pastures and reduce our dependence on external inputs.”
Soil & Health agrees with the majority of Kiwis that New Zealand should be GE-free in our food and environment. This is part of a healthy lifestyle, environment and economy based on sustainable, organic farming and growing.
CONTACTS
Marion Thomson,
Co-chair, Soil & Health Association of NZ
027 555 4014
National Environmental Standard, Plantation Forestry
/in SubmissionsTo: Ministry for Primary Industries
NES-PFConsultation@mpi.govt.nz
Submitter:Soil & Health Association of NZ (‘SHANZ’)
Soil & Health Association of NZ makes this submission partly in support and partly in opposition to the proposed National Environmental Standard Plantation Forestry.
Support: SHANZ supports the NES Plantation Forestry insofar as it seeks to codify activity status and conditions for physical plantation forestry activities on the basis of land and plant related classifications.
The proposed erosion susceptibility classification, wildings spread risk calculator and fish spawning indicator are useful tools capable of measurement and calculation and will provide a degree of rigour to the regulation process.
To that extent, SHANZ agrees that the NES Plantation Forestry will provide a nationwide standard basis for regulation of forestry activities to achieve the stated objectives of change of regulation.
Opposition: SHANZ strongly opposes:
a) the proposal that planting or replanting using genetically modified tree stock (GMO) be a permitted activity, or be provided for under the NES Plantation Forestry at all.
b) Limiting the pre-requisite approval for permitted activity use of a GMO to EPA approvalunder the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO).
c) The statement in 6.4 of the consultation document that GMOs are regulated by the EPA under the HSNO, without any mention of the role of territorial authorities under the Resource Management Act, 1991.
d) The absence in the consultation document of any information or discussion about the risks attendant on use of GMOs. Although the objectives of the change (see executive summary) include:-
Understanding the risk of adverse effects on the environment around the country should be informed by up-to-date science.
There is no discussion of up-to-date science with respect to GMOs to underpin the provision for use of GM tree stock as permitted activities. Given the controversial nature of this topic and potential adverse effects, this shows a lack of balanced consideration.
Soil & Health Association of NZ
Soil & Health Association of NZ is the largest membership organisation supporting sustainable, organic food and farming in New Zealand and one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. Our aim is to empower people and communities to grow, buy and support locally based sustainable, safe, GE Free and organic food in Aotearoa NZ. In this process our role is to advocate on behalf of our 3,000+ membership and the general public for safe, healthy food and environmental sustainability for today and future generations.
Reasons for Opposition to provision for GM Tree Stock
1. Genetically Modified Tree Stock Provisions.
a) Providing for the use of GM tree stock as a permitted activity with no conditions relating to assessment or management of risk leaves land owners, farmers, foresters and people using land and waterways for other activities (including recreation) at risk of adverse effects and without any say in the location or type of GM stock used. This is contrary to the scheme of the RMA. Any potential adverse effects are of particular concern to organic farmers and to foresters with sustainable certification such as the Forest Stewardship Council certification, as all the certification standards for these farmers and foresters do not allow the presence of genetically modified organisms on the land or in the primary products produced
b) Unlike most other topics covered by the consultation document, the use of genetically modified organisms is not the subject of settled science. It has been argued by proponents of GM tree stock that the risk of escape of GM material from a plantation is low. However, this is far from settled. Sterile GM trees that do not produce pollen have been in development for some years with no success to date. SHANZ considers that the risk of escape by wind- or insect-borne pollen or seed is in fact high, and pollen from forestry plantations can travel several kilometres. Potential adverse events are very significant and range from the loss of individual enterprises such as organic farms and the loss of Forest Stewardship Certification for foresters, to the loss of whole markets for districts, regions and even New Zealand. Stringent criteria apply to certification for organic producers and sustainable foresters and some important international markets also require GE-free status certification.
c) Economic analysis carried out as background to the proposed NES Plantation Forestry did not include economic impact on local and international produce markets arising from the use of GM tree stock. This means that one if not the most significant impact of the proposed NES has not been analysed and the risk of acting as proposed is unconscionably high.
d) Potential impacts range across virtually all primary production including forestry – horticulture, animal husbandry, honey production and dairy products. Much wider analysis and consultation is essential before assigning activity status to the use of GM tree stock, let alone the high risk level of permitted activity.
e) The only condition for this permitted activity is prior approval by the EPA under HSNO and this only applies to planting and replanting. The whole issue of management of slash involving GM material has not been addressed. Potential impacts of GM species on soil ecosystems, water ecosystems and indigenous species ecosystems has not been addressed.
2. Jurisdiction
a) The Ministry will be well aware of the Environment Court decision in Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council 2015NZEnvC89. That decision pointed to the different functional approach between HSNO and the RMA and the complementary roles they play.
b) SHANZ submits that making the use of GM tree stock a permitted activity under the NES Plantation Forestry flies in the face of the Environment Court decision and purports to limit the regulation of that activity to the EPA acting under HSNO alone.
c) Regional and district councils have clear duties under sections 30 and 31 for the integrated management of resources and the integrated management of the effects of the use and development of resources. Localised effects of plantation forestry such as erosion, wilding management and fish spawning areas are clearly able to be managed using national standards. However, the use of GMOs which may have region- and district-wide adverse economic, environmental and cultural effects depending on the pattern and type of resources and land-use activities in any given area, cannot be managed through a national permitted activity status. These region- and district-wide functions are very important and would not be addressed by regulation under HSNO.
d) Attention is drawn to RMA section 43A(3) which states:
If an activity has significant adverse effects on the environment, a national environmental standard must not, under sections (1)(b) and (4), –
(a) allow the activity, unless it states that a resource consent is required for the activity; or
(b) state that the activity is a permitted activity.
e) There is risk that the use of GM tree stock could have unmanageable and significant adverse effects over a wide area through, for example, seed spread and pollen blow over many kilometres. Such effects would devastate all GMO Free producers including all certified organic producers and FSC-certified foresters. SHANZ submits that this activity cannot be made a permitted activity under the NES Plantation Forestry. This activity should be a non-complying activity if it is provided for at all.
3. Assessment
SHANZ opposes the provision for the use of any GMO material under the NES Plantation Forestry. However, if it is so provided for, then comprehensive assessment criteria should also be incorporated that would include reference to the following categories of effects:
a) Risk of spread of GM material beyond the forest site
b) Economic and particularly with respect to GE Free producers, organic farmers, FSC-certified foresters and marketing;
c) Cultural
d) Social
e) Mitigation by way of bonds or other financial instruments.
4. Notification
Use of GMOs is an environmental topic with widespread implications for whole communities as well as numerous individuals dependant on maintaining GE Free markets and organic certification for their enterprises and products. Applications for the use of GM tree stock should be publically notified.
5. Relief sought
SHANZ requests the following changes to the proposed NES:
a) Remove all provision for the use of GM tree stock from the NES
Without prejudice to the above strong first preference, if provision for the use of GM tree stock tree stock is retained, then
b) Make the use of GM tree stock a non-complying activity;
c) Make jurisdiction for applications for the use of GM tree stock a regional council responsibility.
Signed this 10th day of August 2015
Marion Thomson, Co-chair
Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
Conflict of interest for new EPA head
/in GE, GM, Media ReleasesThe new head of the Environmental Protection Agency has been an open advocate of genetic engineering, and therefore has a conflict of interest when it comes to looking after the environment, says the Soil & Health Association.
Dr Allan Freeth starts his role as chief executive of the EPA in September. While managing director of Wrightson Group, Dr Freeth was described as an outspoken advocate of GE, and facilitated research into GE pasture species. During his time at Wrightson’s, the company bought Genesis, which has been involved in growing GE trees with ArborGen in the USA and South America.
“We are concerned that Dr Freeth’s appointment is part of a push for genetic engineering on several fronts in New Zealand,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “The EPA is tasked with protecting the environment, and needs to apply the precautionary principle when there is any doubt – as is the case with GE. It is essential for transparent process that Dr Freeth’s views do not influence EPA decision-making.”
Dr Freeth’s appointment to the EPA comes at a time when the Ministry for Primary Industries is consulting on a National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry. If adopted with the current wording, the proposed standard would remove the right of local communities to determine whether GE trees could be released in their area – making the EPA the sole arbiter of decisions about GE trees in New Zealand.
This follows a ruling by Principal Environment Court Judge Newhook that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act for regional councils to make provision for GE organisms through regional policy statements and plans. The ruling came as a result of a court case brought by Federated Farmers.Federated Farmers, which is now headed by another GE proponent, Dr William Rolleston, is appealing the decision in the High Court.
“Millions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on GE field trials, including GE trees, with no positive results to date,” says Thomson. “Rather than go down the GE track, New Zealand has a great opportunity to maintain and strengthen our point of difference. We need to live up to our clean, green image with high-value, environmentally sustainable, GE-free organic farming and forestry. This is what markets around the world are crying out for.”
Soil & Health urges New Zealanders to have their say on the proposed forestry standard; submissions are due on 11 August.* The Association is proud that New Zealand has so far had no commercial releases of GE organisms, and that democracy and the public’s desire for a GE-free New Zealand have prevailed.
CONTACT
Marion Thomson
Co-chair, Soil & Health Association
027 555 4014
*Proposed National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry – submissions due 11 August 2015:
mpi.govt.nz/news-and-resources/consultations/proposed-national-environmental-standard-for-plantation-forestry
New wave of GE-free activism
/in GE, GM, Media Releases, Organic CommunityPressure from the biotech industry for the government to relax laws on genetic engineering will result in a new wave of GE-free activism, the Soil & Health Association predicts.
This follows comments from some GE companies, and from the Treasury Secretary Gabriel Makhlouf in a speech at Fieldays that New Zealand is missing out on opportunities.
“Kiwis have fought hard to keep our environment GE-free, but if that is threatened, we will see massive protests,” says Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “GE farming and/or forestry will jeopardise our clean, green brand.”
Relaxing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act would be absolutely detrimental to our environment, our economy and to our communities. Experiences overseas have shown that GE crops have led to the rise of herbicide-tolerant ‘superweeds’, and the use of more and stronger pesticides. GE yields are no greater. In the USA and Europe, pig farmers using GE stock feed are seeing health problems and deformities in piglets, and finding that the pigs cannot breed; instead of a fetus there is just a sac of water.
“The trouble is that genetic engineering is inherently risky. Scientists cannot control where inserted genetic material ends up in the DNA,” says Thomson. “This can lead to unexpected outcomes. For example, many people are allergic to the pine pollen that is widespread around New Zealand, but imagine if GE pine pollen turned out to be even more allergenic, or even toxic?”
“Millions of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on GE field trials, with no positive results to date,” says Thomson. “Rather than go down the GE road, New Zealand has a great opportunity to keep our point of difference. Let’s ensure that we live up to our clean, green image and shift towards high-value, environmentally sustainable, GE-free organic farming and forestry. This is what markets around the world are crying out for.”
Media contact
Marion Thomson, co-chair, Soil & Health
027 555 4014
advocacy@organicnz.org.nz
REFERENCES
http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/ – GMO Myths and Truths – an evidence-based document by two genetic engineers and a researcher
Pig farming references:
http://sustainablepulse.com/2012/04/24/pulse-news-2/
http://sustainablepulse.com/2012/07/06/agribusiness-farmer-loses-biz-gmos-promotes-organic/#.VX9FF6ats7A
Our democratic right to be GE-free
/in GE, GM, Media ReleasesMedia release from the Soil & Health Association and GE Free Northland
One of the most important Environment Court decisions this year is the finding that councils can control the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under the Resource Management Act.
New Zealand’s oldest organic organisation, the Soil & Health Association, along with GE Free Northland, supported the Whangarei District Council in a successful defence of the right of local authorities to manage the use of GMOs in their regions, after Federated Farmers sought a ruling that Northland Regional Council had acted outside the law in taking this approach.
Since comprehensively losing the appeal (which it initiated) on all points of law, Federated Farmers has now filed an appeal against the Environment Court’s decision with the High Court.
In May, Principal Environment Court Judge Newhook found that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act for regional councils to make planning decisions about the outdoor use of GMOs in their regions.
“Soil & Health was delighted to have our view confirmed by Judge Newhook,” said Marion Thomson, co-chair of Soil & Health. “We’re disappointed, however, that an organisation that supposedly represents farmers has decided to appeal the decision. Why does Federated Farmers want to deny Northlanders the right to manage what happens in their own region? Is there an application in the wings for a GE field trial or GMO release in Northland?”
“The laws around liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO are non-existent,” said Martin Robinson, spokesman for GE Free Northland. “Because of the gaps in the law a number of councils around New Zealand are moving to protect their primary producers and communities by introducing precautionary or prohibitive policies.”
“It is vitally important that there should be a much-needed layer of protection, should there be damages caused by any outdoor use of GMOs,” said Mr Robinson.
“In our view, Federated Farmers is stalling for time and wasting money, while hoping for a law change.We hope that if the government is not prepared to change the law to protect innocent victims, it will at least recognise the rights of the regions to control the outdoor use of GMOs by using the RMA to include iwi and community aspirations in their Regional Statements,” said Mr. Robinson.
The government will need the support of the Maori Party, United Future or New Zealand First to change the law. GE Free Northland says it hopes these parties recognise how much support there is from iwi and other Northlanders for their councils to control the outdoor use of GMOs using the RMA.
“It will be interesting to see whether the government is prepared to abandon their unhelpful proposal to include a new paragraph in the RMA, spelling out that central government will block the work of local authorities to create a much-needed additional tier of local protection against the risks of outdoor use of GMOs,” said Mr Robinson.
Pure Hawkes Bay commissioned a Colmar Brunton poll in 2013 in which four out of five New Zealanders thought councils should be able to keep their districts GE-free using local plans.
“Consumers around the world are crying out for organic and GE-free products,” said Marion Thomson. “It makes economic and environmental sense to pursue clean, green farming, and not dice with risky GE technology that has failed to perform, and created problems overseas.”
Media contacts:
Marion Thomson
Co-chair, Soil & Health Association
advocacy@organicnz.org.nz
027 555 4014
Martin Robinson
Spokesperson, GE Free Northland
09 407 8650
022 136 9619
Zelka Linda Grammer
Chairperson, GE Free Northland
09 432 2155
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Links accessed April 2015
Whangarei District Council page on genetic engineering:
www.wdc.govt.nz/PlansPoliciesandBylaws/Plans/Genetic-Engineering/Pages/d…
Previous Soil & Health media releases about the Environment Court case:
organicnz.org.nz/node/1020
organicnz.org.nz/node/1017
Previous GE Free Northland media release about the case:
web.gefreenorthland.org.nz/news/northland/00154-court-case-for-local-choice-about-gmos
Previous GE Free NZ media releases about the case:
press.gefree.org.nz/press/20150517.htm
press.gefree.org.nz/press/20150427.htm
GE or not GE? A victory for democracy
/in GE, GM, Media ReleasesNew Zealanders can take heart that it is now confirmed that regional councils have the right to make planning decisions about the outdoor use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in their regions. Environment Court Judge Newhook determined yesterday that there is jurisdiction under the Resource Management Act for regional councils to make provision for GMOs through regional policy statements and plans.
“We welcome this as a victory for sound resource management,” said Marion Thomson, co-chair of the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand. “The decision confirms our view that the RMA allows local bodies to manage any potential use of GMOs as part of their land use (resource management) planning function.”
The case was brought by Federated Farmers of NZ, who had lodged an appeal with the Environment Court opposing precautionary provisions for GMOs in the Proposed Northland Regional Policy Statement. Soil & Health and GE Free Northland coordinated a group of 12 other interested parties in support of Whangarei District Council and Northland Regional Council in the Environment Court last month.
As a starting point, Federated Farmers challenged whether there is jurisdiction for local authorities to make provisions for the management of the outdoor use of GMOs under the RMA. That challenge has now been rejected by the Environment Court.
“Soil & Health and GE Free Northland combined represent more than 3000 members plus consumers and producers, both organic and conventional, who want to avoid GE. Our view – and the view of a majority of Kiwis in survey after survey – is that genetic engineering is not needed or wanted in our food or environment,” said Marion Thomson. “The best path for New Zealand is to live up to our clean and green reputation by using GE-free, organic and sustainable farming methods that benefit our environment, health and economy.”
GE Free Northland spokesman, Martin Robinson, added: “Local authorities need to be able to respond to their communities’ aspirations. The laws around liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO, for example, are non-existent. There are risks to the economy, the environment, biosecurity, and cultural and social values. Therefore councils may want take a precautionary approach and impose conditions on the outdoor use of GMOs in their area. This could include, for example, identifying areas where the use of GMOs is not appropriate, or establishing policies and criteria for assessing potential impact on other resources, such as existing organic farms.”
Several councils, notably in Auckland, Northland, Bay of Plenty and Hastings, already have precautionary or prohibitive wording regarding GMOs in their plans.
In the 2013 case Scion vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council, the Environment Court (also)allowed the Council to retain reference to GMOs in its Regional Policy Statement. Soil & Health also took a lead role among a group of section 274 parties (submitters) in support of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s retention of precautionary GMO references.
This latest decision by Judge Newhook validates and strengthens that decision, and confirms that both the HSNO Act and the RMA have complementary roles to play in the management of GMOs in the environment.
CONTACTS
Marion Thomson,
Co-chair, Soil & Health Association of NZ
027 555 4014
Martin Robinson
Spokesperson, GE Free Northland
09 407 8650
022 136 9619