The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc (Soil & Health) is 70 years old, and is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand, and as such advocates for healthy and safe food and environmental sustainability.
Soil & Health has a membership of about 3000 members and a readership of its retail magazine publication Organic NZ of many thousands.
The Soil & Health Association has many members in EBOP’s rohe which share concern over poor environmental outcomes of many land and water use activities. Genetic engineering (GE) within the region has no real controls besides those of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and that agency has glossed over the risks. An holistic approach to land and water use is required if land is to retain its productive capacity, and fresh water and marine habitats are to be restored. Air quality objectives must take special account of methyl bromide use and other pesticide use in the region.
Soil & Health in its submission will refer to a few points but wishes to speak at the EBOP-PRPS hearings.
Part One 1.5.1 NPS and NES must always be seen as the lowest common denominator and EBOP must be bold and not allow the national statements and standards to be seen at an aspirational level. They should be the base or beginning of direction. Eg the NES-Plantation Forestry under development is an enabling document designed to smooth the way for forestry development, but would it stop the high sedimentation levels created by existing forestry practices in the region. NO!
This NES is looking to be a rather enabling approach to future plantation forestry especially in light of the ETS, but the environment and forestry needs to be looked at beyond issues of carbon and forestry interests. There a many alternatives to the current pine/conifer/eucalypt plantation models that are far more sustainable, and even in the current dominant plantation models, much more care could be taken through the NES to ensure significant improvements on current practice. There are very serious issues of sedimentation from current forestry roading and harvesting practices, and a number of marine and fresh water effects are covered in the Ministry of Fisheries report in the link here; http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=113&dk=22003
EBOP should look to the National documents not as a form of consistency, but as the starting point for objectives that will lift the regions practices into world leader class.
1.7 Precautionary Approach
Soil & Health (S&H) commends EBOP for its precautionary approach statement, especially its extension into issues surrounding genetic engineering (GE). S&H has monitored over the last few years most of NZ’s GE field trials and discovered and reported on significant compliance breaches. EBOP has at least two sites of active GE work. Scion’s Rotorua facility and ArborGen’s site near Whakatane. All GE sites need to be logged as contaminated sites, as touted research, eg on horizontal gene transfer and invertebrates at the field trial sites, has been woefully inadequate and has yet to be published credibly.
Experimenters and regulators have been duplicitous in their portrayal of safety of GE projects, and Scion’s most recent GE approval for thousands of GE pines has large scope for human error that will mean leakage of GE pollen. Developing a Plan that has strong precaution around GE, nanotechnology and other yet to be actualised technologies, or activities is critical. How little was known about GE at the last RPS formation and still is, except for the contamination events worldwide, loss of biodiversity, the stock poisonings, and now in animal feeding studies, the effects on endocrine – reproductive functions. Nanotechnology has also been developed significantly since the last RPS & Plan formation, and emerging information shows some real and possible hazards, such as some nano-materials(nanotechnology) having the same effects as asbestos. The RPS must anticipate emerging technologies such as bioengineering that require the most extreme precaution.
Liability and compensation is poorly provided for by government and until meaningful liability provisions are in place, no GE trials, plantings or animals should be permitted. Co-existence between GE primary production and non-GE production is somehow anticipated by pro-GE groups, however internationally that has proved impossible unless some degree of contamination is accepted by the non-GE producers. This is not acceptable and NZ has a zero tolerance on unintended contamination currently and organic certification systems and many export markets share that position, especially at a consumer level. EBOP must allow for the clean green 100% Pure New Zealand branding to remain as an achievable vision, with GE contamination unacceptable on non-GE producers and the environment.
Nanotechnology needs to be considered in a whole of life way to anticipate some risks, and again liability or the lack of systems to properly assess or apportion liability must be considered.
S&H would like to present its experience and knowledge to appropriate EBOP councillors and staff on the GE activity in the BOP region and the associated risks.
1.8 Integrating management of natural and physical resources
Soil & Health supports the whole of catchment approach. However, this needs stronger direction deeper in the RPS to ensure the approach is always used, from how soil is managed at the finest levels of biological activity possible, through to land disturbance and waterways management and extraction, and the human overlay. Soils need development, protection, and restoration to optimum biological states to provide the climate resilience and life supporting capacity that also reduces the need for toxic interventions. Best practice soil management provides significant buffers against flooding damage and conversely the effects of drought.
2.10.2 Soil health and productivity, goes someway to understanding some of what is involved but avoids discussion of the increased use of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides that degrade biological activity. Active promotion of Organic, Biodynamic and Biological farming systems that have been shown to have more climate resilience and incur significantly less externalities needs to be repeated through the RPS’s structure.
A search found the word organic just once and that was “municipal organic waste.” The PRPS appears to be working in another past era in this respect. Organic production methods are recognised by FAO and other key international organisations to be the most resilient for the environment and food supply, even in key areas of concern such as Africa. That recognition need to be part of the RPS as climate change and peak oil threaten negative effects within the life of the RPS and subsequent plans.
Policy WL 9B: Managing rural development and protecting versatile land
This policy appears to totally fail recognition of the difference between different farming management systems, and in respect of Rotorua Lakes and nutrient inputs, suggests that Rural Subdivision may be preferable to pastoral farming. Soil & Health recognises that some small block development can in fact be preferable productively, both economically and environmentally, to larger pastoral units, however some organic and biological farming units have nutrient discharge levels that will be well within EBOP’s targets. A case of maybe not throwing the baby out with the bath water.
EBOP could look at some of the outcomes from the ARGOS project where comparatives of energy use, economics, nutrient discharge and social outcomes between ‘conventional’ and organic and biodynamic primary production are explored.
An example of how the RPS requires more strength is in
3.2.1 Directive methods
“Method 27: Provide information about sustainable land management practices
Prepare and disseminate information about sustainable land management practices, including:…”
The educative approach is not strong or urgent enough. Wording should follow that LTA’s will ensure the outcomes recognised by EBOP as desirable.
Soil & Health supports Method 35: “Take a whole of catchment approach to the management of natural and physical resources within the coastal environment, Adopt a holistic catchment-based approach that recognises the inter-relationships among all elements of the environment …”
As part of a whole of catchment approach EBOP should include pesticide reduction as a desirable outcome, with objectives, policies and directions that ensure recognition of the human and environmental health externalities and the need for either a polluter pays approach where possible or development of a meaningful strategy to reduce pesticide use. ERMA does not, and the new EPA is unlikely to, set adequate controls for human and environmental safety but is strongly affected by the balancing it does with political direction and the market economy.
Not only toxins, as in pesticides including herbicides used directly in primary production, but release to air of fumigants such as methyl bromide, as is used extensively in the BOP must be actively and quickly reduced or recaptured. ERMA has set a decade before recapture of methyl bromide is mandatory, however very clearly allowed for stricter controls to be set by LTAs. The EBOP-PRPS must actively recognise that and set the parameters for definitive action for reduction, reuse and recovery of toxins, especially reduction.
In regards methyl bromide;
New Zealand has an obligation under the Montreal Protocol to: refrain from use of methyl bromide and to use non-ozone-depleting technologies wherever possible. Where methyl bromide is used, Parties are urged to minimise emissions and use of methyl bromide through containment and recovery and recycling methodologies to the extent possible;
And from the ERMA decision following reassessment of methyl bromide
The Committee (ERMA) notes the concerns of Nelson City Council which suggested that the minimum buffer zones proposed in the reassessment application may conflict with local requirements under the RMA. It is very important to emphasise that these minimum buffer zones do not preclude regional councils, unitary authorities or port authorities from setting more stringent controls (e.g. larger buffer zones) if they deem them necessary because of local conditions. The Committee notes that section 142(3) of the Act specifically envisages situations where a local authority may choose to impose more stringent requirements on the use of a hazardous substance than that required under the Act.
Port Tauranga and the related LTAs should be installing recapture of methyl bromide immediately due to worker and community exposure health risks and the effects on the global community. The PRPS should set the scene for this and reduction of other pesticides.
Soil & Health appreciates the opportunity to submit to the development of the Regional Policy Statement and wishes to be heard to present further.
Section 274 interested party in support of Bay of Plenty Regional Council along with GE Free Northland, Zelka Grammar and Anna Murphy, GE Free NZ, Claire Bleakley, John Sanderson, Karen Summerhays
NZ Forest Research Institute Limited (Scion) v Bay of Plenty Regional Council
Appeals against decisions on the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement (excluding Coastal Environments & Water Quality & Land-use sections)
Relief sought by NZ Forest Research Institute Limited (Scion) via Appeal
Deletion of the following statement from section 1.7 of the proposed Regional Policy statement
a) The existence of genetically modified organisms in the environment has generated community concern. Of particular concern is the placement and location of trial and containment facilities. The Bay of Plenty Council promotes a precautionary approach to the release, control and use of genetically modified organisms within the region. The precautionary approach is a necessary response to unresolved issues of potential liability, environmental risks, economic costs and cultural and social effects. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms act 1996 contains specific legislation for managing genetically modified organisms. These legislative functions are carried out by the Environmental Protection Authority. Current legislation may be inadequate to manage potential adverse effects from the use of genetically modified organisms in the region.
b) Such further orders, relief, consequential amendments or other amendments as are considered appropriate and necessary to address the concerns set out above and;
c) Costs of and incidental to this appeal.
Soil & Health stands by it’s original submission 146-2, accepted by BOP Regional Council, requiring a precautionary approach with regards to genetic engineering.
Visiting Professor on GE sales mission misrepresents reality
/in Farming, GE, Media Releases, Organic CommunityAgmardt and Pastoral Genomics Attacking Organics
Visiting Professor on GE sales mission misrepresents reality.
New Zealand biotech interests are attempting to attack New Zealand’s organic sector by funding University of California, Davis, Professor Pamela Ronald on a duplicitous public relations tour, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.
Professor Ronald, has co-authored with her husband, a book that suggests that genetic engineering (GE) and organic production can co-exist, has been brought to New Zealand by Agricultural and Marketing Research and Development Trust (Agmardt) and Pastoral Genomics who are increasingly dominated by pro- GE interests.
“Pamela Ronald’s presentation at the Royal Society today misrepresented both the reality of GE and organics in the world and avoided the dangers of GE to New Zealand’s primary production and tourism branding and markets”, said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Suggesting that GE crops could be sustainable and fit within or alongside organic management systems is the ultimate untruth, yet that was Ronald’s key message.”
“Ronald’s suggestion that GE was needed to feed the world, flies in the face of the many reports showing the organic and biological GE free systems have significantly superior results exactly where the food is needed.”
“It is clear that the vested interests of the biotech and seed industries lodged in Agmardt and Pastoral Genomics do not mind misleading politicians, farmers and the New Zealand public to further their own interests.”
“Ronald has been discredited by the international organic community and fellow University of California academics, yet Agmardt and Pastoral Genomics have paid her to come to New Zealand.”
“Organic consumers worldwide want 100% GE free food regardless the acceptance of contamination by some governments overwhelmed by GE contamination.”
“Organic certification standards such as those of New Zealand’s BioGro have zero tolerance to GE seed, inputs or contamination and that is what consumers want.”
“New Zealand is well suited to maintain its GE free reputation in both organic and conventional exports as demand for GE free food is increasing internationally as the unsustainability of GE production and evidence of health risks from consumption of GE foods grows,” said Mr Browning.
“At yesterday’s Royal Society presentation, organic consumers, producers and certifiers were amazed at Ronald’s intentional mixing of the terminology of conventional breeding techniques and GE techniques to suggest they were essentially the same. Ronald also misrepresented the statistics in pesticide use in GE cropping internationally, focusing on just one insecticide equivalent.”
“Massive pesticide use is associated with GE production and infiltrating organics with GE plants, is neither needed nor wanted.”
“Ronald’s presentation totally avoided the significant failures of GE crops in many parts of the world, the collapse of rural communities, and emerging evidence of risks to health following independent animal feeding studies with GE foods.”
Ronald’s visit continues the pressure from the biotech industry and United States trade interests for New Zealand to relinquish its market advantage of being 100% free of GE crops, in a world increasingly contaminated by GE material.”
“United States seed interests dominate world production of genetic engineering and it is the seed that Ronald is so focused on getting into organics, “It is just a seed,” she disingenuously insisted.”
Ronald’s GE sales pitch follows a US Department of Agriculture international biotech policy specialist Terri Dunahay being hosted in the New Zealand’s science policy ministry (MoRST) and environmental regulator (ERMA), culminating in a 2010 report suggesting that resistance to GE contamination by the organic sector was a major impediment to GE forage plants being introduced into New Zealand pastures.
US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s Science & Technology advisor Nina Federoff visited early in 2010 hosted by MoRST with a similar misinformation pitch as Ronald’s, through Science Media, Listener magazine and key radio interviews. Wikileaks has shown the United States embassy here to be maintaining pressure on New Zealand to relax its regulations on GE.
Big US GE forestry and pharmaceutical interests are involved with GE field tests by AgResearch and the Forest Research Institute (Scion) and US GE seed interests currently have no market in New Zealand.
“Ronald is just the next misleading US sales rep attempting to infiltrate our clean green nuclear free, GE free, 100% Pure NZ reputation,” said Mr Browning.
“Considering the growth in demand for organic and genuinely sustainable, animal friendly and residue free foods that fit with New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure market image, why would we do anything else?”
Soil & Health – Organic NZ and the New Zealand organic sector remains resolute in its opposition to genetic engineering in food and the environment.
AgResearch must stop its GE projects
/in Farming, GE, Media ReleasesAgResearch’s decision to stop cloning animals at its genetic engineering (GE) facility due to animal welfare concerns, should also mean an end to its cruel stem cell method of raising GE animals, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.
“Supporting the call yesterday by the Green Party for a Parliamentary Inquiry into the ethics and animal welfare issues at AgResearch’s facilities,” Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning asked, “Do AgResearch and government policy and trade boffins think that stem cell derived GE animals will be any more acceptable to consumers in New Zealand or globally?”
“AgResearch’s own acknowledgement that the stem cell cloning replacement method was going to cause similar losses, should be the death knell on the bizarre experiments at AgResearch’s GE facilities.”
“The cloning technology was cruel and had a track record of very few live births, with resultant offspring prone to a variety of disabilities including arthritis, respiratory distress, deformities and ruptured ovaries, and now AgResearch still isn’t guaranteeing any improvement.”
Just a month before AgResearch stopped its 13 years of cloning experimentation, in September 2010, Soil & Health – Organic NZ had called for a stop to the cloning.
Soil & Health also wanted the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) to clarify the position New Zealand had been promoting internationally against labeling food from cloned animals, and for Fonterra to state unequivocally its opposition to cloning and genetic engineering of animals and pasture.
Following leakage of beef and possibly milk from cloned animals getting into the British food chain, the EU Parliament had last year called for new EU legislation to be developed to expressly prohibit foods from cloned animals and their descendents, with a moratorium on their sale in the meantime.
However NZFSA, representing New Zealand at Codex alimentarius meetings where international food standards and labeling rules are set, has been opposing labeling of food from cloned animals.
“In supporting AgResearch’s cruel genetically engineered (GE) animal cloning at Ruakura, and the international sales of the GE technology or its products, NZFSA has been taking a position that is contrary to New Zealanders and consumers world-wide,” said Mr Browning
“AgResearch was involved with the failed PPL Therapeutics’ farming at Whakamaru of thousands of cloned GE ‘Dolly’ type sheep which suffered respiratory and other defects, ahead of the company’s failure and the sheeps’ destruction in 2003. AgResearch continued the same misery at Ruakura with GE cows, and more recently GE goats and GE sheep had been approved by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).”
AgResearch’s applied technologies group manager, Dr Jimmy Suttie, was quoted in May as saying he did not see the deaths as a “big deal”, and they were part of the learning process for scientists. In 2007, following a highly contentious USDA report on the safety of food from cloned animals, Dr Suttie said there was nothing to stop cloned animals entering the food chain, but it was not happening because of international consumer preference.
“That same international consumer preference prevails and all of Dr Suttie’s cruel experiments need to stop before New Zealand is recognised as the centre of bizarre GE animal experiments,” said Mr Browning.
“New Zealand has just two GE field trial experimental facilities operating, the one cruel GE animal one and one for risky GE pine trees at Rotorua. Now is the time to say no to all GE experiments in Aotearoa New Zealand’s environment and rebuild our clean green 100% Pure brand.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 where new technologies do not compromise genuine environmental sustainability but support biological and organic management systems that are animal friendly and do not use synthetic additives.
Environment Bay of Plenty Proposed Regional Policy Statement
/in SubmissionsThe Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc (Soil & Health) is 70 years old, and is the largest membership organisation supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand, and as such advocates for healthy and safe food and environmental sustainability.
Soil & Health has a membership of about 3000 members and a readership of its retail magazine publication Organic NZ of many thousands.
The Soil & Health Association has many members in EBOP’s rohe which share concern over poor environmental outcomes of many land and water use activities. Genetic engineering (GE) within the region has no real controls besides those of the Environmental Risk Management Authority, and that agency has glossed over the risks. An holistic approach to land and water use is required if land is to retain its productive capacity, and fresh water and marine habitats are to be restored. Air quality objectives must take special account of methyl bromide use and other pesticide use in the region.
Soil & Health in its submission will refer to a few points but wishes to speak at the EBOP-PRPS hearings.
Part One 1.5.1 NPS and NES must always be seen as the lowest common denominator and EBOP must be bold and not allow the national statements and standards to be seen at an aspirational level. They should be the base or beginning of direction. Eg the NES-Plantation Forestry under development is an enabling document designed to smooth the way for forestry development, but would it stop the high sedimentation levels created by existing forestry practices in the region. NO!
This NES is looking to be a rather enabling approach to future plantation forestry especially in light of the ETS, but the environment and forestry needs to be looked at beyond issues of carbon and forestry interests. There a many alternatives to the current pine/conifer/eucalypt plantation models that are far more sustainable, and even in the current dominant plantation models, much more care could be taken through the NES to ensure significant improvements on current practice. There are very serious issues of sedimentation from current forestry roading and harvesting practices, and a number of marine and fresh water effects are covered in the Ministry of Fisheries report in the link here; http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=113&dk=22003
EBOP should look to the National documents not as a form of consistency, but as the starting point for objectives that will lift the regions practices into world leader class.
1.7 Precautionary Approach
Soil & Health (S&H) commends EBOP for its precautionary approach statement, especially its extension into issues surrounding genetic engineering (GE). S&H has monitored over the last few years most of NZ’s GE field trials and discovered and reported on significant compliance breaches. EBOP has at least two sites of active GE work. Scion’s Rotorua facility and ArborGen’s site near Whakatane. All GE sites need to be logged as contaminated sites, as touted research, eg on horizontal gene transfer and invertebrates at the field trial sites, has been woefully inadequate and has yet to be published credibly.
Experimenters and regulators have been duplicitous in their portrayal of safety of GE projects, and Scion’s most recent GE approval for thousands of GE pines has large scope for human error that will mean leakage of GE pollen. Developing a Plan that has strong precaution around GE, nanotechnology and other yet to be actualised technologies, or activities is critical. How little was known about GE at the last RPS formation and still is, except for the contamination events worldwide, loss of biodiversity, the stock poisonings, and now in animal feeding studies, the effects on endocrine – reproductive functions. Nanotechnology has also been developed significantly since the last RPS & Plan formation, and emerging information shows some real and possible hazards, such as some nano-materials(nanotechnology) having the same effects as asbestos. The RPS must anticipate emerging technologies such as bioengineering that require the most extreme precaution.
Liability and compensation is poorly provided for by government and until meaningful liability provisions are in place, no GE trials, plantings or animals should be permitted. Co-existence between GE primary production and non-GE production is somehow anticipated by pro-GE groups, however internationally that has proved impossible unless some degree of contamination is accepted by the non-GE producers. This is not acceptable and NZ has a zero tolerance on unintended contamination currently and organic certification systems and many export markets share that position, especially at a consumer level. EBOP must allow for the clean green 100% Pure New Zealand branding to remain as an achievable vision, with GE contamination unacceptable on non-GE producers and the environment.
Nanotechnology needs to be considered in a whole of life way to anticipate some risks, and again liability or the lack of systems to properly assess or apportion liability must be considered.
S&H would like to present its experience and knowledge to appropriate EBOP councillors and staff on the GE activity in the BOP region and the associated risks.
1.8 Integrating management of natural and physical resources
Soil & Health supports the whole of catchment approach. However, this needs stronger direction deeper in the RPS to ensure the approach is always used, from how soil is managed at the finest levels of biological activity possible, through to land disturbance and waterways management and extraction, and the human overlay. Soils need development, protection, and restoration to optimum biological states to provide the climate resilience and life supporting capacity that also reduces the need for toxic interventions. Best practice soil management provides significant buffers against flooding damage and conversely the effects of drought.
2.10.2 Soil health and productivity, goes someway to understanding some of what is involved but avoids discussion of the increased use of synthetic fertilizers and herbicides that degrade biological activity. Active promotion of Organic, Biodynamic and Biological farming systems that have been shown to have more climate resilience and incur significantly less externalities needs to be repeated through the RPS’s structure.
A search found the word organic just once and that was “municipal organic waste.” The PRPS appears to be working in another past era in this respect. Organic production methods are recognised by FAO and other key international organisations to be the most resilient for the environment and food supply, even in key areas of concern such as Africa. That recognition need to be part of the RPS as climate change and peak oil threaten negative effects within the life of the RPS and subsequent plans.
Policy WL 9B: Managing rural development and protecting versatile land
This policy appears to totally fail recognition of the difference between different farming management systems, and in respect of Rotorua Lakes and nutrient inputs, suggests that Rural Subdivision may be preferable to pastoral farming. Soil & Health recognises that some small block development can in fact be preferable productively, both economically and environmentally, to larger pastoral units, however some organic and biological farming units have nutrient discharge levels that will be well within EBOP’s targets. A case of maybe not throwing the baby out with the bath water.
EBOP could look at some of the outcomes from the ARGOS project where comparatives of energy use, economics, nutrient discharge and social outcomes between ‘conventional’ and organic and biodynamic primary production are explored.
An example of how the RPS requires more strength is in
3.2.1 Directive methods
“Method 27: Provide information about sustainable land management practices
Prepare and disseminate information about sustainable land management practices, including:…”
The educative approach is not strong or urgent enough. Wording should follow that LTA’s will ensure the outcomes recognised by EBOP as desirable.
Soil & Health supports Method 35: “Take a whole of catchment approach to the management of natural and physical resources within the coastal environment, Adopt a holistic catchment-based approach that recognises the inter-relationships among all elements of the environment …”
As part of a whole of catchment approach EBOP should include pesticide reduction as a desirable outcome, with objectives, policies and directions that ensure recognition of the human and environmental health externalities and the need for either a polluter pays approach where possible or development of a meaningful strategy to reduce pesticide use. ERMA does not, and the new EPA is unlikely to, set adequate controls for human and environmental safety but is strongly affected by the balancing it does with political direction and the market economy.
Not only toxins, as in pesticides including herbicides used directly in primary production, but release to air of fumigants such as methyl bromide, as is used extensively in the BOP must be actively and quickly reduced or recaptured. ERMA has set a decade before recapture of methyl bromide is mandatory, however very clearly allowed for stricter controls to be set by LTAs. The EBOP-PRPS must actively recognise that and set the parameters for definitive action for reduction, reuse and recovery of toxins, especially reduction.
In regards methyl bromide;
New Zealand has an obligation under the Montreal Protocol to: refrain from use of methyl bromide and to use non-ozone-depleting technologies wherever possible. Where methyl bromide is used, Parties are urged to minimise emissions and use of methyl bromide through containment and recovery and recycling methodologies to the extent possible;
And from the ERMA decision following reassessment of methyl bromide
The Committee (ERMA) notes the concerns of Nelson City Council which suggested that the minimum buffer zones proposed in the reassessment application may conflict with local requirements under the RMA. It is very important to emphasise that these minimum buffer zones do not preclude regional councils, unitary authorities or port authorities from setting more stringent controls (e.g. larger buffer zones) if they deem them necessary because of local conditions. The Committee notes that section 142(3) of the Act specifically envisages situations where a local authority may choose to impose more stringent requirements on the use of a hazardous substance than that required under the Act.
Port Tauranga and the related LTAs should be installing recapture of methyl bromide immediately due to worker and community exposure health risks and the effects on the global community. The PRPS should set the scene for this and reduction of other pesticides.
Soil & Health appreciates the opportunity to submit to the development of the Regional Policy Statement and wishes to be heard to present further.
Section 274 interested party in support of Bay of Plenty Regional Council along with GE Free Northland, Zelka Grammar and Anna Murphy, GE Free NZ, Claire Bleakley, John Sanderson, Karen Summerhays
NZ Forest Research Institute Limited (Scion) v Bay of Plenty Regional Council
Appeals against decisions on the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement (excluding Coastal Environments & Water Quality & Land-use sections)
Relief sought by NZ Forest Research Institute Limited (Scion) via Appeal
Deletion of the following statement from section 1.7 of the proposed Regional Policy statement
a) The existence of genetically modified organisms in the environment has generated community concern. Of particular concern is the placement and location of trial and containment facilities. The Bay of Plenty Council promotes a precautionary approach to the release, control and use of genetically modified organisms within the region. The precautionary approach is a necessary response to unresolved issues of potential liability, environmental risks, economic costs and cultural and social effects. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms act 1996 contains specific legislation for managing genetically modified organisms. These legislative functions are carried out by the Environmental Protection Authority. Current legislation may be inadequate to manage potential adverse effects from the use of genetically modified organisms in the region.
b) Such further orders, relief, consequential amendments or other amendments as are considered appropriate and necessary to address the concerns set out above and;
c) Costs of and incidental to this appeal.
Soil & Health stands by it’s original submission 146-2, accepted by BOP Regional Council, requiring a precautionary approach with regards to genetic engineering.
PGP methyl bromide research fails to consider port communities health
/in Health, Media ReleasesThe Soil & Health Association joins Environment Minister Nick Smith in welcoming the $2.5 million Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) funding, for applied research into alternatives to log fumigation with methyl bromide, and the release of the neurotoxic and carcinogenic gas to the atmosphere. However Soil & Health is scathing of the amount and the length of the research.
“People are dying from exposure to methyl bromide, and New Zealand’s significant use of the ozone depleting gas is expected to triple during the five year period that this trickle of funding is spread,” said Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Economic reasons should be the last basis for action, after health and environment. This funding should be significantly increased for rapid implementation of existing alternatives, not the sham of further, although applied, research.”
“This PGP funding initiative publicity, by government and Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide Reduction (STIMBR), totally ignored the immediate health risks to local communities and port workers of New Zealand, and instead focused on broad environmental effects and economic savings that the forest industry might make when it is forced to meet its international responsibilities to stop the release of methyl bromide into the atmosphere.”
“Communities around New Zealand, especially at log exporting ports are at immediate health risk from cancers and neurological disorders such as motor neurone disease. The global community in turn shares the negative effects from enhanced ultra violet radiation as the ozone layer is depleted.”
“The Environment Minister and I have been reported as agreeing, that Port Marlborough and the Marlborough District Council should be getting on with recapture of methyl bromide gas rather than wasting money on monitoring for the gas,” said Mr Browning.
“Monitoring only shows if the invisible, odourless and tasteless gas happens to be where the monitoring equipment is, or is not.”
“ Monitoring has no way of predicting where it might be going and the installation of monitors such as the Marlborough District Council and Environment Bay of Plenty intend, are just sops to the anxious communities they represent.”
“Recapture technology exists. Research is not the main issue, but the capital cost of immediate up scaling is being delayed.”
“The funding arrangement based on economic imperatives primarily, comes as no surprise when the forestry representative on the Primary Growth Partnership had come from Global Forest Partners. Global Forest Partners, a USA based investment fund, are also responsible for wholly owned subsidiary Nelson Forests Ltd part in mudslide devastation around forestry harvest areas in the top of the South Island.”
Primary production in New Zealand needs to be treated holistically, and forestry needs a cradle to grave environmental footprint analysis done urgently.
Forestry could be genuinely sustainable, and there are some very good existing examples, but the large scale land disturbance, herbicide use, water quality and biodiversity losses, transport and fumigation effects that Global Forest Partners, Nelson Forests Ltd, and much of the forestry industry are responsible for, needs to be assessed before supposed economic gains are championed.”
“STIMBR has to their credit, included human health in its estimate of the economic value of reduced methyl bromide emissions effect on the ozone layer, however dodges the effects on their very own communities now.”
The global economic value of reduced methyl bromide emissions through the avoidance of its impact on ozone depletion in the atmosphere on human health and avoided damage to agriculture, fisheries and materials has been estimated at around $3,700 per tonne of methyl bromide not released.
“Human health affects in New Zealanders will includes cancers and motor neurone disease from exposure to methyl bromide gas, not just the acknowledged effects from ozone depletion,” said Mr Browning.
Soil & Health – Organic NZ have a vision of an organic clean green 100% Pure Aotearoa New Zealand where human health and the environment are put before economic greed. Soil & Health – Organic NZ support initiatives for multi-species forests and farm woodlots, value adding logs into end products in New Zealand, and the rapid implementation of alternatives to toxic chemicals.
Notes:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/methyl-bromide-research-funding-welcomed
http://www.maf.govt.nz/Portals/0/Documents/agriculture/assist-funding/pgp/media-bkgrnd-stimbr.pdf
New Zealand has an obligation under the Montreal Protocol to: refrain from use of methyl bromide and to use non-ozone-depleting technologies wherever possible. Where methyl bromide is used, Parties are urged to minimise emissions and use of methyl bromide through containment and recovery and recycling methodologies to the extent possible;
Picton’s residents face gas for Nelson’s logs again
/in Health, Media Releases, Organic CommunityTonnes of neurotoxic and ozone depleting fumigant methyl bromide gas will again be released from the 169m ship Eastern Star’s hold at Picton’s Shakespeare Bay wharf tonight, and tomorrow evening (28 January) more tonnes of the gas will be released from under the 13 wharf side tarpaulins covering approximately 9000 tons of logs destined for India. (1)
Methyl bromide gas is used as a phytosanitary control for import-exports, with log fumigations primarily targeting two pine beetles.
Port Nelson has stringent rules that would mean logs fumigated there would need the fumigant gas recaptured, as happens for some other cargos such as sawn timber. However because it is cheaper to avoid setting up a log fumigant recapture facility there, Nelson logs are being shipped to Port Marlborough’s Shakespeare Bay facility for fumigation with Marlborough logs, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.
“To make matters worse, Marlborough sawn timber for other markets but previously fumigated using the recapture system in Nelson, are being trucked to Port Lyttelton where it is cheaper to fumigate and release to the Lyttelton environment,” said Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Port Nelson methyl bromide fumigation was subject to an Environment Court hearing that studiously looked at the exposure risks of the invisible, tasteless and odourless gas. There is nothing different from Nelson in the risk profile of Picton or Lyttelton.”
“The New Zealand timber industry is stalling from its global ozone hole responsibility and releasing a neurotoxic, carcinogenic gas next to port communities throughout New Zealand.”
The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) following a reassessment of methyl bromide use and controls last year decided that methyl bromide use to be subject to recapture within a decade, although finding that recapture would only be a cost of 2.7% of current log values.(2)
This was in part due to large scale recapture facilities not being trialled in New Zealand, but Europe has banned the release of methyl bromide gas and most of the world is quickly finding alternatives to meet the Montreal Protocol agreement in reducing ozone depleting gases. ERMA were clear that local authorities may require more stringent safeguards than in their decision, but none have seriously actioned any proposals for change. (3,4)
Export log fumigations account for more than 80% of the methyl bromide used in New Zealand. Although originally aiming to phase out the use of methyl bromide gas by 2010 as part of the ozone-focused Montreal Protocol, New Zealand is now using more than 10 times the amount of methyl bromide gas than it was in 2001, and expects to be exporting 3 times the current log volumes in 5 years.
“The spike in New Zealand logs in 5 years will be an international disgrace if fumigation gases are not recaptured by then,” said Mr Browning.
“Is this another reason why Prime Minister and tourism Minister John Key’s Christmas present to New Zealand was the dropping of the very successful 100% Pure New Zealand branding that we were all so proud to be striving to make real?” (5)
“Local communities subject to toxic methyl bromide drift, and the global community that is fighting against climate change, need New Zealand industry and government to establish recapture facilities immediately, or stop using methyl bromide all together.”
Soil & Health – Organic NZ have a vision of an organic Aotearoa New Zealand where sustainably grown timber and other exports use environmentally benign phytosanitary measures fitting with a strategy for a clean green 100% Pure New Zealand.
Notes:
(1) Photograph included in this post available for media
(2) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/methylbromide/index.html
http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/BertDocs/HRC08002_Methyl%20Bromide%20decision.pdf
(3) New Zealand has an obligation under the Montreal Protocol to: refrain from use of methyl bromide and to use non-ozone-depleting technologies wherever possible. Where methyl bromide is used, Parties are urged to minimise emissions and use of methyl bromide through containment and recovery and recycling methodologies to the extent possible;
(4) The Committee notes the concerns of Nelson City Council which suggested that the minimum buffer zones proposed in the reassessment application may conflict with local requirements under the RMA. It is very important to emphasise that these minimum buffer zones do not preclude regional councils, unitary authorities or port authorities from setting more stringent controls (e.g. larger buffer zones) if they deem them necessary because of local conditions. The Committee notes that section 142(3) of the Act specifically envisages situations where a local authority may choose to impose more stringent requirements on the use of a hazardous substance than that required under the Act.
http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/news-and-features/news/tourism-new-zealand-unveils-100-percent-pure-you
http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/news-and-features/news/new-zealand-third-strongest-brand
100% Pure New Zealand has been used to promote New Zealand as a tourism destination since 1999. Last November, New Zealand was ranked the third strongest country brand in the world by FutureBrands Country Brand Index.
MAF allow Kate Valley Landfill to become New Zealand’s next GE contaminated site
/in Health, Media Releases, Organic CommunityMAF has allowed Kate Valley Landfill to become New Zealand’s next GE contaminated site, while dodging testing for GE contamination of more rogue brassica plants at Plant & Food Research’s Lincoln GE brassica field trial site, although MAF’s own rules demanded testing, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ, and GE Free NZ in food and environment.
Soil & Health and GE Free NZ have monitored Plant & Food Research’s genetically engineered (GE) brassica trial site at Lincoln for further contamination following discovering a flowering GE kale there in 2008.
Following their investigation in 2009 which found that other GE brassica had also flowered in 2008, MAF, through a Compliance Order, had then set strict requirements including the testing for GE of all brassica found growing at the site following cultivations beginning in spring and summer 2010, and for 5 years of monitoring after the last brassica seedling was found.
“In spring 2010 Plant & Food Research and MAF agreed to dig out soil likely to be contaminated with GE brassica seed and deep bury it, but ten days ago we have found that another brassica has still emerged,” said Soil & Health-Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“MAF and Plant & Food Research have said they did not need to test for GE because the brassica photographed was a different species to the oleracea used in the trial crop, but they ignored the controls previously set down and the ability of brassica to cross between species, because MAF want to let Plant & Food reduce monitoring to one year rather than the 5 years originally set.”
“They have messed up again and both are now trying to dodge their responsibilities.”
“Soil & Health-Organic NZ photographs from December show the MAF supervised soil removal has clearly spilt soil and seed back into the cleared plot, and all brassica in the plot and surrounding area must be tested for GE contamination for at least 5 years. MAF must stop chopping and changing rules to suit those responsible for one of New Zealand’s worst GE breaches.”
Plant & Food’s spokesman said that what they believe to be a wild turnip was likely to have blown in as seed, although a 2008 trial report stated that wild turnip were already growing there, and MAF’s 2009 investigation said that pollen from the site would unlikely to have been blown more than two metres.
“They can’t have it both ways. These duplicitous statements from MAF and Plant & Food, with earlier support by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), show a need for an independent look at GE risk management in New Zealand,” said Mr Browning.
GE Free NZ in food and environment Inc and Soil & Health-Organic NZ agree that contaminated sites need careful management but creating another contaminated site should only be through a public consultation process.
“The assurances that this toxic GE soil has been properly disposed of are meaningless if the previous GE incidents are an example” said Claire Bleakley President of GE Free NZ.
“This breached site has become a bungled set of untrustworthy and duplicitous platitudes. The strict protocols, that the public was assured are in place, are being changed and broken at every turn.”
“The removal of GE contaminated soil to Kate Valley landfill, North Canterbury is of concern. The toxic mix of pesticides and GE exudate loaded Plant & Food Research soil from Lincoln, could become mixed with the other highly injurious residues of almost everything imaginable, including multiple chemicals, food processing, hospitality, hospital and veterinary waste, further threatening the environment.”
“Landfill dumps are commonly associated with vermin that burrow into the soil living on the detritus that collects there. Landfills are a reservoir of contamination, and the movement of any GE contaminated soil not only threatens the countryside but also threatens the health of the community. It is not known where the soil was placed and if it is not totally isolated and clearly marked it could be mistakenly used as fill or leach into the surrounding country side.”
“I shared the concerns of North Canterbury residents when the Kate Valley landfill was first proposed. Never did I think it would also be a site for GE contamination,” said Mr Browning.
“Plant & Food Research must not consider that scraping a foot of soil off a GE site is somehow going to render the site uncontaminated. Horizontal gene transfer associated with genetic engineering has clearly and irresponsibly not been part of the thinking.”
Soil & Health-Organic NZ and GE Free NZ promote organic production and share a vision of an organic Aotearoa New Zealand. With no shortage of brassica species available, no genetic engineering is necessary, neither is contamination of soils. The certified organic properties both in Lincoln and near Kate Valley deserve the expertise that Plant & Food Research and MAF, away from GE, can offer for the growth in organics in New Zealand.
Plant & Food Research shifted GE soil illegally?
/in Food, GE, Media Releases, OrganicsWhere has Plant & Food Research taken the contaminated soil excavated from its botched genetically engineered brassicas Lincoln field trial site, and why weren’t stakeholders kept informed of changes to the compliance controls, the Soil & Health Association of NZ is asking.(1,2)
In December 2008 Soil & Health – Organic NZ discovered an illegally flowering genetically engineered (GE) kale plant (3) and several other flowering brassicas that had set seed pods among weeds at the Lincoln field trial site of Crown Research Institute Plant & Food Research. (4,5,6,7)
The field trial was immediately closed and following an intensive investigation that revealed other GE flowering events, strict controls were imposed for at least 5 years to limit the spread of any GE material from the site.
“Plant & Food have now extended the contamination by removing the heavily herbicide-sprayed and GE contaminated soil from the trial site late last year in an effort to reduce compliance efforts,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“This soil removal appears to be illegal under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO), although Plant & Food had expressed a commitment to Soil & Health – Organic NZ to meeting whatever new controls were imposed, following my discovery of the flowering GE kale in 2008.”
“Plant & Food needs to make public the details of where the soil is, and what exact GE constructs were used in the original trial so that independent testing of crops in the Lincoln area can occur.”
Brassica species include vegetable plants such as cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, mustard, radish, turnip, rocket, rape, kohlrabi, brussels sprouts, mizuna and several weeds. Brassicas are able to cross easily between species and Plant & Food grew several GE and non GE brassica species at the site where a weed brassica, wild turnip, was also reported.
Although Plant & Food have removed contaminated soil to more than 250mm depth, Soil & Health – Organic NZ has recent photographs of a brassica and weed seedlings at the Lincoln GE field trial site, suggesting seed bearing top soil was spilt or the weeds have herbicide resistance.(8,9)
“What GE contaminated soil was spilt during transport from the GE field trial site to its new GE contaminated home?” asked Mr Browning.
“The removed soil is likely to have both seed and soil organisms contaminated by the previous GE program. If the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry – Biosecurity NZ are complicit in the soil removal, then New Zealand’s GE regulatory system has totally broken down as there has been no public notification or application for a new GE site.”
“Plant & Food’s failed GE onion field trial location also needs to be made public, along with the exact GE constructs used there, so that civil society can ensure independent monitoring of potential contamination in the surrounding area.”
“Soil & Health – Organic NZ is committed to a vision of an organic focused nation where Plant & Food Research and the other Crown Research Institutes resources are committed to a clean green 100% Pure GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand.”
NOTES:
100% Pure USA drive towards New Zealand as a GE nation
/in GE, Media Releases, Organic CommunityThe government’s phasing out of the winning 100% Pure New Zealand brand, while putting genetic engineering (GE) zealot Dr. William Rolleston as Chair of Innovation and also on the Science Board of the new Ministry of Science and Innovation, is a clear sign that New Zealand’s science and production is further headed down a GE track, rather than the clean green 100% Pure New Zealand trail according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. (1)
“Last week’s announcement that 100% Pure New Zealand is to be replaced by ‘100% Pure You,’ although only weeks before New Zealand had moved from 4th to 3rd strongest country brand in the world, indicates that Pure New Zealand has been given the boot because Government is not prepared to put substance to the branding,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning. (2)
In November, Tourism New Zealand’s Chief Executive Kevin Bowler said it was great to see brand New Zealand continuing to gain strength, especially in such a highly competitive international market.
“The consistency of the 100% Pure New Zealand campaign has kept New Zealand top of mind, and has made a promise that New Zealand is continuing to keep.” (3)
“Even then that promise was being broken by the Government, with significant commitment to genetic engineering and dumbing down of brand New Zealand,” said Mr Browning.
“Whether it be the dwindling support for sustainable organic production, or Government’s recent $10 million support for Crown Researcher Scion and its USA partner ArborGen’s GE trees experiments, and significantly more for AgResearch and its USA partner, GTC Biotherapeutics, cruel GE animal experiments, the current Government vision has little that is pure about it.”
“New Zealanders are proud of our clean green 100% Pure New Zealand brand, and just as we are proud of our nuclear free status, most New Zealanders and our overseas customers have shown in polls to be opposed to genetic engineering in our environment and production.”
“Inserting Dr. Rolleston and other GE proponents into key science funding and policy roles, is a clear statement that this government is a GE government,” said Mr Browning.
“The Government is intent of removing any semblance of independence in the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) , currently tasked with decisions on GE applications. By ensuring the emerging Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), will ‘put effect’ to Government policy rather than the previous ‘have regard to,’ another sinister element is added to New Zealand’s future GE status.” (4)
“For an EPA to be effective, it must be as independent as possible, and policy for a clean green 100% Pure vision for New Zealand should be driven by those without the type of vested interests that Dr. Rolleston and his Life Sciences Network bring.”
Continued United States pressure for the uptake of GE, as revealed by Wikileaks recently and Soil & Health – Organic NZ last year, appears to be coming through in Government action. (5,6)
2010 began with the USA’s Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Senior Science Advisor Nina Federoff visiting New Zealand and promoting GE. At the same time, Terri Dunahay, a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) international GE policy specialist, over several months, was promoting genetic engineering for New Zealand agriculture, while given a Fulbright Scholarship seat in New Zealand’s science policy agency, the Ministry of Research Science and Technology (MoRST).
“Dunahay was also given time at ERMA, with her final MoRST-USDA report on the issues affecting the uptake of GE forages in New Zealand farming, suggesting that the New Zealand public should not be able to submit on GE field trial applications and that some GE pollen release was necessary to test environmental effects.”
“The November 4th Hillary Clinton and John Key’s ‘Wellington Declaration’ signing then sealed intent on GE biofuels collaboration and the current government’s end to 100% Pure New Zealand,” believes Mr Browning.
Soil & Health – Organic NZ campaigns against the release of genetically engineered organisms into the environment and food and has a vision of an Organic 2020 in direct contrast to United States foreign policy.
Notes (links accessed January 2011):
(1) http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/boards-key-science-and-innovation-suc…
(2) http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/news-and-features/news/tourism-new-zeal…
(3) http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/news-and-features/news/new-zealand-thir… 100% Pure New Zealand has been used to promote New Zealand as a tourism destination since 1999. Last November, New Zealand was ranked the third strongest country brand in the world by FutureBrands Country Brand Index.
(4) http://www.mfe.govt.nz/news/2010-11-16-epa-bill-introduced.html
ERMA is currently an autonomous Crown entity, slightly more independent than a Crown agent (the Minister can only require an autonomous Crown entity to have regard to, not give effect to, government policy). As one of the government’s objectives for resource management reform is to provide for better central government direction, it is vital that the chosen model allows for central government direction of the EPA. A Crown agent allows for this relationship.
(5) http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1012/S00171/wikileak-das-reed-engages-o…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops
(SBU) When asked what the top local impediments will be to concluding an agreement, Sinclair noted a number of areas sensitive to New Zealand. It is “no secret” that Monsanto does not like New Zealand’s genetically modified organism (GMO) regulations, Sinclair said.
(6) http://www.organicnz.org/soil-and-health-press/1235/government-support-f…
GE varroa control no Santa Claus for New Zealand beekeepers
/in GE, Media Releases, Organic CommunityGenetically engineering varroa (Varroa destructor) mites to self destruct is no Christmas present for New Zealand’s beekeepers, according to Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“Any future for New Zealand does not include genetically engineered mites being carried around New Zealand on the back of honey bees, any more than a real Santa Claus with reindeer,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“News today that Aberdeen University’s Dr Alan Bowman has announced a potential mechanism for the inoculation of mites, in a way that silences a gene in the mite, damaging its immune system, is being overstated. The research is in its infancy and potential hazards appear not to have been considered at all.” (1)
“Aberdeen University’s research needs to be seen in a broader ecological context of risk and actual potential success. Certainty would be needed that tampering with the DNA of the mite would not for example sport a mite or virus that is worse than the existing varroa, or have other unintended effects on bees, or affect mites naturally part of an indigenous ecosystem.”
“A more useful curative to varroa than what is currently available would save considerable angst and cost to New Zealand beekeepers, and more benign alternatives than genetic engineering are being researched continuously which would not impact on New Zealand’s largely GE Free status.”
“Pest control in New Zealand using genetic engineering is no more acceptable than growing GE food, forages or forests would be to Aotearoa New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure trading and tourism brand.”
“The 5 to 10 years of further research and development that Aberdeen suggests is necessary for their postulated GE solution, allows for significant development in less risky alternatives, and research dollars would do well to be directed to those.”
“GE pest control research should always include scientists that are independently capable of imaging the very real risks that go hand in glove with such technology. Too often, research such as from Aberdeen claims potential solutions as part of touting for further research dollars, while completely ignoring the ecological risks,” said Mr Browning.
Soil & Health – Organic NZ wishes for research spending be directed to a GE free and organic varroa solution for Christmas 2011.
(1) http://www.abdn.ac.uk/news/details-9669.php
Government approval for Scion’s GE Christmas trees
/in GE, Media Releases, Organic CommunityThe Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) released its decision today to allow crown research agency Scion and its partner, United States owned ArborGen, to plant thousands of genetically engineered (GE) pine trees over 25 years at Scions Rotorua site.
“The GE pine trees approval was expected but not as a perverted Christmas tree. We had shown the current site being prepared in July, even before the application was formally received by ERMA, or notified for public submission. This showed ERMA as the Government’s rubber stamper for genetic engineering in New Zealand,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
An ERMA hearing of the Scion application was held 9-10 November with a decision anticipated in January 2011.
“Previous non-compliance by Scion at its GE field trial site was only discovered by Soil & Health-Organic NZ’s inspection as was Plant & Food Research’s flowering GE brassica breach at Lincoln, yet ERMA have now allowed for Scion to apply without public notification for new secret sites.”
“Moving of GE field trials will only further jeopardise New Zealand’s relatively GE free status and environment. The potential GE pine pollen leakage needs to be constrained to one site where the public can exercise a level of independent surveillance.”
ERMA and GE field trial’s auditor MAF-Biosecurity New Zealand (MAF-BNZ) were complicit previously when Scion failed to prune trees according to approval controls, allowing retrospective changes to the approval. MAF-BNZ had also failed to monitor the site correctly as it had similarly with Plant & Food Research’s Lincoln sites.
ERMA’s approval controls for the GE pines are little different than those made for the GE brassicas at Lincoln. Scion’s GE tree scientist Dr Christian Walter appeared and supported Plant & Food’s Dr Mary Christey at the GE brassica ERMA hearing. Soon after, Christie was allowing GE brassicas to flower even though that approval was still before the High Court.
“Dr Walter when presenting to the recent forestry industry conference, gave a very rose tinted outlook for commercial GE trees in New Zealand and absolutely nothing about risks to them or the wider environment or community. Misrepresenting the level of environmental effects research at both commercially focused and regulatory presentations, shows the cavalier attitude of GE scientists wanting permission for field trials in New Zealand,” said Mr Browning.
“Soil & Health-Organic NZ will be monitoring Scion’s latest GE escapade as closely as possible to try and ensure that GE leakage from field trials does not occur. We cannot rely on the scientists or government agencies entrusted with that responsibility.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that supports new Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure GE free trading image.