Picton Methyl Bromide Gas Release Risky Again

/in , ,

The Picton community was tonight again at risk of methyl bromide fumigation gas exposure, as log fumigators in Shakespeare Bay released tons of the neurotoxic gas with light breeze flowing onto Picton according to eyewitnesses.
Logs in the hold of the 170m ship Pontonostos and up to 20 stacks of wharfside logs have been fumigated with the highly toxic gas over the last 24 hours.
With an absence of air modelling to identify the direction of the invisible gas plume being released throughout the evening, Soil & Health Association spokesperson Steffan Browning monitored the activity from the port lookout and followed Port Marlborough’s Live Weather website. (1) Winds were light and predominantly from the north west passing the fumigation site through the Cook Strait ferry terminals, harbour and rail yards into Picton township.
Local environmental group Guardians of the Sounds and the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand have led calls for the halt or recapture of methyl bromide fumigation in Picton and are members of the The Coalition against the use of Methyl Bromide which protested in Picton, Wellington and Tauranga recently as part of the Trade Unions Workers Memorial Day. This year there was particular reference to the men who had died from motor neurone disease in Nelson following exposure to methyl bromide fumigant at Port Nelson.
“I am concerned about the potential cumulative effect from these repeat fumigations on our Picton community,” said Guardians of the Sounds chairman Pete Beech. “Tonights fumigation is to be repeated for another log ship the Duncan Bay waiting to dock.”
“The deaths of the seaman in the hold of the log ship at Marsden Point today, whether caused by methyl bromide gas or not, reminds us of the deadly risks associated with this gas, given that it is tasteless, odourless and invisible and being heavier than air is known to linger.”
“With no odour, the people of Picton and workers have no idea whether they are exposed to the fumigant gas,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning. “We do know that the monitoring for Port Marlborough is not likely to detect the majority of the gas plume as air modelling has not occurred.”
“One Picton resident who has experienced ill health following fumigations moved through to Blenheim for the night to avoid the fumigant. He is also protesting the Marlborough District Council’s poor handling of the methyl bromide issue locally.”
“Once again the so called independent monitoring company was employing fumigation staff to check monitoring devices on Port Shakespeare’s fences. This is a direct conflict of interest.”
“The tarpaulins were removed consecutively from log stacks in about a minute each releasing the gas in a sequence of more concentrated plumes while the fumigant gas in the ships hold was being released continuously through the evening.”
Soil & Health will present to the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) methyl bromide reassessment hearing in Wellington on May 17, and Pete Beech will speak to the Guardians of the Sounds submission in Picton May 19. Other hearings that week will be in Nelson, Tauranga and Auckland. Many submitters have called for the use of recapture technology for methyl bromide gas after fumigation.
Soil & Health aspires to an Organic 2020 where biosecurity can be protected without the release to the environment of toxic gases.
NOTES:
(1) http://www.portmarlborough.co.nz/Live%20Weather
Soil & Health’s response to ERMA’s 5 November 2009 Evaluation & Review recommendations report is copied further below.
———————-
ERMAs Chemical Cowboy Approach To Methyl Bromide Branded Reckless
Nov 6, 2009
ERMA’s methyl bromide control recommendations, released yesterday, are among the most reckless in the world with little regard for human and environmental safety, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. (1)
“Releasing a gas that seriously depletes our ozone layer and is a known neurotoxin, and allowing bystanders to be as close as 50 metres from the release of up to 1000kg of that gas is outrageous. This has to be one of ERMA’s worst,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.(2)
Tonnes of methyl bromide fumigant gas are released to air from under tarpaulins or ships holds following each log fumigation, with smaller amounts being released from containers used for fumigation of imported and export goods.
“With no mandatory air modelling recommended, monitoring is useless and fumigators are only making assumptions of where this invisible, odourless and dangerous fumigant will go. It should be asked why ERMA puts restrictions on anything. This report has to be one of the clearest examples of how New Zealand’s environmental, health and safety regulatory bodies are failing the community.”
The recommendations are part of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) current reassessment of methyl bromide. The reassessment comes at a time when log exports are soaring. 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 next year as part of the ozone-focused Montreal Protocol, New Zealand is now using close to 10 times the amount of methyl bromide gas than it was in 2001.
“The dominant focus of ERMA’s report is on effects to the market economy. This means ERMA is functioning more as an Economic Risk Management Authority. The environmental and human safety hazards are clearly secondary to New Zealand’s big business interests,” said Mr Browning.
“Soil & Health is not opposed to the use of methyl bromide for fumigation for biosecurity purposes either, but the release of hundreds of tonnes of the extremely toxic gas near local communities and its inevitable effect on climate change is unacceptable.”
“Recapturing the gas, as is done in Nelson and overseas, should have been demanded by ERMA throughout New Zealand, and gas recapture infrastructure quickly developed by the log exporters. However cost has once again been allowed to come before the health and safety of New Zealanders.”
Tasmania has already made methyl bromide recapture mandatory for quarantine treatment, and the European Parliament has banned the use of methyl bromide within the European Union (EU) from March 18, 2010. (3)
“Methyl bromide due to its damage of the ozone layer has a much greater effect on climate change than carbon dioxide, yet ERMA is hiding behind the fact that man made ozone hole damage appears to be lessening. So now New Zealand is blatantly taking advantage of everyone else fixing the problem.”
“With ERMA’s chemical cowboy approach, New Zealand is once again demeaning its clean green 100% Pure reputation.”
Soil & Health has been involved with several ERMA reassessments and other hearings, and believes the ERMA submission process now open to the public until 18 December, is unlikely to make significant changes to the recommendations.
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that will not include release to air of dangerous ozone depleting fumigants.
References
(1) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/publications/pdfs/Methyl%20Bromide%20Reassessment%20Application.pdf
(2) Extract from ERMA’s Methyl Bromide Reassessment Application

1. The Agency proposes the adoption of the following tolerable exposure limits (TELs):
TEL(chronic)

TEL(acute)24 hour average

TEL (acute)1 hour

0.005 mg/m3

1.3 mg/m3

3.9 mg/m3

1.3 ppb

333 ppb

1000 ppb

0.0013 ppm

0.333 ppm

1 ppm
2. The Agency proposes that the following minimum buffer zones (the downwind distance between the ventilation release location and any non-occupational bystander) be observed when ventilation occurs:
Situation

Buffer zone

Ship‘s hold (greater than 1000 kg methyl bromide used)

100m

Ship‘s hold (less than 1000 kg)

50m

Logs/timber under covers outdoors and indoors (without recapture technology)

50m

Shipping containers

25m
Note 1: Non-occupational bystanders include not just those persons living in nearby residential properties but also those who may be temporarily present in a location, for example, walking on footpaths.
(3) European Union
B1.2.1 At its meeting on March 25, 2009, the European Parliament banned the use of methyl bromide within the European Union (EU) from March 18, 2010. This ban is significantly sooner than the 2015 phase-out originally proposed by the European Commission and supported by EU governments.
B1.2.2 The ban covers the use of methyl bromide as a pesticide, as well as its use for QPS purposes prior to transport. This ban includes the gassing of containers to control vermin. The only remaining exceptions to the ban will be the use of methyl bromide for analytical use in laboratories and for its use in emergencies, such as where a large-scale epidemic occurs (methyl bromide used for emergencies may be used for a period not exceeding 120 days and up to a quantity not exceeding 20 metric tonnes).
B1.2.3 The calculated level of methyl bromide which may be used in the period from 1 January 2010 to 18 March 2010 in the EU is not to exceed 45 (ODP) tonnes. Until 18 March 2010 methyl bromide may be placed on the market and used for QPS purposes for treatment of goods for export, under the condition that at least 80 % of methyl bromide released from the consignment is recovered.

Soil & Health Congratulates ERMA

/in ,

The recommendations by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) staff that the Authority declines AgResearch’s four very broad applications for more genetically engineered (GE) animals was praised by the Soil & Health Association of NZ, which is generally seen as a critic of ERMA.
Soil & Health says that without such a recommendation, ERMA would have less reason for existence as any GE application would meet approval. ERMA has previously supported GE applications.
AgResearch submitted four applications to import, develop, and field test genetically engineered (GM/GE) organisms with an unlimited range of genetic modifications, techniques and traits for an unlimited duration and for use within indoor or outdoor containment facilities at unspecified locations. Ahead of a proposed June hearing, the ERMA staff Evaluation and Review Report, in recommending the applications be declined, said that not being able to identify the range of GE organisms means that they were unable to identify the nature of the organism or associated hazards.
However Soil & Health says that previous AgResearch GE animal applications approved by ERMA are also too broad and without actual GE organisms being identified, and ERMA is now using semantics in response to legal challenges driven by GE Free NZ. (1)
“It is very pleasing that ERMA has made the recommendations, but by suggesting that the lack of a description of the range of genetic modifications drove its decision, it fails to acknowledge that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act) requires individual GE constructs and organisms to be identified. It also fails to acknowledge that it has previously approved other applications with similar shortcomings,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“ERMA has already been granting applications that have equally broad ranges, with a decision last September allowing AgResearch to experiment on cats, dogs, pigs, guinea pigs, sheep, mice, rats, rabbits, possums, cattle, goats, and chickens using genetic material from almost any form of life.”(2)
“That decision included, “Donor genetic material may be derived from the Kingdoms Animalia, Planta, Fungi, Protista and Monera and viruses and viroids…”.”
“While the location and the actual host organisms were identified, as were some general intentions of the research, the GE organisms were not, and so although ERMA was unable to identify the nature of the organism or associated hazards, it approved that application.”
“For hazard control, ERMA relied only on a series of exclusions around pathogenic organisms and on AgResearch meeting containment standards. But unintended results are standard with genetic engineering and containment breaches are common. ERMA and the community must be able to identify any new organism and comment on the associated known or potential associated risks.”
“Today’s recommendation follows GE Free NZ’s previous legal challenges and opens the door for reassessment of previous decisions.”
“Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 and will continue to oppose the cruel experimentation of GE animals. Genetic engineering has not brought any of the benefits promised by its advocates, but has caused considerable harm in many parts of the world. GE does not fit with New Zealand’s clean green trading image or the wishes of most New Zealanders.”
1. CIV-2008-485-2370 GE Free NZ v ERMA
2. http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/BertDocs/GMD09011%20decision%20final%20(2009.09.04).pdf

Muesli – not as healthy as it seems, unless it’s organic

/in , ,

The latest results from the New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s (NZFSA) Total Diet Survey raise concerns about the number of pesticides being found in muesli.
The 4th quarter sampling for the 2009 Total Diet Survey focussed on the most commonly purchased brands of processed foods, obtained in Christchurch. (1)
Residues of ten pesticides were found in four samples of muesli (2). Of these, six are on the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) International List of Highly Hazardous Pesticides for a progressive global phase-out, because of the hazard they pose to human health – mainly cancer and/or endocrine disruption.
Bran cereal was not far behind the muesli, with a total of eight pesticides.
“Both cancer and endocrine disruption can result from low levels of exposure to pesticides, so when your morning muesli contains a mixture of six pesticides each of which has these effects, then the effect is magnified, and your breakfast may be posing an unhealthy risk to you” said Dr Meriel Watts of Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand (PANANZ).
“Yet once again, the Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) is downplaying the findings. Still slavishly adhering to an outdated process of simply checking that each residue is below the legal level, they refuse to look at the reality of the situation that consumers face: daily exposure to low dose mixtures of chemicals, each of which by itself is known to cause cancer and/or endocrine or hormonal disruption, but which when added together may dramatically increase the risk,” said Dr Watts.
“The Authority needs to take on board a recent massive EU report which concluded regulatory authorities needed to consider mixtures. (3)
Overall, 25 pesticides were found in 33 food types; 19 of these pesticides are on PAN International’s List of highly Hazardous pesticides.
“Of particular concern are piperonyl butoxide (a synergist used to increase the effect of pyrethroid & carbamate insecticides), found in 15 foods, and the dithiocarbamate fungicides, found in 13 out of 20 foods,” commented Alison White of the Safe Food Campaign.
“Both may cause cancer and endocrine disruption. No safe level for carcinogens and endocrine disruptors has been established. Mancozeb, a common dithiocarbamate fungicide, has a breakdown product which may cause birth defects and genetic damage as well. We don’t need pesticides like this in our food and they pose an unacceptable risk to the baby in the womb.”
“Certified organic muesli doesn’t have pesticide residues such as NZFSA have found. Organic muesli contains ingredients that have been certified as being produced without the use of dangerous pesticides,” said Soil & Health Association spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“NZFSA needs to come clean about the difference between organic and other processed foods. While it is comforting to see reduced residues than in the past in raisins/sultanas samples, there were still too many and the brand that did not show any residues was probably organic. However NZFSA do not disclose that distinction or that of the brand of the worst offenders such as the bran flake cereal brand containing 8 different pesticide residues.”
“Consumers deserve to know who the bad offenders are and which products are the best. For example one wine brand of four, including both white and red wines stood out as having no pesticide residues. That producer, as with the raisin/sultana sample, deserves consumer recognition. From earlier surveys, we know that consumers are best to buy organic.”
References and analysis tables further below.
NOTES
(1) Results can be found on the NZFSA website at http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/science/research-projects/total-diet-survey/q4-2009-nztds-analytical-report-final-april-10.pdf
(2) Chlorpyrifos, cyprodinil, dichlorvos, fenitrothion, isoprocarb, phenthoate, piperonyl butoxide, pirimiphos-methyl, procymidone, pyrimethanil.
(3) * Kortenkamp & Backhaus. 2009. State of the Art Report on Mixture Toxicity. Final Report .Executive Summary. 22 December 2009.
https://www.pan-europe.info/old/Campaigns/pesticides/documents/cum_syn_effects/Kortenkamp%20state%20of%20the%20art%20mixture%20toxicity.pdf

Scientific research has repeatedly demonstrated that the effects of mixtures are considerably more pronounced than the effect of each of its individual components and that environmental pollution is from chemical mixtures and not from individual substances. This clearly underlines the need for dedicated regulatory considerations of the problem of chemical mixtures.

Protest Against Methyl Bromide Gas Release

/in , ,

Protests beginning in Picton Friday April 23 against toxic methyl bromide fumigant gas being released into the environment are being co-ordinated nationally in respect of Workers Memorial Day on April 28.

Guardians of the Sounds, Soil & Health Association of NZ and the Green Party have been campaigning in Picton for several years on the issue and will be joined by union representatives on Friday.

The protests will continue in Wellington on Monday 26 April and Tauranga 28 April.

“Environmental and food safety NGOs joining in a coalition with the unions representing many of the workers exposed to the dangerous fumigant gas is a step up in opposition against the use and release of methyl bromide,” said Soil & Health New Zealand spokeperson Steffan Browning.

“Methyl bromide gas release to the environment following biosecurity fumigation, damages the ozone layer and influences climate change affecting everyone, but has a very individual and nasty risk to worker and community health for those exposed to fumigation gases.”

“New Zealand is flat out increasing the use of methyl bromide while the rest of the world in accordance with the Montreal Protocol is phasing the toxic gas out. Alternative management is possible, but the perpetrators of health and environmental harm are dodging paying for improvements by using ERMA’s complicity with economic priorities.”

The April 28 Workers Memorial Day honours workers killed during their employment and is particularly pertinent for those that have died from motor neurone disease following methyl bromide exposure at Port Nelson and elsewhere.

“While science has not yet completed the link between methyl bromide and motor neurone disease, the Nelson statistics support the very high liklihood of it being the cause of several port worker deaths. The statistics will be all the more damning when Nelson port workers who have moved elsewhere, ahead of motor neurone disease overcoming them, are included in the statistics.”

Methyl bromide fumigation was banned in Europe last month and is currently being removed from agricultural use in the United States due to its range of toxic effects and ozone depletion.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has received 92 submissions to its methyl bromide reassessment process, with about 40% wanting to speak to their submissions. ERMA has set five hearings to be held 17 – 21 May in Wellington, then Nelson, Picton/Blenheim, Tauranga, and Auckland. Members of the public are welcome to attend the hearings, though only submitters may speak. Soil & Health will be presenting to their submission in Wellington Monday 17 May.

The Coalition against the use of Methyl Bromide includes Soil & Health, Combined Trade Unions, Guardians of the Sounds, The Green Party, Maritime Union of NZ, The Rail and Maritime Transport Union, Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand, Safe Food Campaign,  Marlborough Environment Centre, Alliance Party and others, and is focused on ensuring recapture of fumigant into filters rather than environmental release, should there be continued use of methyl bromide beyond ERMA’s reassessment process.

Soil & Health welcomes the breadth of support against methyl bromide and aspires to an Organic 2020 where biosecurity can be protected without the release to the environment of toxic gases.

Ends.

NOTES:

Soil & Health’s response to ERMA’s 5 November 2009 Evaluation & Review recommendations report is copied further below.

 

ERMAs Chemical Cowboy Approach To Methyl Bromide Branded Reckless

Nov 6, 2009

ERMA’s methyl bromide control recommendations, released yesterday, are among the most reckless in the world with little regard for human and environmental safety, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. (1)

“Releasing a gas that seriously depletes our ozone layer and is a known neurotoxin, and allowing bystanders to be as close as 50 metres from the release of up to 1000kg of that gas is outrageous. This has to be one of ERMA’s worst,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.(2)

Tonnes of methyl bromide fumigant gas are released to air from under tarpaulins or ships holds following each log fumigation, with smaller amounts being released from containers used for fumigation of imported and export goods.

“With no mandatory air modelling recommended, monitoring is useless and fumigators are only making assumptions of where this invisible, odourless and dangerous fumigant will go. It should be asked why ERMA puts restrictions on anything. This report has to be one of the clearest examples of how New Zealand’s environmental, health and safety regulatory bodies are failing the community.”

The recommendations are part of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) current reassessment of methyl bromide. The reassessment comes at a time when log exports are soaring. 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 next year as part of the ozone-focused Montreal Protocol, New Zealand is now using close to 10 times the amount of methyl bromide gas than it was in 2001.

“The dominant focus of ERMA’s report is on effects to the market economy. This means ERMA is functioning more as an Economic Risk Management Authority. The environmental and human safety hazards are clearly secondary to New Zealand’s big business interests,” said Mr Browning.

“Soil & Health is not opposed to the use of methyl bromide for fumigation for biosecurity purposes either, but the release of hundreds of tonnes of the extremely toxic gas near local communities and its inevitable effect on climate change is unacceptable.”

“Recapturing the gas, as is done in Nelson and overseas, should have been demanded by ERMA throughout New Zealand, and gas recapture infrastructure quickly developed by the log exporters. However cost has once again been allowed to come before the health and safety of New Zealanders.”

Tasmania has already made methyl bromide recapture mandatory for quarantine treatment, and the European Parliament has banned the use of methyl bromide within the European Union (EU) from March 18, 2010. (3)

“Methyl bromide due to its damage of the ozone layer has a much greater effect on climate change than carbon dioxide, yet ERMA is hiding behind the fact that man made ozone hole damage appears to be lessening. So now New Zealand is blatantly taking advantage of everyone else fixing the problem.”

“With ERMA’s chemical cowboy approach, New Zealand is once again demeaning its clean green 100% Pure reputation.”

Soil & Health has been involved with several ERMA reassessments and other hearings, and believes the ERMA submission process now open to the public until 18 December, is unlikely to make significant changes to the recommendations.

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 that will not include release to air of dangerous ozone depleting fumigants.

References
(1) http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/resources/publications/pdfs/Methyl%20Bromide%2…
(2) Extract from ERMA’s Methyl Bromide Reassessment Application

1. The Agency proposes the adoption of the following tolerable exposure limits (TELs):

TEL(chronic)
TEL(acute)24 hour average
TEL (acute)1 hour

0.005 mg/m3
1.3 mg/m3
3.9 mg/m3

1.3 ppb
333 ppb
1000 ppb

0.0013 ppm
0.333 ppm
1 ppm

2. The Agency proposes that the following minimum buffer zones (the downwind distance between the ventilation release location and any non-occupational bystander) be observed when ventilation occurs:

Situation – Buffer zone
Ship‘s hold (greater than 1000 kg methyl bromide used) – 100m
Ship‘s hold (less than 1000 kg) – 50m
Logs/timber under covers outdoors and indoors (without recapture technology) – 50m
Shipping containers – 25m

Note 1: Non-occupational bystanders include not just those persons living in nearby residential properties but also those who may be temporarily present in a location, for example, walking on footpaths.

(3) European Union
B1.2.1 At its meeting on March 25, 2009, the European Parliament banned the use of methyl bromide within the European Union (EU) from March 18, 2010. This ban is significantly sooner than the 2015 phase-out originally proposed by the European Commission and supported by EU governments.

B1.2.2 The ban covers the use of methyl bromide as a pesticide, as well as its use for QPS purposes prior to transport. This ban includes the gassing of containers to control vermin. The only remaining exceptions to the ban will be the use of methyl bromide for analytical use in laboratories and for its use in emergencies, such as where a large-scale epidemic occurs (methyl bromide used for emergencies may be used for a period not exceeding 120 days and up to a quantity not exceeding 20 metric tonnes).

B1.2.3 The calculated level of methyl bromide which may be used in the period from 1 January 2010 to 18 March 2010 in the EU is not to exceed 45 (ODP) tonnes. Until 18 March 2010 methyl bromide may be placed on the market and used for QPS purposes for treatment of goods for export, under the condition that at least 80 % of methyl bromide released from the consignment is recovered.

ERMA GE Decision Smells of US and Political Influence

/in , , ,

The main benefactor of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) decision to allow the application by Crown Research Institute AgResearch a carte blanche application to genetically engineer (GE) cattle, sheep, and goats using a huge range of E.coli bacteria, human, mouse, sheep, goats, cattle, and viruses, and other material is the United States biotech company GTC Biotherapeutics (GTC), an offshoot of Genzyme Corporation, according to the Soil & Health Association.

“There has been panic on the part of AgResearch and its partner Genzyme ever since the earlier applications by AgResearch for GE animals were halted in June 2009 by the High Court through action taken by GE Free NZ,” said Soil & Health Association of NZ Spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“AgResearch should not have been presumptive in its contractual arrangements with GTC, but appeared to have had the indication from ERMA that they would get the earlier application approved. ERMA has been bending over backwards ever since to ensure AgResearch could meet its US partner’s needs. Even the US Secretary of State’s science and technology advisor Nina Federoff came calling on the government in late January.”(1)

“While ERMA  says the approval is purely for research,(2) AgResearch acknowledge it allows them to meet their contractual obligations (3), and GTC is very clear that AgResearch is to “establish appropriate transgenic founder production lines” (4), this is totally commercial and the New Zealand public are funding it to the tune of at least $8million with science funding(5). GTC’s contribution is only $200,000 but holds the US patents to any transgenic therapeutic mammalian milk proteins. (4)”

“The Chief Executive of ERMA ensuring GTC’s interests would be met, promptly ticked through AgResearch applications for indoor GE goats in December 2009 without public consultation even though ERMA acknowledged existing high public interest.”

“Highly conflicted Dr. Kieran Elborough, as chair of ERMA’s GM Standing Committee, and who had been involved with AgResearch through his own GE work in the past, renewed the consent duration of AgResearch’s existing GE cattle on 11 March 2010 for another 2.5 years. And on 1-2 March as chair of the ERMA Decision Making Committee heard the submissions about the GE sheep, cattle and goats. Soil & Health, on March 3, had again publicly exposed the Chair’s conflict of interest but on 8 March he met with the Committee on the decision-making task. On March 26 Dr. Elborough joined the board of a combined CRIs joint venture, and finally acknowledged a perceived conflict of interest and stood down on 29 March, leaving just one more meeting for the remaining 3 decision-makers.”

GTC is highly reliant on AgResearch and has been under serious financial pressure following product development failures, contaminated medicines, and penalty costs. In its annual report GTC acknowledges its survival relies on its partners and equity programs.

Excerpts from Genzyme’s financial statements September 2009 (7)

“We also have a development agreement in place with AgResearch in New Zealand for co-funding further development of selected follow-on biologics, particularly where European patents expire prior to U.S. patents…

…We have operated at a net loss since our inception in 1993, and we used $20.3 million of net cash in our operating cash flows during the first nine months of 2009. Our recurring losses from operations and our limited funds raise substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern. We are entirely dependent upon funding from equity financings, partnering programs and proceeds from short and long-term debt to finance our operations until we achieve commercial success in selling and licensing our products and positive cash flow from operations.”

Not only  is the New Zealand taxpayer spending precious taxpayers science funding money on GTC, it is at risk of being implicated in liability actions down the line as GTC’s parent Genzyme has a poor safety record in its medicines manufacture,” said Mr Browning.

“Viruses and inert contaminants have led to massive international alerts and the most recent events had the US Food and Drug Agency (FDA) on 26 March moving into a major Genzyme plant to enforce manufacturing practice regulations.”

From Genzyme’s own media release that day, “The FDA enforcement action will likely result in a consent decree, under which a third party would inspect and review the plant’s operation for an extended period and certify compliance with FDA regulations. Under a consent decree, Genzyme also would be required to make payments to the government and could incur other costs.”(8)

“Once again our taxpayer owned Foundation for Research Science and Technology (FoRST) is dishing out precious research money to big US corporates trading in risky dangerous activity. Another one that has gloated about NZ taxpayers money on its annual statement is Arborgen who want to be the Monsanto of GE trees internationally and are partnered with CRI Scion. Scion also benefitted from Dr Elborough signing off without public consultation another 8 years for a previously discontinued GE pine tree field trial in full knowledge of the history of non-compliance there.”

“New Zealand government agencies are tripping over themselves to get into bed with large US corporations, and run roughshod over the New Zealand public to avoid due process and corruptly give blanket approvals to their friends GE experiments.”

“It is no wonder with such disregard for fair process, precaution and law by the agencies, that protestors consider direct action.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 without risky GE or influence by US corporates over New Zealand’s science and decision making processes.

NOTES

Links accessed April 2010

(1)   http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/science+meeting+highlights+strong+tie…

(2)   http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/news-events/archives/media-releases/2010/mr-20…

(3)   http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1004/S00040.htm

(4)   http://www.allbusiness.com/science-technology/experimentation-research/1…

(5)   The decision http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/find/WebResultsDetails.aspx?ID=1103

(6)   http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/contracts-law-licensing-agreements/1138…

(7)   http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=687…

(8)   http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/genzyme/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news…

Bethells Herbicides and Taranakis 1080 A National Issue

/in , ,

The community concern over aerial spraying at Te Henga, near Bethells Beach, followed by a 1080 debacle in Taranaki is indicative of a much wider issue; the extra heavy use of chemicals throughout New Zealand and the lack of vision for a pesticide free environment, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ. Soil & Health is calling for a national ban on aerial spraying to match that of Europe.
“New Zealand is a poisoners paradise with little restriction against broad scale herbicide spraying on agricultural, forestry, amenity and conservation land, or of pelletised animal poisons being aerial dropped over huge areas,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
A public meeting was held last week at Waitakere Primary School to discuss aerial herbicide spraying in the Bethells area. Concerns over potential environmental and human health risks from an intended 23 hectare wetland area of willow being herbicide sprayed by local councils near Bethells beach, had prompted a legal appeal and postponement of the operation. However regardless of that outcome, a neighbouring landowner aerial sprayed vegetation immediately adjacent as a permitted activity, although conditions and notification were unsuitable.
“Bethells is a microcosm of a conflict building in New Zealand in which communities are tiring of pesticides being applied with little regard for their health and with little effective consultation. Spray drift rules in council plans throughout New Zealand are ineffective and there exists a presumption of right to spray among land managers, whether foresters, conservationists, or farmers,” said Mr Browning.
“The Egmont National Park aerial drop of 1080 poison, which also landed on some personnel busy weed spraying, shows that Bethells is just one victim of a country wide conservation regime that is fixated with a chemical killing approach to protecting indigenous biodiversity.”
“At the Bethells Te Henga wetland as in many throughout New Zealand, indigenous conservation is the excuse for widespread spraying of introduced plants such as willows. The native plant conservators ignore the subtleties of toxics on the very ecosystem they strive to preserve, and the neighbouring farmer like so many others seem to think it OK to herbicide drench the very land his customers food comes from.”
“Environment Waikato at the same time is preparing to allow blanket 10 year region-wide non publicly notified consents to dump 1080 into water and onto land. This council knows about available alternatives to 1080, but like most other councils is taking the easy way out despite the wishes of many in its own community.”
“ New Zealand needs vision not poison.”
“Soil & Health is calling for a ban on aerial spraying to match Europe’s, where history has shown that broad brush chemical pest management approaches are in fact not a sustainable solution but cause human and environmental harm.”
“At a time when aerial spraying of chemicals is now banned in Europe, the so called Department of Conservation and its cohorts the Councils throughout New Zealand are spraying on like there is no tomorrow,” said Mr Browning.
“Will they pay as each of their current poisons is shown to cause unacceptable harm? Will they pay as tourists and discerning markets turn off?”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 in which aerial spraying of toxins has no place, and flora and fauna, farmers and the community thrive in a vibrant live environment.

Conflict of Interest By GE Animals Hearing Chair

/in ,

“We have to be aggressive about getting the biotechnology out onto the farm where it can do the most good. Part of the gains to be made are included in making them quickly.”
Hearing Chair, Kieran Elborough.
The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) hearing of the AgResearch application to allow genetically engineered cattle, sheep and goats, is unjust when very similar applications are already banned by the High Court, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
Soil & Health also believes conflicts of interest between ERMA’s hearings committee and AgResearch the applicant should nullify the current process, according to spokesperson Steffan Browning, especially considering some committee members previous conflict of interest already allowed the infamous GE Brassica field trial against public interest.
Soil & Health National Councillor Dr Elvira Dommisse, an ex GE scientist, made a submission to the ERMA hearing in Hamilton yesterday, as did Soil & Health spokesperson, Steffan Browning. Soil & Health’s Organic NZ magazine editor Philippa Jamieson is to present today.
“This hearing is an affront to natural justice considering the High Court’s decision (CIV-2008-485-2370 GE Free NZ v ERMA) overturning ERMA’s previous notification of very similar applications by AgResearch,” said Steffan Browning. (1) “Although AgResearch has appealed that decision, the High Court decision still holds.”
“Here we have the terrible twins of ERMA and AgResearch at it again, trying it on with over 700 pages of genetic descriptors, almost infinite genetic engineering experimental combinations from 8000 E. coli strains, and mammalian cell lines including human, mice, sheep, cattle and goats, genetic material, with resultant GE cattle, sheep and goats intended for outdoor trials.”

“The huge range of genetic material being applied for, once again makes it impossible to assess environmental and economic risks and costs. Like the previous ones, this application is based on the unethical treatment of animals and other life and includes human DNA. Although cell lines from Maori persons are excluded, the cultural concerns of other races and cultures has been disregarded,” said Mr Browning

ERMA had previously released its Evaluation and Review Report on the AgResearch application with no distinct changes to the previous applications in terms of the broad range of genetic material intended as optional for the scientists toying with genetically engineered animals, nor of the huge range of unknown new proteins potentially resulting.

The current hearings committee includes Dr Kieran Elborough (chair) and Dr Max Suckling both Plant & Food Research staff, but as conflicted ERMA decision makers were responsible for assuring submitters and the public in 2007 that controls would prevent escape of genetic material from their Crop & Food colleagues GE brassica field trial.

“Submitters concerns were later vindicated, when flowering brassicas were discovered at the field trial site by Soil & Health and GE Free NZ,” said Mr Browning. “Another current hearings committee member, Dr Manuka Henare, while not conflicted, joined in originally dismissing risk in the Brassica decision and then headed ERMA’s committee investigating the flowerings. Ex diplomat and SIS director Richard Woods whose background may lend more to the politics than ecological risk is also part of todays ERMA committee, hearing the AgResearch application.”

“The conflicts of interest continue with the current AgResearch application, with Chair Dr Elborough having an active collaborative history with AgResearch through his earlier ViaLactia work developing GE clover and rye grass, and which AgResearch have indicated they wish to apply for field trialling this year.”

In a 2002 joint paper, “Genome Biotechnology: An option for New Zealand Dairy Farmers,” by Kieran Elborough and Zac Hanley, Forage Genomics Business, ViaLactia, (2) is the quote:

“ViaLactia is committed to rapid commercialisation of all of its biotechnology based products and services. To achieve this we have a synergy of world-class scientists with world-class business and commercial managers to provide a very powerful and competitive formula for success. We have to be aggressive about getting the biotechnology out onto the farm where it can do the most good. Part of the gains to be made are included in making them quickly.”

Soil & Health’s Mr Browning believes the ERMA process to be corrupted.

“GE farming proponents should not be making the decisions which risk undermining New Zealand’s Clean Green and 100% Pure trading advantage.”

“Poor processes including ERMA’s pre-Christmas consenting without public input, GE goats into indoor experiments by AgResearch, and GE pine trees into a Scion field trial, combined with an incestuous science policy, funding and decision making clique, may leave little choice to the public but civil disobedience and protest,” said Mr Browning,

“New Zealand’s science and environmental safety regulators need either some major staff changes, political policy push or a culture change, if environmental, animal and public safety is to be considered properly and public confidence in the regulatory process is to be restored.”

Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 where proven organic farming techniques have allowed New Zealand farmers to remain GE Free, securing markets and respect. Soil & Health believes a healthy community is based on safe healthy organic food not risky GE contrived products.

(1) http://www.giantexperiment.co.nz/news/item.aspx?ID=81aaf3e3-7492-4872-8cac-f19a6a0c7942 Extract below.
(2) http://www.vialactia.com/news/research.asp?id=4 and attached
http://www.vialactia.com/_attachments/20021212_Pastoral_Genomics.pdf

New Pro-1080 Alliance Lacks Sustainability Vision

/in ,

The new pro-1080 animal toxin alliance led by Forest & Bird and Federated Farmers lacks a vision of a truly sustainable clean green 100% Pure New Zealand according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand. Soil & Health campaigns on pesticide reduction and has a use reduction formula for aerial 1080 poison drops that would mean a 50% drop in tonnage used over 4 years. (1)
“The use of a sinking lid or reduction in use formula for aerial toxin use would give New Zealanders and our tourism and export markets alike, the message that New Zealand is serious about trying to retain and build on its clean green image,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.
Forest & Bird combined with Federated Farmers launched a joint website (2) on Thursday with a stated aim “Establish Pest Control Education Initiative,” and is supported by the Animal Health Board, the Department of Conservation (DOC), Dairy NZ, the Nga Manu Trust, Solid Energy, the Isaac Wildlife Foundation, Meat & Wool New Zealand, PGG Wrightson, Deer Industry New Zealand, and Bush and Beyond.
“The poison alliance’s immediate focus is for the promotion of 1080 use for pest control whether for conservation or agriculture and uses the same incomplete science and research reports that were used for the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s (ERMA) granting of continued use of the extremely inhumane poison,” said Mr Browning.
“Instead of trying to kid the public that widespread poison drops are somehow OK, the poison alliance would be better to join with those opposed to 1080 and push for more funding for implementing more humane and more sustainable alternatives.”
“Soil & Health has a formula for pesticide reduction that requires matching with political commitment and appropriate funding for the biodiversity protection goals that we all share.”
“The whole issue is a funding issue and clutching at dirty toxins by some in the conservation movement is likely to further divide the community, entrench shallow science as adequate and help keep New Zealand’s chance of a more genuine clean green 100% Pure trading advantage in the distance.”
“Toxins are the cheap way out but the true cost to the environment and trading image are not being included. Extra funding for clean alternatives should be seen as an investment.”
“It is disgusting that the new website promotes maintaining New Zealand as clean and green then advocates for large scale poison drops when adequate funding can achieve the same results, while creating enterprise and employment, healthy education opportunities and a genuine clean green result.”
“Teaming with the other heavy environmental polluters does the conservation movement no credit. Conservation needs to clean up and primary producers need to follow. There are alternatives to broad scale toxin use for all players.”
“I have emailed Forest & Bird for an urgent meeting where deep discussion of biodiversity goals and pest control funding needs to occur,” said Mr Browning.
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 where biodiversity and agricultural pest control measures are the most humane available and do not rely on the broad scale use of toxins.
Notes:
(1) As a means of getting consensus within the conservation movement, Soil & Health proposes a sinking lid phase out with a 20% reduction in 1080 tonnage used per year. This would have several positive outcomes as outlined further below.
(2) www.1080facts.co.nz
Note:
(1) As a means of getting consensus within the conservation movement Soil & Health proposes a sinking lid phase out with a suggested 20% reduction in 1080 tonnage used per year. This would have several positive outcomes;
1) An immediate reduction in 1080 use
2) An opportunity to secure alternative solutions and build capacity
3) Ability for 1080 users to continue improvements on tonnage reduction per application through more strategic delivery systems
4) Improved prioritisation of areas targeted, with the ability to still use 1080 as a genuine last resort as alternatives are phased in
5) Integration with alternative control methods
6) A phase out date, that could be capped.
Using a 20% annual reduction (sinking lid), for every 100 tonnes currently used nationally, the next year would be 80, then 64, then, 51, 40, 32, 26, 21, 17, 13 …..
This means a 50% reduction in 4 years.
The very important balance to this is that the sinking lid on 1080, must be matched with a rising lid on funding accepting that in many instances, alternative pest control solutions will be more expensive and some further technology development is required.
Efficiencies of scale will reduce technology costs and increase returns from value added activities associated with pest control, however a rising lid for pest control funding and alternatives is important initially.

Animal Cruelty Legislation Needs To Consider 1080 Effects

/in , ,

The Government needs to include the wilful cruelty associated of 1080 drops when considering the animal welfare bill the National caucus has agreed to fast track, according to the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand.
Originally an intended private member’s bill of National MP Simon Bridges, the bill seeks to raise the maximum imprisonment penalty for wilful ill-treatment of animals under section 28 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
“This Act is about knowingly ill-treating animals in a particularly gruesome way, and 1080 poison drops do exactly that,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
Taken from Mr Bridges website, “Section 28 creates the most serious offence in relation to animals and prohibits the wilful ill-treatment of an animal where the animal is permanently disabled, or dies, or the pain or distress caused to the animal is so great that it is necessary to destroy the animal in order to end its suffering.”(1)
“This is about sending a message that Parliament thinks this offending is abhorrent to our society. It’s more than not ok, it’s an outrage,” Mr Bridge had added.
Agriculture Minister David Carter has said he would consider whether the bill should be widened to make the Animal Welfare Act work better, and that increasing incidences of animal cruelty were “horrifying” many New Zealanders. Labour leader Phil Goff said at the weekend he supported Mr Bridges’ bill.
“Mr Bridges, and the Members of Parliament from most parties that have quickly supported his move, were motivated by recent animal cruelty episodes actioned by one or two people,” said Mr Browning.
“However decisions to knowingly inflict hideously long painful deaths on numerous animals from rodents, rabbits and possums, to pigs, deer, goats and birds by the use of large scale poison drops, are also conscious decisions by small groups of people.”(2)
“Animal welfare must be dealt with as a societal responsibility and all animals need the same protection from human induced cruelty whether it be at the hands of a small child, psychopathic individual, insensitive farmer or zoo operator, or pest control operator.”(3)
“1080 and several other poisons currently in use are slow and indiscriminate killers which need to be urgently phased out as alternatives to their use exist. To continue to knowingly cause a tortuous death when an alternative exists is likely to also meet the parameters of section 28 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.”(4)
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 where animal welfare meets the highest ethical standards.
(1) http://www.simonbridges.co.nz/index.php?/archives/81-Time-to-get-tough-on-animal-cruelty.html
(2) http://cms.connovation.co.nz/content/documents/shirley.pdf
(3) http://cms.connovation.co.nz/content/documents/Littin%20&%20Mellor%20SATRS%202005.pdf
(4) http://www.connovation.co.nz/alternatesto1080.aspx

Bethells Spraying Risks Environment and Community Effects

/in , ,

The intended helicopter spraying of crack willow with herbicide over 23 ha of wetland at Te Henga, near Bethells Beach, is another example of New Zealand’s use of crude chemical solutions without deep understanding of environmental risks, according to the Soil & Health Association of NZ.
“At a time when aerial spraying of chemicals is now banned in Europe, the so called Eco City of Waitakere intends to spray a wetland with strong dose glyphosate herbicide, in a secret formulation, that is a known aquatic toxin,” said Soil & Health – Organic NZ spokesperson Steffan Browning.
“Spraying in the Te Henga environment, it is not possible for Council staff to determine where drift may go, or with the formulation confidential, the level of environmental impact from the spraying.”
“It is ironical that the backdrop wallpaper on the Council web-page for the spray program has insect, frog and lizard motifs, when they are just some of the type of species adversely affected by the AGPRO Green Glyphosate 510 intended to be used.” (1)
The highly referenced Glyphosate monograph prepared by New Zealand scientist Dr Meriel Watts for Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (PANAP), quotes several research documents showing damage to reptiles, amphibians and insects. Glyphosate affects species right down to the ecological base of the environment with algae and bacteria also affected. (2)
The monograph also says that the human exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides, even at very low doses may result in reproductive and hormonal problems, miscarriages, low birth weights, birth defects, and various cancers—especially haematological cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and hormonal cancers such as breast cancer.
The formulation of AGPRO Green Glyphosate 510 was kept as confidential during the Environmental Risk Management Authority consent application process for its use in New Zealand, however Soil & Health –Organic NZ point out that formulation ingredients are often more toxic than the glyphosate itself.
“Just as with previous aerial spraying in the Auckland region, the public are not fully informed of what is to be sprayed in their environment,” said Mr Browning.
“The watershed of Bethells is at risk from the cavalier approach to biodiversity.”
“It is urgent that Waitakere Eco-City, Auckland Regional Council, Rodney District Council, the landowners and the spraying funders, the Department of Conservation Biodiversity Condition Fund, put the brakes on the intended February 8 spraying, consult with the community and independent experts, and rethink how management of the Waitakere ecosystem should take place.”
Soil & Health has a vision of an Organic 2020 in which aerial spraying of toxins has no place.
(1) http://www.waitakere.govt.nz/cnlser/pw/greennetwk/tehengawetland….asp
(2) http://www.panap.net/uploads/media/monograph_glyphosate.pdf
Some extracts pasted below.
Glyphosate monograph, http://www.panap.net/uploads/media/monograph_glyphosate.pdf
Page 2
Long-term Toxicity
Recently scientists have found harmful effects on human cells at levels of glyphosate too low to have a herbicidal effect, some at levels similar to those found in food. These effects are amplified by the adjuvants in the Roundup formulation, which assist penetration of the cells by glyphosate. Several researchers have reported that glyphosate appears to accumulate in human cells.
Cancer, genotoxicity, endocrine disruption, reproduction
The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) have declared that glyphosate is not carcinogenic to humans. The US EPA originally classified glyphosate as a Group C “possible human carcinogen”, then re-classified it as Group D “not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity”, then as Group E “evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans”, and then in 2006 rephrased this as “Group E carcinogen with no evidence of human carcinogenicity”.
Yet there is substantial laboratory and some epidemiological evidence that points to the opposite conclusion. Some researchers have concluded that glyphosate and its formulations clearly present a risk of carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reproductive effects on human cells.
Numerous laboratory studies have shown that glyphosate and the Roundup formulation can be genotoxic and endocrine disrupting. One study summarises these effects occurring at doses substantially lower than those used in agriculture, or permitted as residues: at 0.5 mg/kg (40 times lower than levels permitted in soybeans in the US) they were anti-androgenic; at 2 mg/kg they were anti-oestrogenic; at 1 mg/kg they disrupted the enzyme aromatase; at 5 mg/kg they damaged DNA, and at 10 mg/kg there were cytotoxic. These effects can result in crucial outcomes for sexual and other cell differentiation, bone metabolism, liver metabolism, reproduction, development and behaviour, and hormone dependent diseases such as breast and prostate cancer (Gasnier et al 2009).
Studies have demonstrated that glyphosate and/or Roundup cause genetic damage in human lymphocytes and liver cells; bovine lymphocytes; mouse bone marrow, liver, and kidney cells; fish gill cells and erythrocytes; caiman erythrocytes; tadpoles; sea urchin embryos; fruit flies; root-tip cells of onions; and in Salmonella bacteria. Oth­er studies have shown that it causes oxidative stress, cell-cycle dysfunction, and disruption to RNA transcription, all of which can contribute to carcinogenicity.
Laboratory studies have shown that very low lev­els of glyphosate, Roundup, POEA, and the me­tabolite AMPA all kill human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells. Roundup can reduce sperm numbers, increase abnormal sperm, retard skel­etal development, and cause deformities in am­phibian embryos.
Exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides, even at very low doses may result in reproductive and hormonal problems, miscarriages, low birth weights, birth defects, and various cancers—especially haematological cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and hormonal cancers such as breast cancer.
Several epidemiological studies have linked exposure to glyphosate with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, hairy cell leukaemia, multiple myeloma, DNA damage; and one study with spontaneous abortions and pre-term deliveries.
Neurological
Glyphosate is assumed by regulators to have no neurological effects—the US EPA did not require neurotoxicity studies to be carried out for the registration of Roundup. However there is emerging evidence that glyphosate can affect the nervous system, and in particular areas of the brain associated with Parkinson’s disease. In one case study glyphosate exposure was linked to ‘symmetrical parkinsonian syndrome’. An epidemiological study of children identified a link with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
Other effects
Glyphosate damages liver cells and interferes with a number of enzymes important in metabolism.
Page 2-3 (Summary)
Environmental Effects
The environmental effects of glyphosate of greatest concern are those that occur at a subtle level, and can result in significant disruption of aquatic and terrestrial eco-systems, including the agro-ecosystem.
Aquatic effects
Glyphosate is water soluble, and is increasingly found in the environment at levels that have caused significant effects on species that underpin the entire aquatic food chain. Glyphosate and/or Roundup can alter the composition of natural aquatic communities, potentially tipping the ecological balance and giving rise to harmful algal blooms. It can have profound impacts on microorganisms, plankton, algae and amphibia at low concentrations: one study showed a 70% reduction in tadpole species and a 40% increase in algae. Insects, crustaceans, molluscs, sea urchins, reptiles, tadpoles, and fish can all be affected, with vulnerability within each group varying dramatically between species. Effects include reproductive abnormalities, developmental abnormalities and malformations, DNA damage, immune effects, oxidative stress, modified enzyme activity, decreased capacity to cope with stress and maintain homeostasis, altered behaviour, and impaired olfaction that can threaten their survival. Amphibians are particularly vulnerable. Roundup is generally more toxic than glyphosate, especially to fish.
Page 16
Most recently a leading Argentinean scientist, Professor Carrasco of the University of Buenos Aires Medical School, demonstrated significant consistent and systematic malformations in amphibian embryos resulting from very low dose exposure to glyphosate, and warned that comparable effects can happen in humans. In the first part of the study amphibian embryos were immersed in a solution of the herbicide 1,500 times weaker than that used in agriculture: the embryos suffered head deformities. In the second part, the embryos were injected with glyphosate, also at 1,500 times dilution: the impact was even more severe, demonstrating that it is the active ingredient, not the adjuvants that are the problem. Effects included reduced head size, genetic alterations in the central nervous system, increased death of cells that help form the skull, deformed cartilage, eye defects, and undeveloped kidneys. Carrasco also stated that the glyphosate was not breaking down in the cells, but was accumulating. The findings lend weight to claims that abnormally high levels of cancer, birth defects, neonatal mortality, lupus, kidney disease, and skin and respiratory problems in populations near Argentina’s soybean fields may be linked to the aerial spraying of Roundup (Valente 2009; Trigona 2009; Ho 2009).