New editor at Organic NZ

/in ,

New Zealand’s leading magazine on organics and sustainable living, Organic NZ, has a new editor.

Adelia Hallett joins the magazine this month and begins by producing the September/October issue.

Organic NZ is published by the Soil and Health Association, an organisation established in 1941 to promote sustainable agriculture and nutrition. Co-chair Steffan Browning said that Ms Hallett was a good fit for the magazine.

“Adelia has a strong background in journalism and the organics sector, and we are delighted to welcome her as editor of Organic NZ,” he said.

“New Zealand is at a critical point, where it must choose its path for the future. We believe that New Zealand can be organic by 2020, but can only be achieved through public pressure.”

“Organic NZ has a huge role to play in helping people to understand the vital link between healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.”

Ms Hallett has worked in newspapers around New Zealand, including the New Zealand Herald, and is now freelancing and specialising in environmental reporting. She lives with her family on a smallholding on the Kaipara Harbour and is involved in local organic organisations.

Mr Browning paid tribute to the work of previous editor Allan Baddock in building Organic NZ into the country’s leading magazine on organics and sustainable living.

“Organic NZ has a huge reputation for its credibility and authority, and we thank Allan for his role in developing that,” he said.

Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill Rethink Time

/in , , ,

The government has an ideal opportunity for a rethink of New Zealand’s health choices, with the placing of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill (TPMB) at the bottom of the Parliamentary Order Paper on Tuesday, according to the Soil & Health Association.

Community opposition to the Bill remains very high, and Soil & Health has received 1600 signatures through a modest appeal to members and friends over the last two weeks. Thousands have signed other petitions and hundreds attended last weekend’s Auckland rally against the TPMB.

Today, Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning presented Green Party MP Sue Kedgley with the indicative signatures. “We all understand the issues are complex,” he said, “but there is an overriding concern from our members that they do not want any regulatory system controlled from Australia and they do not want to lose the choice of the natural products that they have at present.”

“One signatory, a 71 year old great grandmother who has successfully used herbal products, vitamins and minerals since 1980, finished a message with, ’We are mature enough & dare I say it wise enough to keep it right in New Zealand.’”

“One method of achieving this may be through a New Zealand Office of Natural Health Products, such as proposed by the Natural Health Alliance,” said Browning. “Their draft concept has a regulatory structure for consumer protection while keeping compliance costs low for producers.”

“With nanotechnology and genetic engineering being used in the production of some so-called therapeutic goods, it is important that we have strict guidelines, but also that they have the support of and input from New Zealand consumers and natural therapists, through a structure such as suggested by the Natural Health Alliance.”

“Consumer choice is increasingly being removed and unwanted additives are being included because New Zealand bureaucrats are chasing free trade agreements and international harmonisation of food and health standards (through Codex, CER and FSANZ, WTO and others). Soil & Health suggests that each agreement maintains full domestic opt-out clauses, and has better local consumer input,” said Browning.

Please Find Below the Draft Proposal by the Natural Health Alliance.

TO ESTABLISH AN Office of Natural Health Products New Zealand (onhpnz)

Mission Statement

Our mission is to make New Zealand’s health care sustainable into the future by becoming a world leader in the regulation of Natural Health Products resulting in New Zealand being the country recognised as having the Healthiest People on Earth.

Goal for New Zealand

To develop and maintain a sustainable health policy based on a wellness paradigm. To establish an appropriate regulatory environment for Natural Health and dietary supplement products.

To establish a Centre of Excellence for Natural Healthcare that will optimise the health of New Zealand consumers; address the escalating costs of health care in an ageing population; maximise a New Zealand wellness brand and secure New Zealand’s place in the global market – all resulting in a sustainable, innovative Health and Wellness industry lead economy.

New Zealand Health in the Future

The Natural Health Alliance believes that optimised health and disease prevention through the use of Natural health products and health promotion can substantially improve the quality of life. One of the greatest concerns of the OECD countries is the escalating cost for health care in an ageing population, especially for medication resulting from fundamental weaknesses in the present illness model of Health policy. This model is predicted to cripple many countries and individuals. To this end, the Office should be committed to meeting the challenges of tomorrow by supporting research into the health benefit properties of low risk and low cost Natural Products (especially New Zealand herbs and flora)

Export Led Wellness Economy

New Zealand exports of natural products and ingredients have the potential to exceed imports. New Zealand due to its isolation has unique herbs and ingredients – some of which are recognised as world leaders. Having a unique Natural health Products (NHP) regulator will give New Zealand the opportunity to foster entrepreneurial companies exporting unique leading natural health products.

The Natural Health Alliance recommends that:

1. A separate Office of Natural Health Products New Zealand (ONHPNZ) be established that:

a) Is separate and independent from the Pharmaceutical Regulatory office,

b) Develops an appropriate risk-based regulatory framework that ensures consumers have freedom to choose quality natural health products and good information about those products to assist in making informed choices, whilst protecting philosophical and cultural diversity,

c) Is headed by a person with experience and expertise in Natural Health Products as the Canadians have done in appointing a Doctor of Naturopathy as head of the Natural Health Directorate of Health Canada; and

d) Is also staffed with personnel qualified and experienced in natural health products.

2. Twenty percent of ONHPNZ national health and medical research funding be directed towards research projects into natural health products.

3. A Centre of Excellence of Natural Healthcare be established with industry, Maori and consumers in partnership to focus on research, education and economics with objectives similar to those of the US Office of Dietary Supplements.

4. A cost-benefit study be conducted into the potential cost savings from greater use of natural health products be undertaken.

5. An on-line consumer information service be established in consultation with industry to provide consumers with balanced, factual information on natural health products.

6. A rebate for all natural health products and services be negotiated with private health insurance providers.

7. A Natural Health Products Advisory Committee be established to provide expert advice on natural health products and alternative health practices to the Minister and regulatory bodies.

8. An adverse event reporting system for NHPs to monitor trends and emerging safety issues and that such reports be assessed by a Committee of persons with knowledge and expertise in natural healthcare.

9. That the cost of the regulator be at least 50% subsidized by the New Zealand government as New Zealand will gain through the significant cost savings coming from a wellness health care system. Cost recovery system to recover only those costs that relate to regulatory services to the Industry.

10. Penalties and fines for breaches of the NHP standards to be set at appropriate levels that would be normal for this level of breach in accordance with similar used in the Food Industry in New Zealand.

11. Research into the health benefits of our Native Natural flora and fauna be sponsored by the Government to establish the active ingredients and confirm the benefits that have been discovered anecdotally over many years of use .The published research will help develop a good research based industry in New Zealand and the evidence to support the development of the New Zealand Natural Health Brand Internationally.

12. The government to promote the use of NHPs as a means of improving the nation’s Health and reducing the escalating cost of healthcare in an aging population.

Picton’s toxic gas use lacks consent

/in , ,

Methyl bromide fumigation at ports around New Zealand needs urgent reassessment, according to the Soil & Health Association, following the Marlborough District Council’s refusal to require their Port Company to apply for resource consent to discharge the toxic gas to the Picton environment.

“Port Marlborough has no idea where the gas is going after fumigation covers are pulled off the export log stacks’, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“The ozone depleting neuro-toxin methyl bromide gas is under contention as it is implicated in 6 Port Nelson workers deaths by motor neuron disease, yet Picton has far less controls than Nelson. Low temperature inversion layers in calm winter time conditions may be particularly dangerous, considering the findings in District Health Board reports for neighbouring Port Nelson gas dispersal modelling.”

“With no Picton air movement modelling to predict the contamination area of the highly toxic, odourless and tasteless gas, workers and tourists in the Port and ferry terminal area, and the greater Picton community may be at risk during every log shipment.”

“The Code of Practice in Picton has not been available to the media and on my inspection showed lack of substance and no community input. The Code of Practice has not been peer reviewed by the Labour Department or Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA).”

“Conflicts of interest between councils with RMA regulatory functions, their council owned dividend generating port companies and the responsibilities of staff need scrutiny, especially Unitary Authorities as in the Nelson Marlborough region, which does not have a regional council”, said Browning.

“The problem however extends nationwide with capture and destruction of methyl bromide fumigant not used with export logs anywhere in New Zealand, and little truly independent monitoring .”

“Responsible methyl bromide fumigators internationally are capturing the gas rather than participating in ozone depletion and risking the health of communities. Log exporters in clean green New Zealand need to lift their game. Methyl bromide is 50 times more damaging to the ozone layer than banned CFC refrigerants.”

“Soil & Health want to see an urgent reassessment by ERMA of methyl bromide use nationally, and immediate precautions on discharge at Picton and other ports.”

“Clean alternatives to neurotoxin ozone depleting gases must be implemented in keeping with Brand New Zealand’s clean green 100% Pure image, and Soil & Health’s vision of an Organic 2020.”

Former Crop & Food Scientist says GE Brassica field test approval lacked scrutiny

/in , , ,

A former Crop & Food GE scientist, Dr Elvira Dommisse, said today that proper scrutiny by ERMA of evidence would have prioritised the need for food studies over fund-wasting field trials.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has once again approved an application to field test genetically engineered (GE) crops, namely GE brassicas – cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower and forage kale for stock feed.

This decision, which gives Crop & Food Research in Lincoln the go ahead, has angered groups with scientific and environmental safety concerns, who note the lack of scrutiny ERMA has shown in its decision.

At the public hearing in April this year, a number of scientific submitters with referenced evidence, stressed that it was important to first carry out rat feeding experiments with these GE crops to establish that they were safe to eat, according to Dr Elvira Dommisse of Soil & Health.

“One thing that needs to come through very clearly is the huge waste of public money if, at the end of ten years, rat feeding trials take place and the crops are found to be toxic or allergenic.”

“This is quite possible, given the past record of other GE crops. We only have to look to Australia, where GE peas modified with a harmless bean protein produced immunological problems in mice. The GE brassicas to be field tested at Lincoln are modified with a highly altered bacterial protein, which produces a pesticidal toxin. This is all the more reason to believe that such crops will be toxic or allergenic to mice or rats and ultimately humans and other animals.”

Yet when asked about rat feeding experiments on National Radio Dr Mary Christey, the leader of the GE brassica project said, “we do not think that food safety experiments are necessary.” [Our Changing World, Thurs 3,10 May, 2007]

“Apparently in support and bypassing solid food safety evidence ERMA have said, “She’ll be right Crop & Food, have your play at taxpayers expense, and we’ll worry about the real point of all this later,” said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Food safety scares in other parts of the world have increased the international demand for organically grown produce, which has much stricter criteria about what crop protection measures can be taken to deal with plant pests and pathogens.”

“Organic certifiers BioGro and Organic FarmNZ are receiving increased applications for organic certification with BioGro receiving a record number last week. This is indicative of the huge worldwide growth in consumer demand for safe, natural and nutritious produce. GE crops are excluded from that demand for good reason. It is time for ERMA and government to listen.”

GE brassica decision lacks justification

/in , , ,

Today’s Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) decision approving a Crop and Food application to field trial brassicas (broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage and forage kale) genetically engineered with a toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis(Bt), lacks justification in New Zealand’s new era of sustainability, and is full of contradictions, according to Soil & Health’s spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“ERMA has yet to decline an application for a GE field trial, and appears to look for a way to approve, regardless of how shonky the application is. This shows that ERMA is biased towards genetic engineering in clean green New Zealand, regardless of the community’s opposition,” said Mr Browning, adding, “that not running food safety feeding trials ahead of field trials of GE crops is a nonsense.”

“Why grow a crop that is potentially toxic to humans and animals for ten years without first establishing if it is even potentially edible?”

The ERMA Committee states that “GM brassicas will be prevented from entering the human food chain and a further application to the Authority for a release approval would be necessary before effects on food safety and food choice would arise. Therefore, the Committee did not consider the effects on food safety and food choices further for this application.”

“That the GE Bt brassica’s are ultimately intended for commercial release, yet have not undergone feeding studies to ensure food safety, makes this trial a serious potential waste of tax payers money, said Mr Browning, ” Animals are sick and dying in India from eating cotton also modified with Bt toxins and cotton workers have health issues. Feed studies also show health risks from other Bt engineered crops.”

“The ERMA decision appears to be predicated heavily on upskilling of scientists and increasing experience in working with gene technology in the field. The decision expects marginal public benefit however, and ERMA states, “This beneficial effect will accrue to the applicant and the staff involved in this field test and is considered to be of minimal value. A public benefit accruing to the wider scientific community when papers are published describing the research and its results (particularly in the area of impacts on the soil biota of GM plants) would be of minor value. However, this may be very unlikely to be realised.”

“Despite ERMA receiving 941submissions of objection, many advocating an organic alternative for New Zealand and the overwhelming desire for a clean green country, the ERMA decision merely states, “Given the contained nature of this field test, the Committee did not identify any significant adverse effects on society and community.”

“New Zealand’s markets are already concerned with food miles, and will not like the signals that clean green NZ is intending commercial production of GE vegetables sometime”, said Mr Browning.

ERMA’s decision in considering alternatives, states, “The Committee considers that the primary goals of this field test are to assess the agronomic performance of these GM plants under natural environmental conditions, the resistance of GM brassicas to insect pests, and to assess the environmental impacts of these GM brassicas.”, and after suggesting the field test, “provides a valuable opportunity for experimental work to assess the impacts of GM brassica plants on the soil biota, non-target organisms, and the persistence of DNA sequences and Cry proteins in the soil.”, then states, “The Committee notes that there is some uncertainty regarding the potential for meaningful information on the environmental impacts of growing GM brassicas to be obtained given the limitations of scale inherent in this field test.”

Soil & Health points out however funding was uncertain for the limited work that ERMA notes as valuable, that other Crown Research Agencies would be required to assist in, and spokesperson Steffan Browning, adds that, “it would be wasting resources considering public opposition and the unlikely commercialisation of the brassicas, if the current level of security required to protect GE trial crops was to be continued.”

In considering the potentially significant adverse effects on the market economy, ERMA states, “that since this application is for a small-scale contained field test with a fixed time period after which all plants will be removed, the potentially significant adverse and beneficial effects associated with this application are not economic in nature.”

However New Zealand farmers, the community and customers of the riches of a clean green land may see it differently according to Mr Browning and the ramifications of field tests trialling GE food crops, although at risk of sabotage, will send messages contrary to that of Prime Minister Helen Clark’s desire for New Zealand to be the worlds first truly sustainable country, and National’s John Key a week ago, “New Zealand’s clean green environment is vital to the Kiwi way of life and vital to the image New Zealand sells to the world,” both messages that Soil & Health agrees with.

Soil & Health will be discussing with other groups, potential further action against the field trial, as it is committed to true sustainability and a GE Free future.

Organic Means Certified Organic

/in , , ,

Soil & Health is celebrating that the Fair Trading Act is being interpreted to mean that products called organic should be certified organic, following the release last night of Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s Review Report, again recommending the introduction of folic acid fortification to all but organic bread.

“The recommendation appears to mean that foods labelled ‘organic’, but not certified to be organic, will not be exempt. FSANZ has said that foods labelled ‘natural’ will not be exempt as they are not subject to certification criteria. However organic foods are to be exempt, as there are certification criteria against which they can be checked”, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

The FSANZ Review states;

Exemption of wheat bread-making flour represented as ‘organic’ will allow the organic milling and bread industry to comply with fair trading legislation[1], which takes precedence over the Code.

Approach:

* FSANZ consulted the New Zealand Commerce Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on the status of products labelled ‘organic’ and ‘natural’ under mandatory fortification in relation to fair trading legislation.

Conclusion:

* Under fair trading legislation mandatorily fortified foods would not be able to be labelled as ‘organic’ or ‘all natural’.
* It is proposed that foods represented as ‘organic’ be exempt from mandatory fortification.

Foods labelled ‘natural’ will not be exempt from mandatory fortification as there is no certification criteria for ‘all natural’ foods, and manufacturers are able to use labelling descriptors which indicate the type of product without misleading consumers.

“This is a long awaited and clear message that anything from pork to pickles, if it’s to be called organic, it is on the premise that it is certified organic”, said Browning. “This is significant for consumers who are too often sold products as organic, even though the producer is not subject to any checks that their claim is authentic, and comes at a time when access to organic certification has never been easier.”

“The recently launched Organic Advisory Program, managed through Organics Aotearoa New Zealand, is currently assisting producers with a subsidised consultancy to convert to organics. BioGro New Zealand, Organic FarmNZ, Demeter, Agriquality, or Te Waka Kai Ora, can all give consumer assurances not available with uncertified produce,” said Browning. “ The potential use of Standards New Zealand’s National Organic Standard as the minimum requirement for organic production also needs exploring,” he added.

The proposed changes to the draft variations to the Food Standards Code

a) require the mandatory addition of folic acid to wheat flour for bread-making;
b) exempt wheat flour for bread-making represented as ‘organic’ from this requirement;
c) retain the voluntary permissions that allow voluntary fortification of non-wheat breads and flours;
d) allow a transition time of two years for implementation.

This is expected to reduce the number of Neural Tube Defect (NTD)-affected pregnancies by a further 14-49 (or up to 14%) in Australia and by 4-14 (or up to 20%) in New Zealand. NTD’s often present as spina bifida.

“ Soil & Health is hopeful that the folic acid education program, to educate about spina bifida risks and prevention, also recommended by FSANZ, will put significant emphasis on a complete and preferably organic diet. Certified organic food disallows pesticides linked with birth defects, and nutritional properties including folate are generally superior”, said Browning.

Soil & Health had submitted to the FSANZ Issues Paper;

“Soil & Health has some degree of concern that foods labelled ‘natural’ may not be exempt, however unless those foods are reasonably certain to be pesticide and additive residue free, as expected with organic foods, the ‘natural’ claim may be spurious.

Foods labelled ‘natural’, are without the benefit of standards and certification processes as in the organic sector, however should a food supplier be able to provide evidence of the ‘naturalness’ of its product, for example wild harvested and organic ingredients with no synthetic additives, Soil & Health would expect that it should also be exempt.”

The exemption for organic bread will give all consumers a choice of a fortification free product while still accessing a healthy option.

[1] In Australia, Trades Practices Act 1974; In New Zealand Fair Trading Act 1986.

MAF dinosaurs must stop robbing sustainability budgets

/in , ,

Soil & Health welcomes the budget initiatives around true environmental sustainability announced yesterday, including the household sustainability programme and the public recycling scheme, and the $800 million investment quoted by Environment Minister Benson-Pope, “to take a big step towards New Zealand becoming the world’s first truly sustainable nation”.

However the big money will be sustainability rhetoric when it comes to primary production unless there are major changes within MAF Policy, according to Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning, adding, “The recent MAF Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change discussion document, contained the word organic just once in 90 odd pages, and that was in the glossary, showing a remarkable and critical level of sustainability ignorance coming from that institution.”

“Best practice organic systems support high yields with low off farm impacts and significant carbon sequestration achieved, as shown in research such as the US Rodale Institute studies, showing organic methods are far more effective than conventional methods at taking CO2 from the atmosphere and fixing it as beneficial organic matter in the soil.”

The 23-year study calculated that if 10,000 mid sized U.S. farms converted to organic production, it would be equivalent to taking 1,174,400 cars off the road, or not driving 14.62 billion miles.

Former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher told a 2004 Soil Association conference in Edinburgh, that that government must boost organics to help Britain meet its Kyoto targets. He also highlighted the Rodale Institute research, which also found that soluble nitrogen fertilisers in conventional farming destroyed soil biota that trap greenhouse gases.

“Current New Zealand dairy pasture research, theoretically in a sustainability direction, includes nitrite and urease inhibitors, with one inhibitor giving off cyanide in the presence of acid. What message does that give to our trading partners when we market the riches of a clean green land and to consumers looking to a truly sustainable future”, asks Browning.

A new research fund, allocated in Budget 2007, will bolster New Zealand’s international leadership position in helping the agriculture and forestry sectors respond to climate change, Agriculture Minister Jim Anderton and Climate Change Minister David Parker announced yesterday. The ministers said New Zealand needed and wanted to develop its role as a world leader in agriculture and forestry research on climate change.

“To be world leaders and maximise research dollar benefit, MAF needs to acknowledge and begin multiplying the best of organics significantly beyond current organic sector budgets”, according to Browning, “Brand New Zealand is waiting”.

“The Prime Minister put sustainability at the heart of the government’s agenda when she opened Parliament in February, yet some Ministries struggle with acknowledging the mistakes of the past and are set on more of the same.”

“The Soil & Health Association of NZ sees improved government support for the organic sector as an important solution to primary production climate change hurdles, and supports the Prime Minister’s aim of a truly sustainable New Zealand. But change the guard for a truly sustainable nation with an international point of difference: Nuclear Free, GE Free, clean and green, and heading to an Organic 2020.”

Improved market access good for NZ sustainability

/in , ,

Soil & Health is grateful for the efforts of New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) staff in supporting BioGro New Zealand’s drive for better access for New Zealand organic produce into the demanding Japanese market.

It was announced on Friday that BioGro NZ Ltd received Recognised Foreign Certification Organisation (RFCO) status with Japan’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF).

Previously, New Zealand organic producers exporting to Japan needed approval by a Japanese certifier, as well as inspections in NZ by BioGro. BioGro’s new RFCO status with Japan MAFF will allow direct certification to Japan’s organic standard, JAS, using BioGro staff without the need of the Japanese certifier and the extra bureaucracy. NZFSA and BioGro had worked together for the outcome.

“Better access to high value organic markets means more environmentally sustainable New Zealand food production, and increased healthy organic food available for New Zealand consumers as extra production builds’, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning, “the sustainability benefits for New Zealand by improved organic market access at this time cannot be overestimated. Reports show fertilizer use in conventional production remaining at highly unsustainable levels, causing off farm pollution”, he added. “Organic production is significantly more sustainable”.

BioGro was formed in 1983 through the efforts of the Soil and Health Association, The Bio Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association and the Henry Doubleday Research Institute, to promote organic production and to develop a set of credible standards against which production of organic produce could be measured. BioGro remains New Zealand’s leading organic certification agency.

“Soil & Health knows that BioGro and NZFSA have worked hard to achieve the improved access, and sees the outcome as an example of how the organic sector and government agencies can work together,” said Mr Browning. “This is in contrast to the recent MAF discussion paper, Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change, that totally missed the opportunities afforded by organic production to address climate change mitigation”.

“It is important that MAF Policy acknowledge and embrace the opportunities that organic production can give New Zealand in added value, high premium returns while enhancing New Zealand’s environmental sustainability and market image”.

“Clearly NZFSA has appreciated those advantages. A truly sustainable New Zealand primary production sector with top value branding, will be achieved more easily when government embraces the Organic 2020 target”, said Mr Browning.

Food tests before field tests

/in , , ,

Soil & Health is calling for more integration of environmental and food safety analysis on GE and pesticide applications, following last weeks Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) Bt Brassica hearing.

ERMA denies food safety responsibility, as Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) develops food standards covering the content and labelling of food, and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) administers the legislation covering food for sale.

“Soil & Health and others, through submissions and questions of clarification at last week’s hearing, pointed out the nonsense of ERMA considering field trials of GE food crops ahead of food safety tests of those same intended crops”, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning, “The agencies and legislation need a shot of commonsense”.

“It is ludicrous to be field testing a vegetable that carries pesticide in every cell, without testing its safety as a food thoroughly first, particularly when there is vast opposition to GE in food and the environment in the first place. A 10 year field study of GE peas in Australia, had to be discontinued when it was found that they were harmful as food. Valuable New Zealand research money would be better spent on safe high value organic production”.

“Significant evidence of human and animal health suffering from plants genetically engineered in a similar way to those being experimented with at Crop & Food, was presented at the ERMA hearing”.

“Crop & Food, the applicant for the GE Brassica field trial, intends to test outdoors a range of cabbages, cauliflower, broccoli, and forage kale, all modified with synthetic genes modified from the Bascillus thuriengensis bacteria (Bt), yet in India, workers are sick from handling GE Bt cotton, and livestock are dying from eating it, and rats in only 3 months of feeding studies of Monsanto’s Mon 363 maize, also modified with a Bt toxin, have shown signs of liver and kidney toxicity, as well as differences in weight gain between the sexes”.

“Long term feeding trials on Crop & Food’s GE Brassicas should happen ahead of any outdoor tests, saving the tax payer the expense of the CRI’s unwanted field tests”, said Mr Browning, “such tests and experiments do not belong as part of clean green New Zealand”.

Soil & Health has a target of an Organic 2020, which would not allow any GE crops or animals in the New Zealand environment.

Yes to Organic Exemption from Mandatory Folic Acid Fortification

/in , , ,

The Soil & Health Association is pleased that efforts to have organic bread exempted from mandatory fortification with folic acid appear to be successful.

As part of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) review, released last night, of its 2006 Final Assessment Report which proposed mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid, FSANZ is proposing that bread in New Zealand represented as organic be exempted from mandatory folic acid fortification, should fortification be implemented as intended.

“An exemption allows organic products to remain free of synthetic ingredients, maintaining the integrity of the organic label, and also provides consumer choice”, said Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning.

“Thanks to efforts by Soil & Health, Organics Aotearoa New Zealand, The Green Party and others, Food Safety Minister Annette King brought up the issue of organic products at the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council meeting in October 2006”.

As part of the Review initiated by the Ministerial Council, FSANZ was tasked with examining and providing further advice on a range of issues relating to the mandatory fortification proposal.

Mandatory fortification with folic acid is seen by the Ministerial Council as a possible means of reducing the incidence of neural tube defects (NTDs).

The proposal would mean nearly all bread in New Zealand would be synthetically fortified to reduce by 20%, the estimated 70 pregnancies affected [in 2006] by NTDs.

Soil & Health had submitted that organic products must remain free of synthetic ingredients, consumers must have choice, and that mass medication is not a suitable alternative to a strong healthy diet campaign and education regarding risks of NTDs.

Soil & Health had also pointed out the difficulty in compliance with mandatory fortification by small organic flour millers and bakers.

The Issues Paper which is open to further submissions by April 18 includes advice to FSANZ from the New Zealand Commerce Commission and its Australian equivalent, “that consumers are likely to expect that foods labeled ‘organic’, or ‘certified organic’ have ingredients derived from living organisms without the use of chemical fertilizers and/or pesticides, and would not contain synthetic vitamins such as folic acid”.

“With regard to organic representations of foods, it is the opinion of the NZCC and the ACCC that the use of the term ‘organic’ in relation to foods fortified with folic acid (without clear and meaningful qualification) may mislead consumers into believing that the product is the result of organic processes and thus may risk breaching the New Zealand Fair Trading Act 1986 or the Trade Practices Act 1974.

“Australia and New Zealand have a number of national organic certification bodies, none of which have identical standards. Organic standards however generally do not currently allow synthetically produced substances into organic production systems, and vitamins and minerals are generally not permitted.”

“Soil & Health remains opposed to the mandatory fortification of all bread, but is pleased that the integrity of organics is being supported by the Food Safety Minister Annette King, the Commerce Commission and FSANZ”, said Mr Browning.