Content

Soil & Health launches glyphosate campaign

2 July 2020/in Campaigns, Glyphosate

The Soil and Health Association are calling for councils to stop spraying glyphosate to keep New Zealand families safe.

‘The public increasingly understand that it is no longer acceptable to be exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides,’ says Soil & Health spokesperson Jodie Bruning,

We are working with US based Non-Toxic Neighbourhoods who have had significant success helping councils transition affordably to non-toxic urban management.

The importance of glyphosate science

Public health scientists think it is bizarre that the findings of the most prestigious cancer agency in the world were rejected by New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority (the EPA).

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined that glyphosate probably causes cancer in humans. The IARC also found that glyphosate (and it’s commercial formulations) definitely causes cancer in laboratory animals – placing our pets at risk too.

In 2016 the EPA produced what scientists consider to be a flawed cancer review to discredit the findings of the EPA’s own cancer authority. New Zealand professors and scientists remain ‘mystified’ and have spoken repeatedly (here and here and here) about the EPA’s frozen stance on glyphosate. An Official Information [ENQ-35127-N5J6C7]request has found that the EPA has never conducted a formal risk assessment of glyphosate or the commercial formulation.

Glyphosate is not just a cancer risk. Scientific studies show that glyphosate-based herbicides, including Roundup, may not only probably cause cancer but cause oxidative stress and disrupt endocrine system function which can set the stage for disease and delays.

Chemical companies are paying out for the damage caused

Following the IARC decision, cases in the U.S. have awarded the claimants damages against Monsanto (since 2018, owned by Bayer). The court cases uncovered evidence that showed how Monsanto took action to limit and distort public knowledge. Punitive damages were awarded for ‘reprehensible’ conduct. The jury trials are now under appeal with Bayer claiming the verdict of regulators across the world upholds Bayer’s stance. Unfortunately, as scientists have illustrated (in Europe and the USA), regulatory agencies relied on ghostwritten industry studies and ignored data that the IARC considered important.

In June 2020 Bayer proposed a settlement of USD$8.8-10.9 billion to settle over 125,000 U.S. lawsuits to resolve Roundup litigation. Bayer has framed the complex settlement proposal as an end to ‘uncertainty’. The proposal contained no admission that glyphosate-based herbicides caused the cancer claimed by cancer sufferers, many former farmers, who see the proposal as a slap in the face. The settlement proposal may restrict future claimants from a jury trial. New Zealand doesn’t face the same court cases here because the ACC covers such cases as accidents.

Why isn’t New Zealand taking action?

Ignoring the calls of scientists, New Zealand councils refer to the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZ EPA) to claim that glyphosate is a ‘low toxicity herbicide’. The hazard rating given by the NZ EPA provides a legal rationale that it is safe enough to spray in public places. This is wrong!

It is evident from operations in Auckland and Christchurch that councils and contractors need to make a lot of changes in order to shift away from glyphosate dependency – like any addiction – shifting to a new mindset isn’t always easy. Much of the management and contract negotiation are out of the public eye – so it is difficult for the public to understand what is going on. Councils don’t appear to be undertaking properly accountable trials with new technologies and recording and documenting trial methods, how they cope with and reduce over time the weed seed banks, and making this information public. We know non-toxic alternatives and management regimes can never neatly replace toxic chemical use. Shift away from addiction requires a change in mindset and operations.

We also understand that councils struggle to adopt the precautionary principle. This would help deal with uncertainty (which is always present). Councils may not be comfortable weighing the risk to families, and particularly babies and children, with the risk of complaints from irate rate-payers or staff worried about the stress on physical assets. These are value-based decisions, and are an important part of making any decision to protect health or the environment.

Kiwis exposed to health risks from weedkiller

30 June 2020/in Glyphosate, Media Releases

The Soil & Health Association has welcomed Bayer’s announcement of US$10 billion in payouts to tens of thousands of claimants in the US who allege exposure to Roundup herbicide caused their cancer.

“But here in New Zealand, we have an untenable situation where glyphosate-based herbicides are sprayed broadly in urban environments, and on human food and animal feed crops,” said Soil & Health Association spokesperson Jodie Bruning.

In 2018 Soil & Health applauded Christchurch City Council for its decision to stop glyphosate use in public spaces, but now the Association is concerned that the Council is considering a possible reversal of that decision for budgetary reasons, and may choose to rely on the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for a glyphosate safety tick.

However, an Official Information Act request revealed that the EPA has never conducted a risk assessment of glyphosate, nor the more toxic formulations used in New Zealand.

“For the most commonly used herbicide in New Zealand, this is really quite astonishing. We have no idea how it persists in our own environment. As a result, much of the scientific data cited by the public in presentations to councils has simply never been considered by our hazardous chemicals regulator,” Jodie Bruning said.

Soil & Health is concerned with uncontrollable public exposure and the risk farmers, council applicators and contractors face.

“The public cannot avoid urban sprays. We don’t know how long glyphosate lasts, because there is no testing in the streets where our kids walk to school.

“The lack of EPA stewardship leaves regional and local councils divided. On one hand, they defer to the EPA’s claim that glyphosate is ‘considered safe’ when managed appropriately. On the other hand, they are hearing from a well-informed public about all the data the EPA has never considered, because it continues to rely on reauthorisations containing data selected and supplied by the chemical industry.

“It’s time this biased approach to chemical regulation was put to bed, and the EPA realised that weak regulations only serve the industry that they’re supposed to be regulating.

While calling for the use of glyphosate to be banned from public places, Soil & Health acknowledges the difficulty for farmers shifting away from using glyphosate to prepare paddocks prior to planting.

“Certified organic farmers successfully farm without glyphosate, and Soil & Health calls for more funding into research, education and farmer extension to expand the use of safe, herbicide-free organic methods of farming,” said Bruning.

The Organic Products Bill

28 May 2020/in Submissions

The Soil & Health Association is focused on the following 10 points:

‘Organic’ is not defined in the Bill and is therefore open to misinterpretation. We propose that the full IFOAM definition and principles of organic agriculture be written into the Bill.
Exclusion of GMOs: The use of genetic modification is not in accordance with organic practice, so exclusion of GMOs should be added to the definition of ‘organic’ in this Bill.
The title of the Bill should be ‘Organic Production and Products Bill’ to reflect the importance of the connection between the production system and the product.
The Bill needs to recognise the role that organic production plays in achieving other important public good outcomes for NZ, such as climate change mitigation, improvement of water quality, and protection and enhancement of biodiversity.
The Purpose of the Act should be expanded to reflect the priorities of the organic sector both in NZ and internationally. Facilitation of domestic trade, growth of the domestic organic sector, and maintenance and support for the established principles of organic agriculture should be added in.
NZ’s regulatory system should mirror the best functioning organic regulatory systems in other jurisdictions such as Canada and the EU. The proposed system, which puts the Ministry in charge of final approvals, puts an unnecessary extra level of administration and cost onto the process. We think that third party certifiers should have the power to give final approval to licensees (i.e. to issue certificates), and the relevant Ministry should restrict itself to accrediting third party certifiers, keeping a register of the approved operators (certified licensees) and carrying out enforcement in the case of breaches.
There should be an Organic Authority with both government and organic sector representatives to oversee the organic standards. The organic sector representation on such an authority should include producers, processors, consumers, traders, certifiers, organic scientific representatives and Māori (who must be present as the Crown’s partner in the Treaty of Waitangi). This body should be more than a technical advisory board; it must have the power to decide on, develop and monitor the content of the standards rather than simply recommend it to the Ministry.
The Bill needs to provide for low cost certification options for small to medium sized operators. Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS), as recognised by IFOAM, such as OrganicFarmNZ are affordable and accessible to small-scale producers who produce solely for the domestic market, such as via farmers’ markets, local organic shops and box schemes. PGS should be provided for in this Bill. Very small producers should be exempt from certification, but should still have to follow the organic standards if they make ‘organic’ claims about their product.
If the cost of certification increases, those costs will be passed onto consumers, and this will have a chilling effect on domestic trade in organic products overall. Domestic consumers should have affordable locally produced organic products of all types available to them.
National organic standards documents should be freely available to the public as a resource for learning about organic practice and to inform consumers.

Our full submission

Download our full submission (PDF)

A1186 Soy Leghemoglobin (Impossible Foods)

25 May 2020/in Submissions

Submission to the FSANZ

Application A1186 Soy Leghemoglobin

February 13, 2020

FSANZ Supporting documents can be found here

A successful approval of A1186 Soy Leghemoglobin by FSANZ will result in the release of Impossible Foods burgers and associated products onto the New Zealand market for consumption by the product. Much of this product would be sold through take-away outlets and restaurants and in this form, would remain unlabelled.

Soil and Health consider that the application for A1186 Soy Leghemoglobin which is a mixture referred to as ‘LegH Prep’ is inadequate to ensure a high standard of public health protection. Much of the documentation and marketing of Impossible Foods products infer that these products are substantially equivalent to unprocessed meat, and represent a safe and healthy vegetarian protein option.

We consider that regulatory activities which fail to consider the implications of release of an ultra-processed, high salt, genetically modified soy protein product on the market – and regulatory treatment of this product as substantially equivalent to healthy, grass raised beef or lamb, or home-made vegetarian burgers made from non-genetically modified vegetable proteins, may be misleading.

Therefore the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand consider that the current application and approval process does not contain sufficient information to ensure activities relevant to the approval will fulfill the Objectives of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991. We note:

1.1. The report ignores the health impact of the final product. The LegH Prep has been specifically developed to be an ingredient in an ultra-processed convenience food product.

1.2. Nutrition is cherry-picked despite the product being positioned as a meat substitute. Equivalent iron is not substantially equivalent as other nutritional parameters are ignored in the application.

1.3. The contaminant profile 2 from herbicides contained in the retail product, which unprocessed meat does not contain has been ignored.

1.4. Differing health effects relating to the potential for endocrine disruption at different life stages has been ignored.

1.5. There are no long-term dietary studies – a 28-day study restricts consideration on health effect and the longer dietary studies are reasonable to scientifically risk assess long term (chronic) effects.

1.6. The chronic toxicological parameters relating to immunotoxicity, carcinogenicity, oxidative stress, as well as endocrinological effects are not clearly published.

1.7. 90-days dietary study must be supplied, including endocrinological test results, for the risk assessment to be scientifically appropriate to assess health risk:

– OECD Test Guideline (TG) 408 – repeated dose 90-day oral toxicity study – (Updated in 2018)

1.8. Due to the scientific knowledge gaps and the deficiencies, and with particularly consideration of the commercial outcome of the approval of LegH Prep – the potential for a commercial product that the applicant intends to be considered a staple dietary product in the New Zealand and Australian diet – the Soil and Health Association of New Zealand propose that the LegH Prep (A1186) application should be declined.

In addition, the attached PDF which formed the content of our submission to the FSANZ discussed the following issues:

2.0 Precautionary Principle.

3.0 Soil and Health note that section 18

4.0 Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act Section 18.

5.0 Endocrine gaps and gender specific health effects.

6.0 Ultra-processed convenience food.

7.0 90-day dietary studies should study the formulated retail product.

8.0 Contaminants from dietary exposure.

9.0 Misleading cost-benefit analysis.

10.0 Misleading: Substantial Equivalence.

11.0 Misleading: Greater toxicity of the formulation

12.0 Misleading: Scientific knowledge gaps

Aotearoa New Zealand | Policy Proposals on healthy waterways: Are they fit for purpose?

25 May 2020/in Campaigns, Freshwater, Submissions

Excellent water quality is of paramount importance for our Treaty obligations, agriculture, tourism industry, health and sense of national identity. In September 2019 the Ministry for the Environment released its proposals for dealing with the crisis in our freshwater: Action for healthy waterways. While the document outlines possible ways of ‘reducing soil loss, reducing nutrient run-off, and/or investing in upgrading wastewater and stormwater infrastructure’, there is one glaring omission – it does not address the need to monitor synthetic chemicals in our waterways.

New Zealand has chemicals in our waterways that are banned in Europe. Policy-makers tend to assume toxic chemicals assimilate into the environment. However, it is clear from global and local data that the pressures from ongoing diffuse sources (agricultural, industrial and household and pharmaceutical) exceed the capacity for the environment to disperse and degrade them. The only way to understand the pollution profile is, as the OECD recommends, to (1) commence transparent, centrally driven monitoring that seeks to comprehensively capture chemical pressures that will differ by region. (2) Then make the data public, so that citizens and scientists can access the data, and then (3) Civil society can debate the degree to which regulation (or not) is required in order to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of our freshwater (See Sn 5 of the RMA).

The Soil and Health Association and Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (NZ) jointly produced a detailed submission to respond to the September discussion document. Twenty-one NGOs supported our submission document, and eight private organisations also requested to join, including major players in the regenerative agriculture movement. Surprisingly, this was not picked up by mainstream media. Chapter 10 of our publication outlines suggestions for reform. We also produced a summary paper.

Chemical production is predicted to increase exponentially, constituting a present and growing threat to human and environmental health, and risking the wellbeing of future generations. Chemical contaminants include pesticides, household products, resins, plastics, petroleum products, pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Currently, routine national monitoring for chemical contaminants in New Zealand freshwater that is publicly accessible, is confined to groundwater. While laudable, this is not sufficiently protective of public or environmental health.

Polluting synthetic chemical contaminants create intersecting social, cultural and economic harms. Without a mandate to monitor chemical contaminants in waterways as well as aquifers, territorial and national authorities will not have the capacity to safeguard:

The quality of our drinking water;
Māori customary fishing and traditional riverside food gathering;
Favourite Kiwi swimming areas;
Key tourist destinations as safe and ecologically healthy;
Food production and processing, and organic systems from contamination.

Excluding diffuse chemical contaminants from monitoring and regulation additionally leaves Māori without appropriate scientific resourcing to assert rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga. We will be unable to protect biodiversity and our food chains, reverse declining fish populations and ensure that our agricultural exports are not inadvertently contaminated. And the possibility of endocrine disruption puts at risk our most vulnerable citizens – our babies.

Diffuse synthetic chemical emissions must be urgently addressed at a central government level. Chemicals accumulate, they can interact together additively and/or synergistically and be much more harmful to environmental organisms, and humans – than exposure to a single chemical. It’s an interesting fact that all vertebrates – from frogs to fish to humans, are similarly vulnerable to endocrine disrupting chemicals. For endocrine disrupting, carcinogenic and/or mutagenic substances, it is increasingly clear that there can be no ‘end-point’ – no degree of exposure that can be claimed to be safe. Our paper discusses this in depth, drawing on extensive references to support our discussion.

The solution is not to stick our heads in the sand, because it is not politically comfortable, nor convenient. Nor is it acceptable to wait for certainty – until scientific endpoints are established. It is evident, for many endocrine disruptors, that it may not be possible to establish endpoints because of the miniscule levels at which these chemicals cause harm, and because of the varying vulnerability at different life stages.

In such an environment, there remain many opportunities to ensure policy and regulation concerning freshwater are fit for purpose and can reasonably meet the foreseeable needs of future generations.

Reform Recommendations

Where degraded areas are identified, scientists can utilise a suite of nationally regulated testing screens for diffuse chemical contaminants and publish this information for public debate.
New Zealand can resource scientist experts in chemical toxicology, endocrinology and environmental chemistry and build on international research to innovatively evaluate the risk to both aquatic food chains and human health – at arms-length from industry.
Our chemical risk assessment can adopt best practice alongside Europe, sending a firm message to trading partners and tourist operators that freshwater and food in Aotearoa is clean and safe.
We can update regulations to recognise additional risk from chemical mixtures; and the risk from exposures at low levels that impacts the hormone system and can set the stage for disease and dysfunction.
New Zealand can appropriately engage the precautionary principle as the key policy instrument that over-arches risk evaluation, rather than retaining it where it currently sits in legislation and policy, alongside social, cultural and economic considerations where it is
rarely called upon, and frequently ignored.

We recommend that the monitoring of diffuse chemical pollutants in our fresh water is required as a national environment standard and that the recommendations for reform in this paper are included in any policy on protecting the quality of our fresh water.

Freshwater 2020 – Scope continues to exclude diffuse chemicals

Proposed National Environmental Standards for Freshwater continue to exclude the cumulative risk of environmental synthetic chemicals from national documentation and discussion. Environmental indicators ignore diffuse pollution from urban, agricultural and industrial sources.

The Soil and Health Association, PSGR and our co-signatories joined many individuals and organisations in submitting to the September 2019 the Action for healthy waterways.

A record number of individuals and organisations submitted to the Ministry for the Environment– 17,500. The Summary of Submissions reveals that urban, agricultural and industrial synthetic chemical pollution was not an item of concern to the general public.

Inconsistent approach to chemical pollutants

In February 2020 the Report of the Freshwater Independent Advisory Panel was released.

– It did not mention synthetic chemicals, pesticides, or trace (heavy) metals.

In April 2020 the Our Freshwater 2020 was released by the Ministry for the Environment and StatsNZ.

– It did mention synthetic chemicals, pesticides, or trace (heavy) metals were a substantial problem.

In May 2020 National Environmental Standards for Freshwater and the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management were released. They were accompanied by a Cabinet paper which was the key document for seeking agreement to an action for the healthy water ways package. They files also included regulatory impact analyses and appendices.

– None of these documents nor appendices mentioned synthetic chemicals, pesticides, or trace (heavy) metals.

Of the files released in May 2020, Appendix 7 contained the Summary of Submissions from 17,500 individuals who joined others in submitting to the national direction for our freshwater. This, it appears, was one of the primary documents informing the Cabinet paper.

However, it appears that not many, if any submitters were interested in the potential for synthetic chemicals, pesticides and trace metals to pollute New Zealand waterways.

As a result in the 190 page Summary of Submissions there was only one mention of synthetic chemicals: ‘Submitters also mention contamination of drinking water from other chemicals (including emerging contaminants), microbes and waste’ (page 173). Trace metals and pesticides were not mentioned.

This 2019-2020 process was largely a result of the failure of an earlier process which produced the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (amended 2017). This earlier process was criticised for its weak approach to nutrient (nitrogen) management.

Following the release of the 2020 suite of papers, the nitrogen level recommended in the Cabinet paper was also criticised for not following the bottom line recommendation of 1mg/L dissolved inorganic nitrogen level recommended by the Science and Technical Advisory Group who were invited to advise the Ministry for the Environment.

Therefore the Freshwater process managed by the Ministry for the Environment continues to fail to produce fit for purpose national standards that can assure that our freshwater will be safe for not only river life, but for human health for future generations.

View full paper

The October 2019 submission to the Ministry for the Environment Aotearoa New Zealand Action for healthy waterways has been kindly supported by the following NGOs:

Safe Food Campaign
Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa New Zealand
For the Love of Bees
Federation of Freshwater Anglers
Whitewater NZ
Biodynamics New Zealand
Waitaha Executive Grandmothers Council
Organic Dairy and Pastoral Group Inc
Te Waka Kai Ora – Maori Organics Aotearoa
Organic Farm New Zealand
Katikati Taiao
Manu Waiata Restoration and Protection Society

Orari River Protection Group
COBY – Coromandel Our Backyard
Te Waka Kai Ora – Maori Organics Aotearoa
ERP – Environment River Patrol Aotearoa
KEA – Kuaotunu Environmental Action
Weed Management Advisory Auckland
GE Free Aotearoa New Zealand
Econation 2020 Aotearoa New Zealand
Otago Organics

And these Private Sector Organisations:

Āta
Soil Connection
True Health
BioAg
Integrity Soils
Plenty Permaculture
Rings Road Herb Gardens
The Whistler

The organic community mourns Jeanette Fitzsimons

6 March 2020/in Media Releases, Organic Community

6 March 2020

The Soil & Health Association expresses deep condolences to the family
and friends of Jeanette Fitzsimons. Among Jeanette’s many roles, she was
a patron of Soil & Health for several years.

“Jeanette gave wise counsel and was a champion for the organic cause,”
said Marion Wood, chair of Soil & Health. “She lived her values by
farming organically with her husband Harry Parke.”

Over the years Jeanette and Harry hosted hundreds volunteers on the farm
through the WWOOF scheme, including Organic NZ editor Philippa Jamieson.

Ever practical, Jeanette also wrote articles for Organic NZ including
one on gorse control, and letters to the editor.

Soil & Health and the Organic NZ team are thinking of Harry and family
at this sad time.

Media contact: Philippa Jamieson, editor, Organic NZ, 027 547 3929

Omissions on Emissions: Polluting chemicals left out of government’s freshwater policy

30 October 2019/in Media Releases, Water

30 October 2019

The Soil and Health Association and Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility claim that environmental chemicals and heavy metals have been left outside the scope of the freshwater policy process.

The claim is made in a hard-hitting paper in response to the Ministry for the Environment Action for healthy waterways discussion document. The two organisations have secured support from a wide range of NGOs and private organisations.

‘If National Environment Standards (NES) are to ensure freshwater is safe and healthy, then pollution from ongoing industrial, agricultural and urban diffuse chemical emissions must be monitored and controlled at a national level’ states Jodie Bruning, Soil and Health spokesperson. ‘Yet relevant experts in chemical toxicology, endocrinology and environmental chemistry do not appear to have been consulted and this is a major concern. ‘Recent studies show we have chemical mixtures in our rivers. Many of these chemicals are banned in Europe and the OECD has drawn attention to our degraded environment, and our threatened freshwater species. They state that diffuse pollution is an international problem. This problem is not going away – the UN has stated ‘Urgent action is needed to tackle chemical pollution as global production is set to double by 2030’’.

The groups contend it is unscientific to pretend that New Zealand’s pollution problem is limited to nutrients, sediment and bacteria, and that such a position only advantages polluting activities. The paper refers to substantial scientific literature showing that chemical mixtures, at levels considered by regulators to be unsafe, are increasingly shown to be harmful to human and environmental health. The paper recommends a suite of practical measures to adopt standards based on best international practice.

‘The OECD advises monitoring of diffuse chemicals to be the first step in understanding diffuse pollution.’ said Jodie Bruning. ‘The National Environment Standards can pivot to not only incorporate single attribute standards, but include tests that screen for multiple chemicals from one water sample, and ensure these tests are transparently published and accessible to civil society.’

‘Many national environmental limits for chemicals are already in place, but rely on older approvals. With chemical production doubling and knowledge on harm from hormone hacking exposures increasing, the NZ Environmental Protection Agency already struggles to regulate toxic chemicals adequately. New Zealand’s hazardous substances legislation is outdated, chemical reassessments are few and far between and they lean heavily on chemical industry data.’

‘We recommend Aotearoa New Zealand adopts European standards and guidelines to manage and control toxic chemicals and protect our freshwater and food as they are more advanced at protecting public and environmental health. Farmers can be supported in this transition which also includes corresponding benefits that mitigate greenhouse gases.

‘The reforms suggested in the paper are science-based and recommended at an international level. Our current freshwater processes cannot protect freshwater for food-gathering, nor can we assure visiting tourists that our rivers are safe and healthy, nor can we protect our water sources for irrigation and food production.

The National Environment Standards for freshwater are only part way through – civil society looks forward to the next iteration.’ said Ms Bruning.

For further information please see the below link:

www.psgr.org.nz/fw

Let’s go organic, Jacinda!

26 September 2019/in Farming, Food, Media Releases, Organics

26 September 2019

The Soil & Health Association is calling on the government to make good Jacinda Ardern’s statement to the United Nations that New Zealand is ‘determined to show that we can be the most sustainable food producers in the world’.

‘Tomorrow school children will lead the School Strike for Climate and we need to give them hope for their future’ said Marion Wood, Chair of Soil & Health. ‘Healthy, living soil is potentially the most important carbon sink our planet has. So we have to take action now to sequester the excess carbon from the air into soil and biomass. Organic and regenerative production methods, which maximise the build up of soil organic matter, are key to sequestering atmospheric carbon and keeping global warming within 1.5ºC.’

The Soil & Health Association points out that New Zealand has followed an intensive, industrial model of farming. This has resulted in a 16% increase in emissions between 1990 and 2015, largely due to an 88.5% increase in the national dairy herd and an approximately 500% increase in nitrogen-containing fertiliser.

As a result we are now reaching critical environmental limits, both in greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity loss. Yet we have within our grasp a globally recognised system that can enable us to move towards carbon neutrality and provide resilience in the face of extreme weather conditions like drought – certified organic farming.

And all over the world consumers are demanding more evidence of ethical production and environmental effects of farming, so there is a ready market for certified organic produce that is genuinely 100% pure.

‘Let’s march tomorrow in support of our children’, says Marion Wood. ‘And then let’s take action to make Aotearoa the most sustainable organic regenerative farming system in the world. Let’s give our children hope’

Marion Wood
National Council, Soil & Health Association
022 032 7122

Hazardous substances assessments: Improving decision-making

20 September 2019/in Submissions

Submission to the Ministry for the Environment:

Date: September 20, 2019.

Discussion Document: Hazardous substances assessments: Improving decision-making – A discussion document on proposed improvements to assessments and reassessments of hazardous substances. Publication reference number: ME 1426

The Soil & Health Association support the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority (NZEPA) using a trusted regulator approach. However, this comes with the caveat that the ‘trusted regulator’ is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Commission (EC).

This submission is made to the Ministry for the Environment who are responsible for the oversight of the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority and are best situated to improve hazardous chemicals regulations in Aotearoa New Zealand. Current regulations are out of date and cannot protect the public, nor protect tourists visiting New Zealand, as we have discussed elsewhere. The world is experiencing a global chemical acceleration. (1) New Zealand does not have the resources to safely regulate all toxic environmental chemicals the New Zealand public are exposed to, because of the sheer volume of chemicals that are produced and sold and brought into New Zealand.

Soil and Health recognise that protection from toxic chemicals will be best arrived at if Aotearoa New Zealand adopts best international practice in chemical risk assessment and regulation and this will:

Most effectively protect future generations as is required by principles of administrative law and the RMA and HSNO Acts.
Transparently uphold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Best regulatory practice is scientifically and practically the best way to practise guardianship – kaitiaki – of the ecosystems of Aotearoa.
Ensure that the human right to clean drinking water is protected, noting that the United Nations has identified that pesticides are having a serious impact on human rights, and that the ‘excessive use of pesticides are very dangerous to human health, to the environment and it is misleading to claim they are vital to ensuring food security’ .

The HSNO Act is outdated (2).

The Soil and Health Association consider that the entire Act requires substantial overhaul in order to address the current deficiencies that are contained therein. This requires substantial expertise and consultation across government, particularly with regard to the following issues:

The European Commission utilises the precautionary principle and has consistently adopted a proactive approach to removing toxic pesticides from public exposure. New Zealand in contrast utilises a precautionary approach which is weaker as it only requires decision-makers to take caution into account – there is no requirement to favour caution.
Soil and Health understand that the deficiencies in New Zealand regulatory risk assessment include the failure to acknowledge low-dose (hormone level) toxicity; the problem of the one chemical harming via many pathways (for example a chemical or formulation may be neurotoxic and a cholinesterase inhibitor and a developmental neurotoxicant); that current tests don’t test for allergic, inflammatory or autoimmune conditions; the potential for endocrine disruptors to contribute to the developmental origins of disease arising later in life; mixture effects and cumulative effects as body burdens; and different sensitivities.

iii. The ecosystem-based approach advocated by Professor Iorns seeks to protect ecosystem integrity and ensure the sustainable use of ecosystem resources. The current decline of New Zealand aquatic species is a clear indicator that current practices are unsustainable and are directly damaging to our freshwater species.

In the meantime, a trusted regulator approach ensures the safest guardianship approach.
The ‘trusted regulator’ position could be reassessed every ten years. Terms of reference assigning this role can be based on (a) transparency; (b) precautionary principle as a guiding principle of law; and an (c) interdisciplinary science capabilities approach that mandated to address ecosystem and biological complexity and is informed by the published scientific literature and identify new risk pathways and in particular (d) risk arising in infancy and childhood, a developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) approach.

In addition, the attached PDF, our formal submission to the FSANZ discussed these interconnected issues and contains references:

Europe has a stricter regulatory regime than the USA, Canada or Australia.
Pesticide contamination threatens the integrity and safety of New Zealand organic production.
Substantial scientific evidence demonstrates that agrichemicals can volatise and contaminate neighbouring organic properties.
New Zealand freshwater sources, and our aquifers contain increasing levels of agrichemicals
New Zealand fruit and vegetables and freshwater have chemicals in them that are banned in Europe
The Soil & Health Association are concerned that New Zealand’s 100% Pure reputation as a ‘clean green’ producer is being eroded and that the NZ EPA has been unable to keep pace with reassessments of toxic chemicals.

It is evident that EFSA and the EC have banned or strictly regulated chemicals that have not been banned or strictly regulated in the USA, Canada and Australia. Soil and Health consider New Zealand should orientate our authorisations and risk assessment with premium markets, and that this will help not only maintain essential freshwater quality, but it will stop our reputation as a 100% Pure, clean green producer from further erosion.

Current assessment and reassessment does not incorporate the benefits of regenerative agriculture in mitigating climate change. Of 80 ways to mitigate climate change, regenerative agriculture—managed grazing, silvopasture, tree intercropping, conservation agriculture, and farmland restoration—jointly rank number one of methods to sequester GHG’.

Regenerative and organic practices reduce chemical dependency. The comment ‘Reassessment decisions are difficult to make when there are no safer alternatives to existing chemicals’ does not reflect the fact that chemicals need not be replaced with chemical alternatives. There is a significant body of evidence demonstrating that organic, biological and regenerative agriculture which places soil and nutrition science at the heart of agriculture, building the immune systems of healthy plants and animals can result in plants and animals that not only exhibit greater resistance to disease, but taste better and store better for export purposes.

Furthermore the Soil and Health Association expressed concern that the HSNO Discussion Document confines the scope of discussion / terms of reference to avoid :

Discussing controversial issues that may be contributing to decline in public trust of risk assessment agencies and processes. There was no discussion of the need to address these issues: industry selected and supplied data, endocrine disruption, mixture effects, adjuvant toxicity and persistence, developmental neurotoxicity risk) that are of the essence to human health as identified by Professor Catherine Iorns, Dr. Meriel Watts , and others.
Asking questions about improving risk assessment to protect health and environment. The terms of reference are narrowly framed and appear to adopt a mechanistic assessment/reassessment process orientation that cannot address chemical and biological complexity.

Note: As at April 2020 there has been no policy decisions released as a result of this consultation process.

References:

(1) UNEP 2019 Global Chemicals Outlook II – From Legacies to Innovative Solutions: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,

(2) Iorns, C. (2018). Permitting Poison: Pesticide Regulation in Aotearoa New Zealand. EPLJ, 456-490. P.1

Submission on application APP203660 To reassess methyl bromide

29 August 2019/in Submissions

29 August 2019

Environmental Protection Authority

Private Bag 63002

Wellington 6140

New Zealand

Submission on application APP203660

To reassess methyl bromide

Introduction

1. The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”) is a charitable society registered under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. It is the largest membership organization supporting organic food and farming in New Zealand and is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world, established in 1941. Soil & Health’s objectives are to promote sustainable organic agricultural practices and the principles of good health based on sound nutrition and the maxim: “Healthy soil, healthy food, healthy people”. Its membership is chiefly composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Soil & Health publishes the bi-monthly ‘Organic NZ’ magazine – New Zealand’s leading organics magazine.

2. Soil & Health makes this submission on the application by Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide Reduction Inc (STIMBR) to reassess methyl bromide a fumigant which among other things is used on export timber and logs.

3. Soil & Health accepts the need for fumigation to meet the phytosanitary needs of New Zealand and other countries, should safer methods of pest control not be effective, and if communities and the broader environment are protected from any adverse effects from the fumigant.

4. The EPA in 2018 allowed the possibility of a reassessment application;

‘Grounds to reassess were granted based on data that evidenced New Zealand’s use of the fumigant has increased from over 400 tonnes a year in 2010, to more than 600 tonnes in 2016. One of the criteria required to be met to meet grounds for reassessment under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, is a significant change in the quantity of a substance imported into or manufactured in New Zealand.’

5. Soil & Health believe that reassessment criteria was used inappropriately, as that increased use was totally predicted at the last reassessment with conditions of use and the recapture deadline made in that knowledge. It is misleading to use increased use to allow another reassessment to effectively excuse the log export industry out of their environmental and public health responsibilities, when those responsibilities were clearly defined in 2010.

6. Soil & Health submitted to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) for the reassessment of methyl bromide in 2010 and has campaigned since to have that fumigant better contained and recaptured or stopped.

7. Those campaigns along with other community, union, and environmental groups have meant that methyl bromide fumigation without recapture is no longer used at log exporting facilities in several ports, notably Nelson, Picton and Wellington. However the problems of worker exposure and release of the atmospheric ozone depleting gas have mostly just shifted north to the ports of Napier, Tauranga, and Marsden Point-Whangarei.

8. This submission writer, later in another role as a Section 274 Party, won an Environment Court case, Envirofume Limited vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2017] NZEnv 12. That case, contested for the applicant Envirofume by legal counsel Helen Atkins (Chairperson of the 2010 ERMA methyl bromide re-assessment), exposed further the significant risks of methyl bromide fumigations for the health and safety of workers and nearby communities.

9. The log exporter industry through STIMBR have variously used public funding as in the Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) funding to look at mostly predictably unlikely alternatives to recapturing residual methyl bromide, while obfuscating attempts at log stack trials of existing recapture technology using carbon filters as available from Nordiko.

10. STIMBR supported Draslovka who applied for an alternative fumigant ethanedinitrile (EDN) which the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) appear to be taking seriously in negotiations with log importing countries as an alternative to methyl bromide, on the premise that recapture will not be necessary should EDN be approved, as it is not subject to the Montreal Protocol.

11. Soil & Health submitted in opposition to EDN due to the known risks, and the lack of environmental and safety data, and that the applicant and STIMBR’s approach that recapture would not be required, although in Australia, EDN can ONLY be used with scrubbing (a recapture) technology as part of its label use after being assessed by the national regulatory body there, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA).

12. Soil & Health is concerned that government agencies such as MPI might be looking at the EPA as a rubber-stamping agency for compounds such as EDN with such confidence that they are putting EDN as an option for fumigation to countries including India and China. Soil & Health is concerned that industry’s economic benefits appear to become paramount over the need of worker, community and environmental health in the decision making around fumigants approval and their use.

13. However, the EPA has decided to process this application by STIMBR as a modified reassessment rather than forcing the previous reassessment’s requirement of recapture onto the users of methyl bromide fumigation.

The Tauranga example:

14. While economic considerations are included in the benefits analysis by the EPA, the ability to pay for appropriate safeguards must be included in any analysis, not just the significant earnings the industry generates. All stakeholders including port companies should be part of ensuring the ultimate safety of workers, community and environment.

15. In the Environment Court case, Envirofume Limited vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2017] NZEnv 12, it was noted that Port of Tauranga Limited (POTL) was missing in action as such during those proceedings although was the owner and operator of the port where the log fumigation activity under scrutiny was taking place.

16. The community and Soil & Health have long called for dedicated fumigation facilities incorporating recapture technology to be constructed and used, yet POTL continue to discount any such possibility there.

17. Soil & Health points out that POTL has just announced its largest profit ever (end of year June 2019). Increasing 6.7% on last year’s profit of $94.3 million to reach $100.6 million, with log export volumes increasing during that time 12.5% to 7.1 million tonnes. http://www.port-tauranga.co.nz/growth-in-cargo-volumes-contributes-to-increased-profit-for-port-of-tauranga-limited/

While that growth is expected to ease in the short term, POTL is still the country’s largest export log exporter, close to twice its nearest rival Whangarei.

18. Log exports through POTL for the year ending December 2017 were valued at $968,919,331, almost a staggering billion dollars towards a third of New Zealand’s log export value that year of $3,058,737,889 and yet the port company and log exporting interests continue to deny workers, the community and environment the benefits of recapture.

Safeguards to protect people and the environment are becoming more important and need greater attention as increasing development and presence of toxins including fumigants in the environment become more common.

20. Soil & Health submits that the money is there for fast correction of the shortcomings in facilities and responsible management of log and timber fumigation in New Zealand.

Monitoring and modelling

Methyl bromide is a risk well beyond fumigation areas due to drift, inversion layers, and the inability by those responsible to adequately monitor its whereabouts. Boundary monitoring is pointless if at head height, when a fumigant plume passes above it and then descends or drifts into other areas.

22. Air modelling techniques cannot fully give assurances about where and at what concentrations methyl bromide will be once released from containers, log stacks or ships holds. Modelling can at best be a best estimate, but the topography of the fumigation surrounds is continually changing with log or container stacks, ships size and presence, and weather variables, including humidity, temperature of air, objects and ground all obfuscating the best air modelling estimates.

There is no sure air monitoring possibility, or method for the safe release of methyl bromide in the port and coastal marine area. A previous Environment Court in Nelson noted the possibility for “monitoring devices to miss the most concentrated area of the plume, or even the plume in its entirety, and in fact on four out of seven attempts to sample air quality in Port Nelson during 2003-2004 this had occurred in varying degrees” (Env Court Interim Decision para 50).

24. Soil & Health notes STIMBR’s intent that recapture of fumigant from ships holds be delayed significantly, another 10 years, yet ships’ holds are where the most significant volumes of methyl bromide are used. The communities near the ports of Napier, Tauranga and Mt Maunganui, and Marsden Point (Whangarei port), and potentially elsewhere in New Zealand will be further exposed to the toxicity of methyl bromide, and the damage to the ozone layer will continue.

25. Other port workers, not involved in fumigation but working nearby, may also be exposed to the methyl bromide, particularly when the methyl bromide is released into the atmosphere following fumigation, but also during accidental and spontaneous release, as happens with methyl bromide most years, at most log stack fumigating ports. Log stack fumigations under tarpaulins are subject to strong wind events and accidental tarpaulin puncturing. Both Genera and Envirofume fumigation operators have had log stack tarpaulins rent with spontaneous release of methyl bromide. Dedicated permanent fumigation structures would eliminate the risk of tarpaulin failure.

Worker and community safety

In the Environment Court decision Envirofume Limited vs Bay of Plenty Regional Council, [2017] NZEnv 12, the court observed the large range of port users that may be exposed inadvertently to the methyl bromide fumigant. [1]
That Court found significant shortcomings in the current methyl bromide fumigations. EPA and Work Safe requirements are either impractical or are frequently breached.
Whatever toxic fumigant is used for log, timber and other fumigations, it must be in a dedicated facility with recapture of remnant fumigant, such as is used at Port Nelson. Methyl bromide was linked at that port with the deaths of six men from motor neurone disease. Alternative fumigants such as EDN have their own array of serious health risks. Recapture technology exists but industry individually and collectively has mostly avoided its use for economic reasons.

Ozone depletion

Continuance of methyl bromide release means further atmospheric ozone depletion, and New Zealand’s intentional breach of responsibility to its Montreal Protocol obligations, where although phytosanitary requirements allow some continued use of methyl bromide, there is an obligation to be reducing its use. ERMA allowed a continuance of damaging release into the atmosphere in 2010 with the knowledge that there would be a significant increase in methyl bromide use.
Dr Olaf Morgenstern – Programme leader (Climate Variability and Change) NIWA for the writer at the Environment Court outlined the significance of that release in world terms, with New Zealand being the highest user per capita. That should not continue if we are concerned about climate effects and the health of people and environment, or economically if our international, including trading, clean green branding reputation is to be valued.

Health effects.

Most people acknowledge the very real danger of methyl bromide from both acute and chronic exposures, and both acute and chronic effects. A recent although limited US study recently published in the Journal of Asthmareported a positive association between methyl-bromide concentrations and asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits among youths between the ages of 6 and 18 years in California.
After adjusting for the presence of other pollutants, humidity, and meteorological conditions, each 0.01-ppb increase in methyl-bromide concentration was associated with a 7.1% (95% CI, 2.9%-10.8%) greater likelihood of an asthma-related ED visit.
That science will need more work but further shows the need for recapture if real precaution is to be used.

The solution – dedicated containment and recapture.

Responsibility for dedicated containment and recapture facilities was considered by the Environment Court to require an integrated approach:

[130] Overall, our view is that this matter requires an integrated approach from the Port of Tauranga, the marshalling/stevedoring companies, the forestry industry and the fumigators to adopt an approach for the safe application of methyl bromide and the recapture of all reasonable emissions. This would probably require a dedicated area for fumigation, and may involve a building or other system that seeks to encapsulate and recapture gas. We are not satisfied that the introduction of another company into the Tauranga market is going to bring about those changes. In our view, the advance towards reduction of emissions has seen little progress since the 1990s, and the Court is surprised to see that there is approximately ten times as much methyl bromide being applied in Tauranga as there was in the 1990s.

Regardless of the possibility of an alternative fumigant, industry including port companies and possibly government need to bite the bullet and install dedicated facilities for fumigations and recapture.
The ERMA 2010 methyl bromide re-assessment inappropriately and possibly illegally set a very late 2020 date for recapture of that fumigant to meet Montreal Protocol requirements of phasing out methyl bromide emissions. The EPA must now insist on dedicated fumigation facilities and recapture always, if the EPA is to meet its statutory requirements.
Soil & Health supports the substantive submission of the Combined Trade Unions, and is in general agreement of the fumigation context and need for stronger and certain safety conditions as supplied by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.
Soil & Health submits that the evidence as attached and provided by expert witnesses for the writer for the Envirofume Environment Court case be considered by the EPA. That included evidence by an epidemiologist Dr Dave McLean from the Centre for Public Health Research, Dr Olaf Morgenstern – Programme leader (Climate Variability and Change) NIWA, and Jayne Metcalfe an air scientist.

Conclusion.

39. Soil & Health seek that the current application be declined.

40. Should the application be granted, dedicated fumigation facilities and recapture must be required.

41. Soil & Health wish to be heard in support of our submission and welcome any questions of the writer for clarification or further information.

Yours sincerely

Steffan Browning

021 804 223

greeny25@xtra.co.nz

Position: National Councillor

The Soil & Health Association

PO Box 9693,

Marion Square,