GE GM Policy

Soil & Health celebrates: Federated Farmers drop legal action around GMOs

/in

25 May 2018
MEDIA RELEASE

Soil & Health celebrates: Federated Farmers drop legal action around GMOs

Following years of court action for a precautionary approach to genetically modified organisms (GMO), the Soil & Health Association today welcomed Federated Farmers’ decision to drop legal challenges to several local council resource management plans controlling their outdoor use.

Federated Farmers has run a number of cases before the courts challenging the rights of communities in Auckland, the Far North and Whangarei to manage the outdoor use of GMOs within their own districts and regions. The courts continued to find that territorial authorities have the right under the Resource Management Act (RMA) to set their own policies and rules controlling GMO use, a finding that Federated Farmers repeatedly challenged.

 

Marion Thomson, Soil & Health National Council Member, today welcomed Federated Farmers’ decision and congratulated the organisation for seeing the sense in dropping further litigation, allowing Councils to get on with making GMO policies and plans that reflect the needs of regions and communities.

“Soil & Health has held grave concerns about the potential impact of GMO land use on regions dependent on an agricultural export sector increasingly reliant on non-GMO requirements of key trading partners.

“This affects both the traditional agricultural sector and New Zealand’s growing organic sector. There are significant premiums for producers who can provide non-GMO certification. It takes hard graft and time to obtain certification, and accidental contamination of a non-GMO farm would have significant long-term economic consequences for a no GMO exporter,” says Ms Thomson.

“The New Zealand environment and our local communities should not be guinea pigs for GMO land use, and therefore we welcome the news about Federated Farmers’ back-down.

“This is about allowing regions and districts to regulate potential GMO land use in a way that protects existing agricultural sectors and reflects community preferences. Soil & Health supports farmers and communities across the country who want to keep New Zealand clean, green and GE-free and today is a huge step towards allowing our communities to do this,” says Ms Thomson.

Auckland Council, Far North District Council and Whangarei District Council all prohibit the general outdoor release of GMOs and made field trials a discretionary activity with performance standards in place, whilst Northland Regional Council adopted a precautionary approach in its regional policy statement.

“The controls these Councils have introduced under the RMA help to protect New Zealand’s biosecurity, our economy and our environment by requiring additional local protections that are not currently required by the national legislation under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act.

“There is real potential for serious economic loss to regions exporting their products and attracting tourism under New Zealand’s clean, green brand if GMO land use were permitted, as well as there being uncertainty around the potential adverse effects on our natural resources and ecosystems,” says Ms Thomson.

Soil & Health, representing organic and GE-free farmers, primary producers, home gardeners and consumers across New Zealand, has long campaigned against Federated Farmers in each case.
“This back-down by Federated Farmers is a significant milestone in our fight for a precautionary approach to the outdoor use of GMOs in New Zealand. Soil & Health’s members, as well as a number of other individuals and support groups, have contributed a significant amount of financial investment in to this cause, as well as giving their time to publicly voicing their concerns, and we whole heartedly thank them for their efforts,” says Ms Thomson.

ENDS

MEDIA CONTACT:
Marion Thompson
National Council Member
Soil & Health Association
027 555 4014

Save the bees – Ban neonics

/in

2 May 2018

 

The Soil & Health Association welcomes the Environmental Protection Authority’s announcement to review the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in New Zealand but wants them to act now and ban their use immediately.

 

The EPA’s announcement, made yesterday, is in response to the European Union member states’ decision last week to ban the outdoor use of three types of neonicotinoid (clothianidin, imidacloprid, and thiamethoxam) due to the serious danger they pose to bees. The ban is expected to come into force by the end of 2018 and will mean they can only be used in closed greenhouses.

 

“Neonics are just as toxic in New Zealand as they are anywhere else in the world – they’re bee-killing compounds,” says Soil & Health chair Graham Clarke.

“While concentrations of use might differ, its use as an insecticide spray is widespread and over huge areas, and the majority of commercial seeds sold in New Zealand are treated with neonicotinoids.”

New Zealand regulations currently prohibit the spraying of neonicotinoids when crops are in flower. However, neonicotinoids can persist in the soil, meaning subsequent crops or weeds flowering can express the toxic chemical. Use is also limited by label requirements, but that’s not the reality of how people are using them. Seed treatments also mean that they are used over huge areas in New Zealand.

“Organic producers don’t use neonics, so we know that they’re not absolutely necessary,” says Clarke.

 

In the last decade bees have been dying at a staggering rate in many parts of the world due to colony collapse disorder. Research has shown that neonicotinoids are highly toxic to a range of insects, including bees and other pollinators. Bees and other insects are vital for global food production as they pollinate three-quarters of all crops. New Zealand’s bee population contributes about $5 billion to the economy annually, including to our agriculture, horticulture, and high value mānuka honey production. The use of neonicotinoids puts these industries at risk.

Neonicotinoids are also cause for concern for human health, including via spray drift and occupational exposure, and for the wider environment.

 

Soil & Health welcomes moves by retailers to stop selling the harmful chemicals. Placemakers and the Warehouse took them off their shelves after Steffan Browning, former Green Party MP and Soil & Health life member, requested them to. Earlier this year hardware store giant Bunnings announced its decision to stop selling controversial pesticides known to be harmful to bees. EU supermarket chains have increasingly been banning the sale of products that have been grown with the use of neonicotinoids.

 

New Zealand’s EPA however has a history of being slow to remove dangerous pesticides from use. The Soil & Health Association campaigned tirelessly, along with other organisations, for the banning of endosulfan, a controversial pesticide that was already banned in over 50 countries. The EPA only banned its use after it was discovered that a beef shipment to Korea contained traces of the toxic chemical, resulting in enormous costs for exporters.

 

“What this tells us is that the EPA are prioritising economics over human and environmental protections,” says Graham Clarke.

 

Soil & Health wants the EPA to remove these bee-killing pesticides now instead of waiting until trade implications force them to.

 

“By deeming neonicotinoids safe and allowing for their continued widespread sale and use in New Zealand we believe the EPA is failing in their statutory obligation to recognise and provide for the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems,” says Clarke.

 

“This is not just a trade issue. These pesticides are dangerous now whether in France, Germany, the US or New Zealand.”

 

The Soil & Health Association, founded in 1941, is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world. It promotes safe, healthy, organic and nutritious food. The Association campaigns against harmful chemicals in agriculture through Organic NZ magazine and other media, by submissions to Parliament, by collaborating with other groups, and by standing up in court for community rights to retain a GE-free environment.

Contact: Graham Clarke
Chair, Soil & Health Association
027 226 3103

Submission to the EPA on the use of ethanedinitrile (EDN) as a fumigant

/in

Submission to the EPA on the use of ethanedinitrile (EDN) as a fumigant

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 to import ethanedinitrile (EDN),
a fumigant for use on timber/logs under commercial conditions, requesting that the
application be declined.

3. Soil & Health submitted to the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) for
the reassessment of methyl bromide and has campaigned to have that fumigant better
contained and recaptured or stopped. Our then spokesperson Steffan Browning, has
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 significant risks of methyl bromide
fumigations for the health and safety of workers and nearby communities. We consider
that due to its known toxicity EDN would be no better for those people potentially
exposed, both at the fumigation workplace and further away.

 

Detailed submission

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

5. We are aware that EDN is promoted as a ‘new’ fumigant showing great potential as a
replacement for the ozone-depleting fumigant methyl bromide, and that an extensive
review of scientific literature commissioned by Stakeholders in Methyl Bromide
Reduction (STIMBR) in 2014 found EDN was the only potential fumigant alternative to
methyl bromide as a phytosanitary treatment for forest products. Research conducted
by Plant and Food Research has also confirmed that EDN is an effective phytosanitary
treatment for insects associated with New Zealand forest products.

6. 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 Australian Pesticides
and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). It is our understanding however that
Draslovka are trying to register the product in New Zealand, without liquid scrubbing or
another recapture method.

7. Attached to this submission is the public release summary from the APVMA on the
evaluation of EDN. Refer to page 26, under critical comments: “Residual gas must be
scrubbed for a minimum of 4 hours using a liquid scrubbing system at the completion of
the fumigation period, followed by a further 24 hours of ventilation prior to clearance.”

8. EDN is not ozone depleting, unlike methyl bromide. Regardless, if this application for
EDN importation and use is granted, EDN will still need containment and recapture, like
any of these noxious gases, rather than being released into the wider environment.

9. EDN, just as with methyl bromide, will be a risk well beyond fumigation areas due to
drift, inversion layers, and the inability for its whereabouts to be adequately monitored
by those responsible. Boundary monitoring is ineffective if at head height, when a
fumigant plume passes above it and then descends or drifts into other areas.

10. EDN is highly toxic and fumigation workers may be exposed to the highly toxic product
just as with methyl bromide when: • opening fumigant cylinder valves, • removing tarp covers for ventilation, • opening and entering shipping containers, • leakage from damaged (leaking) fumigant delivery lines, or when handling
fumigated timber.

11. Other port workers, not involved in fumigation but working nearby, may also be
exposed to the EDN, particularly when the EDN 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, resulting in the spontaneous release of methyl bromide.

12. 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 who may be exposed
inadvertently to the methyl bromide fumigant. EDN will have the same risks of
exposure for workers and passersby.

13. That Court found significant shortcomings in the current methyl bromide fumigations.
EPA and Work Safe requirements are either impractical or are frequently breached.

14. EDN gives no better assurance of safety than methyl bromide.

15. 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. EDN has its own array of serious health risks. Recapture technology exists but
industry individually and collectively has mostly avoided its use for economic reasons.

16. Responsibility for dedicated containment and recapture facilities was considered by the
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.

17. The ERMA 2010 methyl bromide reassessment 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. Should the application for EDN
use be granted, the EPA must insist on dedicated fumigation facilities and recapture
always, if the EPA is to meet its statutory requirements.

Conclusions

18. Soil & Health seek that the application be declined.

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

20. Soil & Health wish to be heard in support of our submission.

Yours sincerely

Name: Mischa Davis

Position: Policy Advisor

The Soil & Health Association PO Box 9693 Marion Square Wellington, 6141 Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

Another win for GE-Free New Zealand

/in

 

The Soil & Health Association welcomes a decision released today by the Environment Court declining Federated Farmers’ attempt to challenge regulation of genetically modified organisms under the RMA.

 

In the latest case before the Environment Court, Whangarei District Council appealed the Northland Council’s Regional Policy Statement, asking to delete one word – ‘plants’ so that the policy would require a precautionary approach to be adopted towards introducing genetically engineered organisms generally – not just plants – to the environment.

 

“The court’s decision is a victory for common sense and for the interests of all Northlanders concerned about the possible introduction of GMOs into the environment, whether they be plants, animals, insects or microorganisms,” said Graham Clarke, Soil & Health’s chair.

 

Federated Farmers appeared as an interested party and continued to present the argument they used in the cases they previously lost – that the Northland Regional Council does not have jurisdiction to regulate GMOs, because that is the sole prerogative of authorities under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. However, the rulings to date have stated that regional councils DO have jurisdiction to regulate GE in their regions, under the RMA.

 

Judge Newhook in his decision labelled Federated Farmers submissions as “curious to say the least” and agreed with Soil & Health’s legal counsel that they were rather difficult to follow in logic.

 

The upshot of this case was in favour of Whangarei District Council, and therefore Northland Regional Council’s policy is not restricted to just GE plants, but applies to GMOs generally.

 

“It’s been shown worldwide that once GMOs get into the environment, there’s no way to effectively prevent their spread. All Northlanders should be grateful for the court’s decision and for our team standing up for their democratic rights,” said Mr Clarke.

 

“We have advocated for the limitation of GMOs to protect the environment and the food chain.”

 

“This is another win. If GMOs were to be released into the environment, they would be very difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. There is also potential for serious economic loss to regions marketing their products and tourism under New Zealand’s ‘clean green’ brand, if GMO release were permitted.”

 

The Soil & Health Association, founded in 1941, is one of the oldest organic organisations in the world. It promotes safe, healthy, organic and nutritious food. The Association campaigns against harmful chemicals in agriculture through Organic NZ magazine and other media, by submissions to Parliament, by collaborating with other groups, and by standing up in court for community rights to retain a GE-free environment.

Media contact
Marion Thomson
027 555 4014

Submission on ‘food derived from new breeding techniques’ consultation paper

/in

Submission To: Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Submission Author: Mischa Davis
Thursday, 12 April, 2018

Introduction

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.

Soil & Health makes this submission on the consultation paper requesting that all new foods derived from new breeding techniques be regulated including: gene editing including, CRISPR and other related techniques, GE rootstock grafting, cisgenesis, intragenesis, RNA interference or other techniques including RNA and null segregants.

Detailed submission

To know our food is safe and free from contamination and harmful residues is a fundamental human right. We must also know what has been sprayed onto crops and soil or otherwise released into the environment, added to foods and other consumer products, and used in the processing of the food we purchase. Safeguards to protect people and the environment are becoming more important and need greater attention as increasing development and presence of novel organisms created through genetic engineering evolve and become mainstream.

Much uncertainty exists around the methods and the potential risks associated with these new genetic engineering (“GE”) techniques. Unknown risks are involved in the introduction of foreign material (DNA/RNA/engineered molecules) to the cells, plants or animals, as well as the exact effects of the changes (intended and off-target e.g. accidental) that are made to the genome. The genomes of living creatures are very complex, there is much to learn regarding their design and function. It is therefore impossible to predict the full impacts of the various GE products that are being created using gene-editing techniques. As the crops and animals being developed are very diverse and have different traits, it can be expected that the potential adverse effects on human beings and on the environment will differ, and therefore case-by-case safety and risk analysis is fundamental.

Further, genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”) created through new GE techniques are not necessarily detectable using current detection methodology, and in some countries, can bypass all the regulatory registration and labelling requirements. The absence of regulation for these new technologies in some parts of the world means that GE plants, animals, microorganisms etc. can be released in the environment with no risk assessment and no information for breeders, farmers and consumers.

Soil & Health strongly opposes the use of any form of GE technologies in primary production. This includes both the first generation of genetic engineering techniques (transgenics), and subsequent generations (e.g. gene-editing such as CRISPR and other related techniques, cisgenics, synthetic biology and any other new GE techniques). We consider that the new breeding techniques outlined in this consultation paper including RNA interference, fall within the scope of the definition of genetically modified organism under section 2 of New Zealand’s Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (“HSNO Act”) which provides that:

genetically modified organism means, unless expressly provided otherwise by regulations, any organism in which any of the genes or other genetic material—
(a) have been modified by in vitro techniques; or
(b) are inherited or otherwise derived, through any number of replications, from any genes or other genetic material which has been modified by in vitro techniques

Therefore, the new breeding techniques outlined in this consultation paper including RNA interference, and any products, including foods, derived through them must be subject to the same laws and safety regulations as all other GMOs and must be done transparently.

We consider that all the new GE techniques, processes and products should be placed in the highest risk category for assessment. The precautionary and polluter pays principles must be applied rigorously to all assessments, licensing and monitoring of new GE techniques and their products. Further, all products derived from new GE techniques must be labelled to protect the right to know and choice for consumers, organic and conventional farmers and processors. Transparent food labelling is fundamental in allowing people to make informed choices.

FSANZ Questions to answer

3.1.1 Questions – Genome contains new DNA,

Do you agree, as a general principle, that food derived from organisms containing new pieces of DNA should be captured for pre-market safety assessment and approval?

YES. Food derived from breeding techniques such as oligonucleotide directed mutagenesis (ODM), zinc finger nuclease technology types I to III (ZFN-I, ZFN-II, ZFN-III), CRISPR/Cas9, meganucleases, cisgenesis, grafting on a transgene rootstock, agro-infiltration, RNA-dependent DNA methylation (RdDM), reverse breeding and synthetic genomics, are all genetic engineering techniques. Any products, including food, obtained through genetic engineering processes should be subject to rigorous, multi-stakeholder designed and agreed risk assessment protocols that include input from the organic sector and like-minded movements, as well as an assessment of the possibility to prevent the presence of such products in organic products and conventional GE-free products. All products derived from new GE techniques, regardless of the presence of new/altered DNA or new/modified proteins, should also be labelled to protect the right to know and choice for consumers, organic and conventional farmers, and processors.

Should there be any exceptions to this general principle?
NO

3.1.2 Questions – Genome unchanged by gene technology.

Should food from null segregant organisms be excluded from pre-assessment and approval?

NO
If no, what are your specific safety concerns for food derived from null segregants 
The assumption that there have been no unintended genetic, structural or functional changes needs to be assessed before products derived from these techniques are allowed in food. Hence the need for a full safety assessment. A cautious approach is clearly warranted because of the potentially significant and unknown impacts.

3.1.3 Questions – Genome changed but no new DNA

Are foods from genome edited organisms likely to be the same in terms of risk to foods derived using chemical or radiation mutagenesis? 
NO

If no, how are they different?

Genome edited organisms have gone through the process of genome editing, including introduction of all the required components to the cells. They therefore carry a greater risk and warrant pre-market safety assessment and approval.

3.2 Questions – Other techniques

Are you aware of other techniques not currently addressed by this paper which have the potential to be used in the future for the development of food products?

RNA interference, which can result in gene downregulation, silencing or activation and has the potential to be used in the future for the development of food products. It poses unique risks such as gene silencing in non-target species that need to be assessed, among other safety assessment steps, before it should be allowed in food. Products produced using RNA interference should also be labelled as genetically engineered for consumer choice.

Should food derived from other techniques, such as DNA methylation, be subject to pre-market safety assessment and approval?

YES. DNA methylation is quite clearly a genetic modification technique and can result in heritable genetic changes. It therefore needs to be assessed for safety before being used in our food.

3.3 Questions – Regulatory Trigger

Do you think a process-based definition is appropriate as a trigger for pre-market approval in the case of NBTs (new breeding techniques)?

YES. Genetically modified organisms pose unique risks and a process-based trigger is appropriate for assessing these risks.

If yes, how could a process-based approach be applied to NBTs?

As stated previously we consider that the new breeding techniques outlined in this consultation paper including RNA interference, fall within the scope of the definition of genetically modified organism under section 2 of the HSNO Act and therefore must be subject to the same laws and safety regulations as all other GMOs in New Zealand.

However significant gaps exist in the law around GMOs in New Zealand. In the HSNO Act there are inadequate liability provisions (e.g. ‘polluter pays’) for any unintended or unforeseen adverse impacts resulting from the outdoor release of an approved GE crop or animal, meaning those causing harm may not be held liable. There is no mandatory requirement for the Environmental Protection Authority (‘EPA’) to take a precautionary approach to the outdoor use of GMOs.

We consider that a process-based approach should also include the polluter pays principle and require performance standards regarding liability and the posting of bonds. Further, a process-based approach should also require products derived from new GE techniques to be labelled to protect the right to know and choice for consumers, organic and conventional farmers and processors.

Are there any aspects of the current definitions that should be retained or remain applicable

Standard 1.5.2 defines “food produced using gene technology” as ”a food which has been derived or developed from an organism which has been modified by gene technology”. It states that “gene technology means recombinant DNA techniques that alter the heritable genetic material of living cells or organisms.” This definition clearly includes gene editing techniques. The intent of the (Australian) Gene Technology Act and Standard 1.5.2 was to capture all new GE techniques. Since RNA interference can also “alter the heritable genetic material of living cells or organisms” through induction of DNA methylation the definition of gene technology in Standard 1.5.2 would be better changed to “gene technology means in vitro (ex vivo or in vivo) techniques that alter the heritable genetic material of living cells or organisms” for clarity.

3.4 Questions – Other relevant issues

Are there other issues not mentioned in this paper, that FSANZ should also consider, either as part of this Review or any subsequent Proposal to amend the Code?

All forms of genetic engineering must be a government regulated activity and done transparently. The public should be able to retrieve data on what technologies have been applied, to enable producers and consumers to choose varieties according to their values and to reinforce the interdependence between consumers and producers.

We consider that information on all new varieties derived from genetic engineering should be made publicly available. Information should include methods used to develop new genotypes, intended new phenotypic characteristics, and identifiable genetic (and other markers) to enable their detection along with indication of the analytic technologies or other information necessary for such dictation and identification.

We consider that traceability and labelling must be made mandatory and should apply to all genetic engineering processes and GMOs at all stages of the production process, all the way through to consumers.

Conclusions

Soil & Health seeks that all new foods derived from new breeding techniques be regulated including: gene editing, such as CRISPR and other techniques, GE rootstock grafting, cisgenesis, intragenesis, RNA interference and null segregants.

We call on regulators to ensure transparency and traceability, and to safe guard producers’ and consumers’ freedom not to use untested GE techniques.

We consider that a moratorium should be placed on the release and commercialisation of all new GE techniques and their products, especially gene drives, until our regulatory system for GMOs is fully adapted to deal with the risks they pose.

Yours sincerely,

Name: Mischa Davis
Position: Policy Advisor

The Soil & Health Association
PO Box 9693,
Marion Square,
Wellington, 6141
Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

Community support for a GE-free New Plymouth

/in ,


Media release: Soil & Health Association of NZ
14 March 2018
The Soil & Health Association is encouraging the New Plymouth District Council to adopt precautionary provisions in the New Plymouth District Plan for any genetically engineered (genetically modified) organisms that may be trialled or used commercially.
The Proposed Draft New Plymouth District Plan as currently drafted fails to regulate or make any mention at all of GMOs. It is now open for feedback, and Soil & Health is calling on New Plymouth district residents to make submissions by Friday 16 March at 5 pm.
“We want to ensure that the Council adequately protects the district from the significant adverse effects posed by GMO use by including strong precautionary or prohibitive GMO policies and rules into its District Plan,” says Soil & Health National Council member Marion Thomson.
“We call on the New Plymouth District Council to follow the lead of the other councils around New Zealand that have already adopted precautionary provisions and banned the outdoor release of GMOs via their local policy statements and plans,” says Marion Thomson.
Auckland Council, Far North District Council and Whangarei District Council have all prohibited the outdoor release of GMOs and made field trials a discretionary activity with performance standards regarding liability and the posting of bonds.
GMOs threaten the economic sustainability of a wide range of agricultural activities that benefit from having GE-free status. This includes organic and non-organic primary producers in the New Plymouth District, including dairy, honey, forestry, horticulture and other producers.
“Markets around the world don’t want dairy products, honey and so on that are contaminated with GMOs. There are no benefits to farmers or consumers in planting GE ryegrass for example on pastoral farms,” says Thomson.
“New Zealand has already seen several GE field trials breach the conditions of approval. No matter how carefully conditions are crafted, there inevitably remains a risk that they may be breached by poor management, human error, natural events such as severe storms or even sabotage,” says Thomson.
Current laws are inadequate to properly protect communities from the potential adverse effects of GE. There is no provision under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act for financial liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO, meaning those people or companies responsible for causing harm may not be held liable.
Once GMOs have been released into the environment, they would be very difficult if not impossible to eradicate. In the case of a food product, the GE-free status of a district would likely be lost permanently, along with the market advantages of that status.
Fortunately, under the RMA, requirements for bonds for remediation and to cover the costs of contamination can be included in district plans if local councils choose to implement them.
Soil & Health’s submission can be viewed at organicnz.org.nz/submissions/submission-draft-district-plan-new-plymouth-district-council. Submissions can be made to enquiries@npdc.govt.nz by Friday 16 March 2018, 5 pm.
ENDS
Media contact
Marion Thomson
027 555 4014

Submission on Draft District Plan for the New Plymouth District Council

/in

12th March 2018

New Plymouth District Council

Submission on Draft District Plan for the New Plymouth District Council

Introduction
1. The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand Inc. (“Soil & Health”) thanks the New Plymouth District Council for the opportunity to comment on the Draft New Plymouth District Plan (“Draft Plan”). This document is a comment on the current draft version of the plan.
2. Soil & Health is a charitable society registered under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. It is the largest membership organisation 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 composed of home gardeners and consumers, organic farmers and growers, secondary producers, retailers and restaurateurs. Soil & Health publishes the bi-monthly magazine Organic NZ – New Zealand’s leading organics magazine.
3. Soil & Health makes this submission on the Draft Plan requesting that it include policies and provisions relating to the management of genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”), as allowed under the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) and pursuant to the ruling in Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council.
4. Soil & Health was party to both Environment Court proceedings concerning genetically modified organisms (‘GMOs’), where it supported provision for GMOs under regional policy statements. The Association was also party to the High Court proceeding on GMOs.2
5. Soil & Health has concerns about the potential risks posed by releasing GMOs into the environment. It considers that the science is unproven and the risk of biological and ecosystem harm is too great not to include precautionary provisions for GMOs under local plans.
6. Equally important is the risk to social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, even if the New Plymouth District Council considers that GMOs pose no biological or ecosystem risk. This is because GMO contamination could have significant adverse effects on the economic markets, and way of life, for both organic and non-GMO food producers, and the mauri and tikanga of tangata whenua.
Background
7. GMO activities have been of particular concern to Soil & Health, and its members, since the technology was developed in the 1980s. Organic NZ has published numerous articles about GMOs since the early 1990s to explain transgenic technology and investigate its safety.
8. Soil & Health’s membership has consistently called for action to prevent or restrain using this technology freely in the environment, unless or until it can be proven to be safe, healthy and beneficial for people and the environment, and to ensure users of the technology take financial responsibility for any negative consequences.
9. Soil & Health has monitored most of New Zealand’s GE field trials and reported on what it believed to be significant compliance breaches. These include breaches by Scion at its Rotorua facility where GE pine trees were being grown in an outdoor field trial.
10. No matter how carefully conditions of consent for GMOs are crafted, there inevitably remains a risk, even if small, that conditions may be breached by poor management, human error, natural events such as severe storms and even the sabotage of particular projects.
11. Once GMOs have been released into the environment, they would be very difficult if not impossible to eradicate. In the case of a food product, the “GE-free” status of a district would likely be lost permanently along with the market advantages of that status.
12. There is also a potential risk that escape of GMOs from a controlled environment would attract widespread publicity. Any such publicity of control breaches or even public criticism of a lack of an appropriate precautionary approach carries with it a significant risk of damage to ‘brand New Zealand’ or even particular organic farming sectors on the international stage.
13. From its work, Soil & Health is acutely aware of the importance of the precautionary regulation of GMOs to local communities. Feedback from members has made Soil & Health aware that many of them are primary producers and make their livelihood from farming, horticulture, forestry and beekeeping. They are very concerned about the risks posed to their businesses given past evidence of either human error in GMO activities, or unforeseen or unintended adverse impacts of outdoor use of GMOs.
14. GMOs pose a significant risk to the investment organic farmers and growers have made in businesses. This includes the many organic operations in the New Plymouth District. For the important and rapidly growing organic community, the impacts of any GMO contamination could have devastating and irreversible impacts.
Inter-council Working Party
15. Significant gaps exist in the law around GMOs in New Zealand. There is no provision under the HSNO Act for financial liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO, meaning those causing harm may not be held liable. This is a significant financial and enterprise risk for organic and GE free producers, should GMO contamination occur. Fortunately, under the RMA, requirements for bonds for remediation and to cover the costs of contamination can be included in district plans. Further there is no mandatory requirement for the Environmental Protection Authority (“EPA”) to take a precautionary approach to the outdoor use of GMOs.
16. Due to these gaps in the law, the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options was established, and as a result a number of councils around New Zealand are moving to protect their primary producers and communities by introducing precautionary or prohibitive policies. Auckland Council, Far North District Council, Whangarei District Council and Hastings District Council have all included provisions in their planning documents to regulate the outdoor use of genetically modified organisms. All four councils have prohibited the release of GMOs on land and made field trials a discretionary activity with performance standards in regards to liability and the posting of bonds.
17. Soil & Health considers it vitally important that there should be an additional layer of protection at a local level (on top of the requirements of the HSNO), should contamination from outdoor use of GMOs occur. This is a safeguard for organic and GE-free producers who would otherwise have no recompense for GMO contamination damage to, or even the total loss of, their enterprise.
18. Soil & Health strongly supports the role of local councils (district, regional, city and unitary authorities) to manage natural and physical in a truly sustainable manner and safeguard the interests of their constituents and local communities when faced with uncertainty about environmental effects including the significant risks of the outdoor use of GMOs.
19. To maintain consistency with other member councils on the Inter-council Working Party it is submitted that New Plymouth District Council should include provisions relating to GMOs in the New Plymouth District Plan. These provisions could be the same (or similar) as those in the Auckland Unitary Plan.
The Law
20. Soil & Health was a party to Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council. That decision ruled that local councils have the power under the RMA to control the use of GMOs via their local planning instruments.
21. In his decision Judge Newhook ruled that: “the RMA and HSNO offer significantly different functional approaches to the regulation of GMOs”.
22. HSNO is limited to regulating the introduction of new organisms (including GMOs) to New Zealand. HSNO “does not regulate the potential adverse effects of GMOs beyond approving them for release”, and does not provide for integrated management.
23. The RMA, on the other hand, enables authorities to provide for the use and protection of resources “in a fully integrated fashion, taking into account regional needs for spatial management that might differ around the country for many reasons”.
24. This decision was upheld in the High Court after Federated Farmers appealed the Environment Court’s decision.
25. Therefore, there is jurisdiction for the New Plymouth District Council to make provision for objectives, policies, rules and other planning tools in relation to GMOs under the Draft Plan.
26. This is further confirmed by the recent RMA amendments. On 18 September 2017 section 360D officially set down in law the right to place GMO provisions in Council plans without Ministerial interference.
Integrated Management
27. GMO proposals require approval from the EPA under the HSNO Act. The HSNO Act consenting process gives particular attention to the technical aspects of managing individual proposals. However, it does not involve:
(a) consideration of the geographic distribution of GMO projects;
(b) consideration of the need to geographically protect areas of particular value from GMO activities, such as sensitive farming practices (including organic farming, and all farming and forestry relying on a GE-free status, beekeeping etc.);
(c) consideration of the preferences of a community; or
(d) integration of the management of natural and physical resources, and the effects of GMO activities on natural and physical resources, on a geographic basis.
28. The HSNO Act does not, therefore, provide a planning framework through which GMOs can be geographically, spatially or culturally managed in an integrated manner.
29. The RMA establishes a regime whereby local authorities are called upon to prepare policy and plans to implement sustainable management on a geographic basis through the use of integrated management of natural and physical resources at a regional level, and integrated management of effects on the environment at a district level.
30. Consideration of the location and distribution of proposals involving GMOs on a district basis, together with protection of rural resources for organic, biodynamic or GE-free farming, forestry, marine farming, beekeeping or other primary production, are important resource management matters for consideration by territorial authorities in carrying out their functions under the RMA.
Potential Adverse Effects of GMOs
31. The outdoor use of GMOs has a potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment. Adverse effects could include (inter alia):
(a) biological or ecosystem harm;
(b) harm to tangata whenua cultural values such as mauri and tikanga;
(c) harm to the cultural values and lifestyle decisions of people and communities at a local level concerning what constitutes their wellbeing; and
(d) harm from GMO contamination to existing or potential forms of land use including organic farming (including organic certification and the requirement to be GMO free) and farming, forestry, beekeeping, marine farming and other primary production activities dependent on an uncontaminated environmental brand. Adverse effects to these land uses could include:
(i) loss of organic and GMO free certification;
(ii) reputational damage;
(iii) loss of markets, both local, national and international and the premiums paid for GMO free produce; and
(iv) loss of livelihood.
32. GMOs have the potential to adversely affect ecological, economic, and resource management values, and the social and cultural wellbeing of people, communities and tangata whenua.
33. Application of integrated management and a precautionary approach to GMOs under the RMA is the best available technique for managing the potential adverse effects posed by GMOs within the region.
34. It is consistent with the sustainable management purpose and Part II of the RMA to establish district plan provisions (e.g. issues, objectives, policies, rules and methods) that manage the release, location and management of GMOs where they have the potential to adversely affect the environment and other land use activities.
Decision Sought Regarding GMOs
35. The decision Soil & Health seeks from New Plymouth District Council is that the Draft Plan be amended to include the following:
a. A new section specifically addressing GMOs which includes issues, objectives, policies and rules that are the same (or similar) as those in the Auckland Unitary Plan.
b. Rules that make outdoor field trialling of GMOs a discretionary activity and release of GMOs for outdoor use a prohibited activity;
c. Provisions for bonds to make consent holders financially responsible for monitoring and any adverse effects particularly since the economic cost of adverse effects could be very high and should not be borne by third parties;

Yours sincerely

Name: Mischa Davis
Position: Policy Advisor

The Soil & Health Association
PO Box 9693
Marion Square
Wellington, 6141
Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.organicnz.org.nz

Community Support for a GE free Waikato – submissions needed by Monday 22nd January 2018

/in , ,

The Soil & Health Association is encouraging the Waikato District Council to adopt precautionary provisions in the Waikato District Plan for any genetically engineered organisms that may be trialled or commercially produced.

The plan as currently drafted fails to regulate, or make any mention at all of GMOs.

“We want to ensure that the Council adequately protects the district from the significant adverse effects posed by GMO use by including strong precautionary GMO policies and rules into its District Plan,” says Soil & Health National Council member Marion Thomson.

“We call on the Waikato District Council to follow the lead of the other councils around New Zealand that have already adopted precautionary provisions and banned the outdoor release of GMOs via their local policy statements and plans,” says Marion Thomson.

“Provisions in the Waikato District Plan should be the same or similar to those in the Auckland Unitary Plan to ensure a consistent approach across Auckland and the Waikato and eliminate cross boundary issues,” says Thomson.

Auckland Council, Far North District Council and Whangarei District Council have all prohibited the outdoor release of GMOs and made field trials a discretionary activity with performance standards regarding liability and the posting of bonds.

GMOs threaten the economic sustainability of a wide range of agricultural activities that benefit from having GE-free status. This includes the many organic operations in the Waikato District, as well as non-organic dairy, forestry, honey, horticulture and other producers.

GE animal trials have been undertaken at AgResearch’s Ruakura research centre for several years, making the potential for GE escape or contamination of ongoing concern to Waikato residents.

“New Zealand has already seen several GE field trials breach the conditions of approval. No matter how carefully conditions are crafted, there inevitably remains a risk that they may be breached by poor management, human error, natural events such as severe storms or even sabotage,” says Thomson.

Current laws are inadequate to properly protect communities from the potential adverse effects of GE. There is no provision under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act for financial liability for GMO contamination resulting from the release of an approved GMO, meaning those people or companies responsible for causing harm may not be held liable.

Once GMOs have been released into the environment, they would be very difficult if not impossible to eradicate. In the case of a food product, the GE-free status of a district would likely be lost permanently, along with the market advantages of that status.

Fortunately, under the RMA, requirements for bonds for remediation and to cover the costs of contamination can be included in district plans if local councils choose to implement them.

The Proposed Draft Waikato District Plan is now open for feedback, and Soil & Health is calling on Waikato residents to express support for precautionary and prohibitive GMO provisions, policies, and rules.

Submissions close on Monday 22nd January at 5pm.

Submission Template on Draft Waikato District Plan

Media contact

Marion Thomson, Soil & Health National Council

027 555 4014

Submission Template on Draft Waikato District Plan

/in

16 January 2018

Waikato District Council
2 Dominion Road
Tuakau 2121

Submission on draft Waikato District Plan

Introduction

1. I make this submission on the draft Waikato District Plan (“Draft Plan”) requesting that it include strong precautionary and prohibitive policies and rules relating to the management of genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”), as allowed under the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) and pursuant to the ruling in Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council.

Risks of GMOs

2. I have concerns about the potential risks posed by the release of GMOs into the environment. GMOs have the potential to adversely affect ecological, economic, and resource management values, and the social and cultural wellbeing of people, communities and tangata whenua.

3. The release of GMOs has a potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment, which could include:
(a) biological or ecosystem harm;
(b) harm to tangata whenua cultural values such as mauri and tikanga;
(c) harm to the cultural values and lifestyle decisions of people and communities at a local level concerning what constitutes their wellbeing; and
(d) harm from GMO contamination to existing or potential forms of land use including farming, forestry, beekeeping, marine farming and other primary production activities dependent on an uncontaminated environmental brand. Adverse effects to these land uses could include:
(i) loss of organic and GMO-free certification;
(ii) reputational damage;
(iii) loss of markets and premiums paid for GMO free produce; and
(iv) loss of livelihood.

4. No matter how carefully conditions of consent for GMOs are crafted, there inevitably remains a risk, even if small, that conditions may be breached by poor management, human error, natural events such as severe storms and even the sabotage of projects.

5. Once GMOs have been released into the environment, they would be very difficult if not impossible to eradicate. In the case of a food product, the “GE free” status of a district would likely be lost permanently along with the market advantages of that status.

6. Application of integrated management and a precautionary approach to GMOs under the RMA is the best available technique for managing the potential adverse effects posed by GMOs within the region.

7. It is consistent with the sustainable management purpose and Part II of the RMA to establish district plan provisions (e.g. issues, objectives, policies, rules and methods) that manage the release, location and management of GMOs where they have the potential to adversely affect the environment and other land use activities.

Decision Sought regarding GMOs

8.The decision I seek from Waikato District Council is that the Draft Plan be amended to include the following:
(a) A resource management framework for the management of GMOs that is regional specific taking into account environmental, economic and social well-being considerations.
(b) Strong precautionary and prohibitive provisions, policies and rules relating to GMOs that are the same (or similar) as those in the Far North District Plan, the Whangarei District Plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan, to ensure a consistent approach across Northland, Auckland and the Waikato and to eliminate cross boundary issues.

Submission on Proposed Regional Plan for Northland

/in

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 Proposed Regional Plan for Northland (“Proposed Plan”) requesting that it include policies and provisions relating to the management of genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”), as allowed under the Resource Management Act 1991 (“RMA”) and pursuant to the ruling in Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council.
  3. Soil & Health further requests that amendments be made to the agrichemical section of the Proposed Plan to better protect people and the environment from the adverse effects of pesticides. A holistic approach to land and water use is required if land is to retain its productive capacity, and fresh water and marine habitats are to be restored. Agrichemical rules and policies must take special account of glyphosate use and other pesticide use in the region.
  4. Soil & Health wish to be heard in support of our submission.

    5. Genetically Modified Organisms
    Background

  5. Significant gaps exist in the law around GMOs in New Zealand. In the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (‘HSNO Act’) there are inadequate liability provisions (e.g. ‘polluter pays’) for any unintended or unforeseen adverse impacts resulting from the outdoor release of an approved GE crop or animal, meaning those causing harm may not be held liable. There is no mandatory requirement for the Environmental Protection Authority (‘EPA’) to take a precautionary approach to the outdoor use of GMOs.
  6. Due to these gaps in the law, the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options was establish and as a result a number of councils around New Zealand have been moving to protect their primary producers and communities by introducing precautionary or prohibitive policies. Auckland Council, Far North District Council and Whangarei District Council have all included provisions in their planning documents to regulate the outdoor use of genetically modified organisms. All three councils have prohibited the release of GMOs on land and made field trials a discretionary activity with performance standards in regards to liability and the posting of bonds. Auckland Council (as a Unitary Authority) has also prohibited the release of GMOs in the Coastal Marine Area (‘CMA’) and made field trials within the CMA a discretionary activity with performance standards in regards to liability and the posting of bonds.
  7. The Regional Policy Statement (‘RPS’) for Northland contains provisions relating to GMOs. These provisions are not yet operative. However, they are likely to require a precautionary approach to outdoor uses of GMOs.
  8. To maintain consistency with other member councils on the Inter-council Working Party and in anticipation of operative precautionary provisions in the RPS it is submitted that NRC should include provisions relating to GMOs in the CMA in its Proposed Regional Plan for Northland. These provisions should be the same (or similar) as those in the Auckland Unitary Plan to ensure a consistent approach across Northland and Auckland and eliminate cross boundary issues.

    9. The Law

  9. Soil & Health was a party to Federated Farmers of New Zealand v Northland Regional Council.
  10. That decision ruled that local councils have the power under the RMA to control the use of GMOs via their regional planning instruments.
  11. That decision has recently been upheld by the High Court.
  12. Soil & Health therefore considers that there is jurisdiction for Northland Regional Council (‘NRC’) to make provision for objectives, policies, rules and other planning tools in relation to GMOs under the Proposed Plan.

    13. Integrated Management

  13. GMO proposals require approval from the EPA under the HSNO Act.
  14. The HSNO Act consenting process gives particular attention to the technical aspects of managing individual proposals. However, it does not involve:
    1. consideration of the geographic distribution of GMO projects;
    2. consideration of the need to geographically protect areas of particular value from GMO activities, such as sensitive farming practices (including organic farming, also all farming and forestry relying on a GE-free status, beekeeping etc.);
    3. consideration of the preferences of a community; or
    4. integration of the management of natural and physical resources, and the effects of GMO activities on natural and physical resources, on a geographic basis.
  15. The HSNO Act does not, therefore, provide a planning framework through which GMOs can be geographically, spatially or culturally managed in an integrated manner.
  16. The RMA establishes a regime whereby local authorities are called upon to prepare policy and plans to implement sustainable management on a geographic basis through the use of integrated management of natural and physical resources at a regional level, and integrated management of effects on the environment at a district level.
  17. Consideration of the location and distribution of proposals involving GMOs on a district basis, together with protection of rural resources for organic, biodynamic or GE-free farming, forestry, marine farming, beekeeping or other primary production, are important resource management matters for consideration by territorial authorities in carrying out their functions under the RMA.

    18. Potential Adverse Effects of GMOs

  18. The outdoor use of GMOs has a potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment. Adverse effects could include (inter alia):
    1. biological or ecosystem harm;
    2. harm to other existing or potential forms of land use including:
      1. organic farming (including organic certification and the requirement to be GMO free); and
      2. farming, forestry, beekeeping, marine farming and other primary production activities dependent on an uncontaminated environmental brand.
  19. GMOs have the potential to adversely affect ecological, economic, and resource management values, and the social and cultural wellbeing of people, communities and tangata whenua.
  20. Application of integrated management and a precautionary approach to GMOs under the RMA is the best available technique for managing the potential adverse effects posed by GMOs within the region.

    21. Sustainable Management and Part II

  21. It is consistent with the sustainable management purpose and Part II of the RMA to establish regional plan provisions (e.g. issues, objectives, policies, rules and methods) that manage the release, location and management of GMOs where they have the potential to adversely affect the environment other land use activities.

    22. Decision Sought regarding GMOs

  22. The decision Soil & Health seeks from NRC is that the Proposed Plan be amended to include the following:
  23. Strong precautionary, restrictive and/or prohibitive GMO provisions in the ‘Tangata whenua’ section of the Proposed Plan which address tangata whenua opposition to outdoor use of GMOs and/or their products and specific concerns about the risks of GMOs to indigenous biodiversity, and keeps with the wording in the RPS as relates to tangata whenua.
  24. To include GMO provisions in the ‘Coastal’ and ‘Coastal activities’ sections of the Proposed Plan that are the same as in the Auckland Unitary Plan, that being to adopt a precautionary approach to the management of GMOs by:
  25. prohibiting the outdoor release of a GMO in the Coastal space; and
  26. making outdoor field-testing a discretionary activity in the Coastal space; and
  27. including performance standards in regard to liability and the posting of bonds.
  28. To include GMO provisions in the ‘Land & water’ and the ‘Discharges to land and water’ sections of the Proposed Plan that avoids toxic discharges to land and water from GMOs, thereby avoiding transgenic contamination of soils and waterways and adverse impacts on GE-free primary producers. We note that the vectors for transgenic contamination include soils, seeds, pollen, insects, machinery, water, plus human error.
  29. To adopt a resource management framework for the management of GMOs that is regional specific taking into account environmental, economic and social well-being considerations.
  30. To address and support the Far North District Council, Whangarei District Council and Auckland Council’s opposition to outdoor use of GMOs.
  31. Soil & Health considers that it is important that there is consistency between the Auckland Unitary Plan and the Regional Plan for Northland, thereby eliminating cross boundary issues.

    32. Agrichemicals
    Introduction

  32. Soil & Health is opposed to the use of harmful pesticides in Aotearoa New Zealand. As an organisation we advocate for farmers and growers to adopt natural, organic, non-harmful methods of pest and disease management. We believe that researchers, farmers and growers should be encouraged to develop and implement nonchemical alternatives to pesticides that foster soil microbial life instead of destroying it. Central and local government should promote and support farmers and growers to transition to more sustainable and environmentally friendly methods of farming and land use while also ensuring that regulations are in place to sufficiently protect people, communities and the environment from the adverse effects of pesticides.
  33. Numerous independent scientific studies have raised serious concerns about the effects that pesticides have on human health and the environment. There is a real risk of people living in rural communities, close to where commercial horticulture takes place, who may be exposed to spray drift. Young children are especially vulnerable as they often play outdoors and in the fields. Children at school can be subjected to pesticide exposures from nearby operations. A number of studies have linked exposure to pesticide drift to chronic conditions in children such as autism spectrum disorders and childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
  34. Organic farmers and producers are also at risk. Environmental chemical pollution threatens the long-term viability of organic producers sourcing water for livestock and food production. Organic farmers become exposed when input quality cannot be assured. Water is the major input in agriculture.
  35. New Zealand currently applies an excessive amount of pesticides to soils. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s statistics database advises that in 2014 US$20,481,292.00 worth of pesticides were sold in New Zealand. This list doesn’t include hazardous pesticides like atrazine, which are sold here but are unauthorized in Europe. Herbicides accounted for nearly 50% of these sales.

    36. Gylphosate

  36. Of the many chemicals currently approved for use in New Zealand by the EPA of most concern is glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup. It is sprayed down most New Zealand roads, through our forestry plantations, and on most agricultural land.
  37. Glyphosate is a biocide meaning it has multiple pathways of toxicity. Glyphosate damages gut bacteria, beneficial species are vulnerable but pathogenic bacteria are resistant, it harms the immune system, has been demonstrated to impact serotonin production, is endocrine disrupting and neurotoxic. As a patented antibiotic, it may affect antibiotic resistance. Leaky gut syndrome is a particularly insidious and unpleasant consequence that is affecting increasing numbers of people.
  38. It is expected that the biggest users of glyphosate in New Zealand are forestry, agriculture, New Zealand Transport Agency and local councils. However the EPA doe not exactly know how much glyphosate is being used. In an Official Information Act release dated 16 June, an EPA Communications Advisor wrote: “We often get asked by journalists about the volume or extent of glyphosate use (which we can’t answer).”
  39. After more than 40 years of prolific global use, glyphosate was recently identified by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer as a ‘probable human carcinogen.’ Many countries are proactively applying the precautionary approach and are restricting, and in some cases completely banning, the use of glyphosate. These countries include the United Kingdom, most northern European countries, France, Spain, Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Bermuda and parts of the United States. Brazil and Argentina are likely to follow.
  40. In New Zealand some local governments are moving towards precautionary avoidance measures to transition away from the use of glyphosate-based herbicides. For example Christchurch City Council have recently proposed adopting a ban on glyphosate-based herbicides in built up areas in their draft Annual Plan. Tauranga City Council has also adopted measures to transition away from the use of glyphosate-based herbicides

    41. Effects on water quality

  41. Soil & Health recognises that New Zealand freshwater is in a dire state, with a staggering 62% of monitored waterways being unsafe for swimming. A big factor in the pollution of waterways is from the increasing intensification of agriculture and namely nitrates from soluble nitrogen fertilisers as well as increased pesticide use, so simply fencing off and planting around streams cannot solve this issue. Healthier fresh water is achievable by ensuring stock numbers are sustainable, and by shifting to organic and biological fertilising practices that involve nitrogen-fixing pasture species, and healthy living soils with good moisture-holding capacity.
  42. Regional Councils have an obligation under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management to maintain and improve water quality however the same document fails to monitor synthetic organic compounds, and particularly, pesticides. The National Standards for freshwater lists only eight attributes for monitoring: cyanobacteria; Escherichia coli; dissolved oxygen; ammonia; nitrate; periphyton; total phosphorus; and total nitrogen. Avoiding greater contaminant monitoring permits a kind of ‘manufactured ignorance.’
  43. We do not have data to demonstrate how New Zealand aquatic environment responds to the chemicals that may cause adverse effects to invertebrates, fish species and other aquatic fauna. Toxic synergies from multiple chemicals are ignored.
  44. While our national freshwater policy does not require monitoring of agrichemicals in our waterways the most common pesticide, glyphosate and its toxic (and persistent) metabolite AMPA (aminomethylphosphinic acid), is not routinely monitored anywhere, not in freshwater, groundwater, or drinking water. Public health policy-makers might take note that glyphosate does not degrade quite as quickly as the claims made by regulators, indicate.

    45. Decision sought

  45. Ensure that cultivation that is on land that is not certified organic becomes made a controlled activity requiring a 400m buffer for sensitive spray areas.
  46. Require that along with National Freshwater standards that are required SectionD.4.1- D4.4, that freshwater and sediment monitoring data (for the previous 5 years) for the following commonly used pesticide screens are required annually. If a freshwater body is identified as degraded, then require pesticide screens quarterly. Ensure this information is published and fully available online.

    47. List of pesticides:

    1. Glyphosate and AMPA residues in freshwater and/or sediment
    2. Organonitrogen, Organophosphorus and Pesticides (ONOP) in Water and Soil.
    3. Multiresidue Pesticides (MR) in Water and Soil.
    4. Acidic Herbicides in Water and Soil
    5. Sulfonylureas (metsulfuron is widely applied on NZ roadsides)
    6. Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOC)
    7. Organochlorines
  47. Ensure that the data supplied to the NZ National Survey of Pesticides in Groundwater is publicly available. Ensure that the metabolites as well as the primary active ingredients are screened for.
  48. The notification period for neighbouring land owners before spraying be increased from 24 hours to 48 hours, at a minimum. The currently proposed 24 hour notification period is not sufficient to ensure that people and communities are protected from the adverse effects of agrichemical spraying, especially for spray sensitive areas.
  49. Any aerial spraying whatsoever should not be allowed as a permitted activity under the Proposed Plan. Due to the nature of application aerial spraying is virtually impossible to contain in order to ensure that spray drift or direct discharge to water does not occur – therefore it is impossible for aerial spraying to meet the permitted activity conditions of rule C.6.5.1.
  50. Soil & Health request that conditions be imposed to ensure agrichemical monitoring, including for air, freshwater and groundwater, takes place which is supported by evidence concerning children’s increased vulnerability to pesticides. Soil & Heath are skeptical of how and whether the permitted activity conditions will ever be enforced without any sufficient requirements for monitoring.
  51. In 2014 11 wells were sampled. Ensure that these wells correspond with regions where higher levels of pesticides may be being applied. Northland is detecting triazine herbicides in groundwater. Europe have banned these due to high mobility and leaching. OEHHA have recognised many triazine herbicides as reproductive toxicants.

Yours sincerely

Name: Mischa Davis
Position: Policy Advisor

The Soil & Health Association
PO Box 9693,
Marion Square,
Wellington, 6141
Email: advocacy@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.organicnz.org.nz