Japanese glyphosate scare highlights lack of regulation in New Zealand

/in , , , ,

A blasé approach to glyphosate regulation in New Zealand threatens our international reputation and poses a risk to New Zealand consumers, Soil & Health Association spokesperson Jodie Bruning said today.

“Japanese authorities have now rejected five shipments of glyphosate-contaminated honey from New Zealand’.

“New Zealand needs to take glyphosate contamination seriously. The International Agency for Cancer has recognised glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. Bayer, the producer of Roundup, has already paid over NZ$15 billion NZD to nearly 100,000 individuals around the world who developed cancer after being exposed to glyphosate-based herbicides.

“We support Apiculture New Zealand’s call to have a national conversation.

‘We believe the New Zealand government can adopt a more nuanced approach to glyphosate. This is not an all or nothing conversation. Farmers can still have access, but glyphosate can be more cautiously regulated to ensure premium exporters don’t get nasty surprises like the honey exporters have received with these rejected shipments.

Controls have been placed on honey exporters by MPI following Japan’s announcement that glyphosate residue had been found above the allowable limit. Jodie Bruning says these controls are necessary, but continue to place the burden of responsibility on the honey industry.

“It’s not the beekeepers or honey industry’s fault that glyphosate regulation in New Zealand is so poor.

“We don’t have prudent controls on the use of glyphosate in New Zealand and it’s time we realised that consumers who care about food, care that it is not contaminated with a probable carcinogen.

“Glyphosate is a contaminant and a health risk. Whatever we do to protect our export markets will ultimately protect our freshwater, our soils and our families.

Climate Commission draft advice to government, Autumn 2021

/in

Summary of our submission

In general we support the spirit of this first Climate Change Commission (CCC) report, but we want strong and decisive action, and we want it more quickly than the report recommends. We think that the Commission’s proposed budgets need to be substantially enhanced to create greater emissions reductions over the next decade, to better align with efforts to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees.

The solutions lie before us, and we cannot delay any longer.

Our full submission

Download our full submission (PDF)

Concerns remain on improved Organic Products Bill 

/in , , ,

Concerns for the future of New Zealand’s domestic organic industry have dampened enthusiasm for the Organic Products Bill which returned from Select Committee with some significant and useful changes, says the Soil & Health Association.

“We represent the thousands of people buying, growing and selling organic products,” says Soil & Health’s general manager Pete Huggins.

“This bill will be a huge step forward for organics in New Zealand and it’s vital we get it right. Consumers, producers and retailers all want a robust system of organic verification that drives confidence and growth in organics.

“We don’t think the verification regime being imposed by MPI is the correct one. This was not the scheme we were consulted on and isn’t our preferred option. It poses risks around cost increases that the domestic industry will struggle to bear. We think MPI have misunderstood what is required here, and are failing to listen to feedback.

“We know the whole organic sector is committed to working with the government to make this Bill the best it can be. At the moment our main concern is to nurture and enhance the domestic industry under this new regime. It would be a tragedy if the incoming regulation hampered efforts to grow food more sustainably.

“Organics is booming internationally, and our export sector should thrive under this new system. But we need to see assurances that the domestic industry will be supported and not undermined through increased cost and bureaucracy.

“The Select Commitee has already improved the bill significantly and we look forward to engaging with the government further.”

Climate advice means government should support transition to organic, regenerative farming

/in , , , ,

Today’s Climate Commission advice shows we need a transition from synthetic fertilisers and other harmful practices towards organic and regenerative agriculture, said Soil & Health Association spokesperson Jenny Lux today.

“Organic regenerative farming is a huge opportunity for New Zealand, both economically and environmentally. Early movers have shown that we can make that shift rapidly. With government help the transition to producing high quality, high value food within planetary limits is achievable for most NZ farms.

“We’d like to see funding and other support for farmers to start shifting to lower emissions agriculture now.

“The Climate Commission says we can tackle agricultural emissions with the technology we already have. This includes organic and regenerative practices like phasing out synthetic fertilisers, reducing tillage, and intensifying cover cropping to build soil health and promote biodiversity.

“Healthy agricultural soils sequester carbon. The government could drive this change with a policy to support farmers with technical knowledge and the costs of transition.

“Money in this year’s budget would be good.”

2020 AGM of the Soil & Health Association

/in

Read the minutes and review reports presented to our 2021 Annual General Meeting.

Green Party organics policy adds vital ingredient to national debate on the environment

/in , , , ,

“It’s encouraging to see the Green Party reinforce their commitment to organic agriculture from their position in government,” says Jenny Lux, spokesperson for the Soil & Health Association, New Zealand’s largest organic membership organisation.

“We’d like to see all political parties exploring the opportunities regenerative organic agriculture offers in terms of environmental protection, healthy food, and resilient communities.

“We think the Green Party’s policy of creating a New Zealand sustainable food certification could finally help us meet our ‘100% Pure’ aspiration as a nation.

“However, a national accreditation would only work if it was based on measuring outcomes and met the standards for regenerative organic agriculture already recognised worldwide

“We also welcome the policy of capital investment and other support for growers wanting to transition to regenerative organic. The setup costs are often a major barrier to changing farming systems.

“Organics already earns export dollars at the same time as contributing to our Zero Carbon Act goals. Providing government funding for the organic industry and boosting funding for organic research and development is key to the future of this booming sector.

“At a time when people – consumers and growers alike – are increasingly concerned about health and environmental protection, it makes sense to be investing this way.”

Soil4Climate breaks new ground in Wellington

/in
Sifting through soil for evidence of lifeWords by Marion Wood, Chairperson, Soil & Health Association of Aotearoa New Zealand
 
Did you know there’s triple the amount of carbon in soil worldwide as there is in the atmosphere? This was one of many ‘wow’ moments from the launch of Soil4Climate during Organic Week 2020.
 

About Soil4Climate

Soil4Climate will do several things at once. It will put carbon from the air back into the soil, support growth in biodiversity, reduce food miles, and build the food resilience of local communities.
 
But that’s not all. Soil4Climate will also support the wider community of enthusiastic growers. As a result, growers will gather data about what works, spread the knowledge of how to build soil health, and improve our methods of doing so.
 
This is an open collaborative piece of work that we hope will inspire many.
 

Jessica Barnes and Jenny Lux mixing soil samples at the Soil4Climate launch.

We’re excited to be underway at two sites. We have begun at Tapu-te-ranga marae in Island Bay and at For the Better Good’s Porirua ‘Edible Earth’ farm (in partnership with WELLFed). We’ve started by bench-marking the current health of the soil at both sites. Over the coming year we will watch as the soil is built up through organic growing methods.

Next we are going to grow the project to include test sites around Aotearoa. This will include urban farms, market gardens, pastoral land, schools and backyard gardens.

You can read a bit more about Soil4Climate here.

We firmly believe that organic growing methods are crucial to mitigating climate change.
 

So how does it work?

Our measurements follow established soil science methods

Our measurements follow established soil science methods

 

We’re using three sets of measurements to test for carbon and other nutrients in soil health:

  1. The Visual Soil Assessment – which is a hands-on observation of different aspects of the soil. We record how the soil looks, its colour, smell,  structure and even the number of earthworms – that bit was great fun!
  2. The soil Microbiometer – here we are measuring the microscopic life in the soil. We know this is vital for plant health and biodiversity. We are looking at microbial and fungal biomass, and working out the fungal to bacteria ratio.
  3. Laboratory analysis of soil content – we send samples to recognized laboratories who analyse the soil. We are measuring things like mineral elements and the carbon content.

Soil4Climate’s initial results will be compared with repeat tests done over time. We expect soil health to improve as we grow on the land and change it’s soil composition through organics.

At the same time we are supporting community growers to connect with each other. This project will support us all to learn new things. And of course we are growing nutritious healthy local kai to sustain community.

Jessica Barnes shows us the composting system at For the Better Good's Porirua 'Edible Earth' farm in partnership with WELLfed.

Jessica Barnes shows us the composting system at For the Better Good’s Porirua ‘Edible Earth’ farm in partnership with WELLfed.

How much impact can we have on carbon emissions?

There’s a perception that agricultural soils in Aotearoa can’t sequester carbon. We think this is because the soils that have been examined are mostly microbially impoverished soils. This means the microscopic life like bacteria and fungi have been destroyed. Chemical spraying, tillage, and other land practises are often to blame for this. It means the soils are not functioning naturally or optimally. 
 
For example, regenerative soil consultant Phyllis Tichinin estimates that 1-3 tonnes of carbon can be sequestered per hectare of pasture per year.  If this is the case then the pastoral sector alone could make Aotearoa carbon neutral (and even carbon negative) within just a few years. This can happen if we move powerfully now to adopt organic and regenerative practices.
 
We desperately need more research into this area. Soil4Climate is putting a stake in the ground – literally – to start this process.

Soil & Health launches glyphosate campaign

/in ,

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

/in ,

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

/in

Summary of our submission

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

  1. ‘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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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)