Posts

Rethinking glyphosate

/in ,

Last year the Environmental Protection Authority called for information on the popular weed killer glyphosate, but are they dithering to avoid a risk assessment? Bonnie Flaws investigates.

 
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us for access to exclusive members-only content.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently reviewing information provided by the public on the herbicide glyphosate after issuing a call for information last year, which could lead to reassessment, including a full risk assessment. 

The controversial weed killer glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide in the organophosphate class, is the most widely used weedkiller in the world, and certainly in New Zealand. It has been used here since the 1970s. It is the active ingredient in formulations referred to as GBHs (glyphosate-based herbicides), of which there are 89 approved mixtures in New Zealand, including the ubiquitous Roundup. 

Despite a 2018 class-action lawsuit in the United States that awarded US$289 million to a groundskeeper who developed terminal cancer from using Roundup, in New Zealand the EPA still classifies glyphosate as a “low-toxicity herbicide”.  

EPA General Manager Chris Hill said the call for information had been initiated to get a better understanding of how GBHs are used in New Zealand, “with a view to making a decision about whether a reassessment is necessary, and if so, to pursue grounds for reassessment”. 

Many responders were professional users who said it was safe and highly beneficial if used properly. About 60 per cent of responders were non-users who said it was a toxic poison that should be banned or restricted. 

No decision has yet been made, but it appears the EPA is waiting to see whether the European Chemicals Agency and the European Food Safety Authority decide to go ahead with a reassessment – a decision that was recently deferred until next year.  “The information we have received from our call for information better prepares us to assess the European findings and consider further actions for New Zealand,” Hill says. 

“There is no scientist in
New Zealand that is paid to
research pesticides and
pesticide risk.”

JODIE BRUNING

What we do know and what we don’t 

The use of GBHs has broadened significantly since their initial introduction as weedkillers for agricultural crops. They are now widely used by councils on roadsides where our children walk to school and can run into drains, to kill weeds in waterways, and as a pre-harvest desiccant to dry out crops under threat from ill-timed rain, sociologist Jodie Bruning points out. 

This last use gives farmers more control over when they can harvest, and essentially sees cereals and pulses doused with the chemical just ahead of harvest, leaving higher residues on crops. It is difficult to get information about how common this practice is in New Zealand.  

Similarly, we don’t know how much glyphosate is applied in New Zealand every year, as we stopped reporting this to the Food and Agriculture Organisation back in 2009, Bruning tells me. However, a recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US found that more than 80 per cent of urine samples drawn from children and adults in a study contained glyphosate. 

Environmental and health impacts 

Legal discovery in court cases brought against Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup, in the US have brought some stark realities to light about glyphosate toxicity, Bruning says. 

In particular, it’s now known that GBH residues on the skin absorb in and pool under the dermal layer, which is how farmers have long-term exposure. “The EPA says if you are fully protected you’ll be safe. They have not communicated risk to farmers on glyphosate. You still see farmers out there in jandals, and roadside sprayers where kids are walking home from school,” says Bruning. 

Then there is the risk to the soil web. A recent report from the UK Soil Association found that evidence of glyphosate’s impact on the soil and soil life was inconclusive: “Research indicates potential impacts in increasing crop diseases, changing the composition and functioning of soil microorganism species and ecosystems, and recently published studies are showing a negative impact on earthworms. Scientists working in this field are calling for future research to be carried out. This is urgent given the widespread and heavy use of glyphosate worldwide.” 

But as Professor Jack Heinemann, a geneticist at the University of Canterbury points out, glyphosate is a biocide, and kills more than just plants. It also kills microbiota. 

Heinemann’s work shows that herbicides, including GBHs, cause bacteria to become resistant to clinical antibiotics. This literature is not being considered by regulatory agencies, including the EPA. 

Risk assessment (which for glyphosate has not been done) tends to look at a chemical’s direct toxicity to humans or animals, or pollinators like bees. Regulators have not thought about how herbicides change microbiota to become either more receptive to disease or cause bacteria to become less responsive to antibiotics, he says. 

“Glyphosate and other herbicides constitute some of the largest releases of synthetically developed chemistry [in the world], so the exposures are broad. We also know that antibiotic resistance is happening way faster than we had hoped or predicted.  

“This additional chemical exposure gives us some explanatory power as to why antibiotic resistance is so pervasive and seemingly irreversible, so we think they should be taken account of in risk assessments.” 

And of course, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the world’s leading authority and gold standard on carcinogenicity, famously declared glyphosate to be a probable cause of cancer in humans back in 2015.  

“Glyphosate and other
herbicides constitute some of the
largest releases of synthetically
developed chemistry, so the
exposures are broad.”

JACK HEINEMANN

New Zealand’s “no-science” problem 

Bizarrely, instead of relying on the IARC’s findings, the EPA commissioned its own report, by a single author – a toxicologist with no background in epidemiology – which concluded that glyphosate was unlikely to be genotoxic or carcinogenic to humans, and did not require reclassification under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act. This report was roundly criticised in two subsequent papers. 

A 2017 paper from the Green Party, authored by Bruning and former MP Steffan Browning, called out the EPA’s decision to ignore IARC’s findings, concluding that the science and opinion that it primarily relied on in its assessment was supplied by industry, and based on unpublished data instead of the independent, peer-reviewed science that informed IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. 

Then, in 2018, scientists at the Centre for Public Health Research published a paper asking if the EPA was “lost in the weeds”. One of the authors, Andrea T. Mannetje, had been part of the 17-strong IARC panel in 2015.  

This paper, which Bruning describes as the most important paper on glyphosate to have been published in New Zealand, also drew attention to the EPA’s reliance on non-peer-reviewed industry-funded studies, making it impossible to evaluate its validity and conclusions. 

Bruning says there is no evidence in the EPA’s archives that it has ever done a risk assessment of glyphosate. Nor has its subcommittee ever met since the IARC findings to decide if there was new evidence of toxicity that would require a formal risk assessment under the HSNO Act. “This is part of New Zealand’s ‘no science’ problem. There is no scientist in New Zealand that is paid to research pesticides and pesticide risk.” The EPA’s call for information was essentially “dithering”, when it ought to be conducting a thorough risk assessment, Bruning says.  

“The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has drawn attention to how bad our science and monitoring system is. It’s deplorable. Science is now captured within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.” 

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Simon Upton, in a recent report, questioned the adequacy of the information on which we base important environmental decisions. He recommends, among other things, that the Ministry for the Environment develop regulations to require and empower the EPA to collate, collect and report on the quantity and use of chemicals in New Zealand. With this information, we could do quality environmental monitoring.  

Upton concludes that our regulatory system does not always ask the questions that need to be asked, and that “it needs a basis for providing better scrutiny of the chemicals New Zealand uses a lot of and which have the potential to cause harm”. 

Sign our petition

Support the Soil & Health
Association in their campaign
to restrict the use of GBHs.
Read more below.

soilandhealth.org.nz/glyphosate

Sign our petition 

Since July 2020, the Soil & Health Association (publisher of Organic NZ) has been campaigning the government to restrict the use of GBHs in the following ways: 

  • Banning the use of glyphosate in public places and around waterways. 
  • Banning foliar sprays (pre-harvest) of glyphosate formulations on human and animal feed crops. 
  • Conducting a first-ever risk assessment of the active ingredient glyphosate, and the retail formulation sold in shops, using independent published and openly available scientific data 

Sign our petition: soilandhealth.org.nz/glyphosate 

Countries that restrict or ban glyphosate 

After the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen in 2015, many countries have made moves towards an outright ban (there have been delays and pushback in numerous cases, however). These include Bahrain, Malawi, Thailand, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Oman, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Bermuda, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Italy and The Netherlands. 

Another 21 countries have restricted the use of glyphosate at the district level or issued statements of intent for a future ban or use reduction.  

Non-toxic garden-weed management  

  • Before creating a new garden, kill off any grass or weeds by laying down thick pieces of cardboard or old carpet for a couple of weeks. 
  • Mulching heavily with pea straw, grass clippings, seaweed and bark helps suppress weeds and builds  
    up organic matter in the soil. 
  • Pull them out little and often before they have a chance to go to seed. Focus your efforts on the true baddies, like strangling convolvulus. 
  • Use weeds as a natural mulch by chopping and dropping them. Just remove any seed heads or flowers. 
  • Avoid composting troublesome weeds that might regrow, such as the bulbs of oxalis and onion weed. Instead, rot them down in a sealed bucket of water for six months, then add it to your compost or dilute it with water and apply it as a fertiliser.  
  • Plant densely so your soil is covered and weeds have to compete for their place with the plants you do want.  
  • If you can’t beat ’em, why not eat ’em! (See our story on page 40.) 
  • Some local councils allow you to opt out of weed spraying on your berm. Check out their websites. 

Bonnie Flaws is a freelance journalist and writer based in Napier. She grows an organic vegetable garden and shops organic wherever her budget allows. 

The wellbeing of food in Aotearoa

/in , ,

We produce enough food in New Zealand to feed 40 million people, yet one in five Kiwi kids live in households that experience food insecurity.

Gareth Hughes talks about his new role as lead of the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa. 

We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us for access to exclusive members-only content.

How do you get a cabbage? My book, A Gentle Radical: The life of Jeanette Fitzsimons, was recently published, and in researching the biography I stumbled upon an unusual speech the late Green Party politician had given at the Fourth New Zealand Energy Conference entitled “Two Ways to Get a Cabbage”. What on earth did cabbages have to do with a late 1970s energy conference? Fortunately, I was able to track down a faded typewriter-written copy of her speech where Jeanette used the vegetable as an example of the very different approaches society takes to provide things like cabbages. 

The mainstream approach, even back then, was energy intensive, relying on artificial fertilisers, chemical pesticides, insecticides and fungicides, and complicated fossil fuel-dependent transport and retail chains. The embedded energy and resources that went into growing a commercial cabbage was huge, and if it wasn’t the uniform size, shape or appearance it would be thrown out rather than sold at the market. She contrasted that cabbage with the home-grown organic variety planted and tended with no need for machinery and pesticides, saying “It represents time, effort, caring and an exchange with the earth.” The home-grown cabbage was fresher, tastier and more nutritious but she pointed out that only the commercial cabbage was represented in official economic statistics of progress. 

Gareth Hughes and the late Jeanette Fitzsimons, 2018.
Reader support keeps us going

Please support our work by joining with a membership subscription (print or digital). Organic NZ is independently published by the Soil & Health Association, a charity devoted to healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.

Our independent journalism relies on support from people like you!

What does our food really cost us? 

We’ve never had more volume of food produced globally than now but our connection to that food is at its lowest point in history. Are we looking at the bigger picture when we buy a cabbage or any item in our modern food system? The current paradigm is dominated by corporate giants, global trade networks and is dependent on huge inputs of energy and chemicals. While we might complain about the high cost of food in the supermarket as inflation rates rise, the really staggering cost is being paid by earth systems – soil, water and atmosphere. How we produce food is a major driver of climate change and biodiversity loss. Every year we draw down further on nature’s balance sheet while too often only valuing the financial one.  

Across my 20-year career as a progressive campaigner and Member of Parliament, food has remained as a major theme across all my mahi. I’ve led the engagement work for New Zealand’s food rescue sector, been arrested dressed as Ronald McDonald, which triggered the fast-food giant to ditch GE-fed chicken, protested palm oil ships and Fonterra’s gigantic use of coal, passed the Country of Origin of Food Act so Kiwis can know where their food has come from, and for our moana achieved a ban on shark finning and negotiated in government for cameras on fishing boats. Food touches every part of our lives, society and economy – how it’s grown, how it’s sold and who gets it. 

I’ve recently started working for the Wellbeing Economy Alliance, a global collaboration of organisations, individuals and governments to transform the economic system into one that prioritises shared well-being for people and the planet, as the Aotearoa country lead. A wellbeing economy would deliver purpose, nature, fairness and participation – what would that look like for food in New Zealand? 

Right now we have an unhealthy relationship with food. We export a volume of food that’s estimated to feed up to 40 million people yet one in five Kiwi kids live in households that experience food insecurity. There’s real hunger and malnutrition in New Zealand. Despite the cost of food – highlighted recently by the Commerce Commission’s staggering estimate that $1 million dollars a day in excess profit is being taken from consumers by the supermarket duopoly – on average, each New Zealand household throws out an estimated $1520 worth of food every year. Collectively, that’s more than $3 billion worth of good food rotting away and contributing to climate change. Agricultural production is responsible for half of New Zealand’s emissions, and dairy’s impact on our rivers and lakes, and nitrate contamination of water supplies are well-known problems. Every year 192 million tonnes of our most precious resource – soil – washes out to sea as a result of our land-use practices. New Zealand still sprays chemicals banned in Europe and uses destructive bottom-trawling fishing techniques, smashing ancient deep sea coral. 

Making progress 

Despite the gloom, there are bright spots emerging. We see the growth of food cooperatives and farmers’ markets where consumers can have a closer relationship with producers. The organics sector grew 20 percent between 2017 and 2020. Regenerative farming has become a household name, and more farmers are experimenting with reducing stocking rates and finding that their profits are increasing.  

Food-rescue organisations report 30 million meals were provided in the last year, turning an environmental problem into a social solution. Pātaka kai (free pantries) are popping up all over Aotearoa to facilitate sharing food. New products are hitting the market, from pea-protein meat alternatives and bread made from crickets to delicious oat milk brands. Growing numbers of New Zealanders are eating more plant-based meals for health, environmental or ethical reasons, and as a nation dependent on food and fibre exports, international consumers’ desires to purchase food with lower climate and higher animal-welfare standards continue to drive change. 

It could be said that today’s problems were once yesterday’s solutions. Around the turn of the millennium, farmers were actively encouraged to convert to dairy and expand into regions totally unsuited to hit exponential growth targets. A focus on volume over value has come with real costs. As we deal with today’s problems – dependence on milk powder exports, environmental degradation, the cost of food, genuine food poverty, and reliance on unethical inputs like palm kernel expeller and phosphate from occupied Western Sahara – we need to ensure we aren’t creating tomorrow’s problems. 

What would a fair system look like? 

A wellbeing economy of food would look at broader outcomes than just growth rates or profit; it would value wider issues as well – resiliency, sustainability, fairness and access.  

One positive example of this happening right now is the fact there is such a thing as a free lunch in New Zealand. Currently 220,000 kids are receiving free lunches in low-decile schools. The primary objective was to make sure children going without were fed, but what schools report are additional benefits for students’ health and food awareness. It’s impacting their attendance, ability to learn and participate in class and is building a sense of school community. It’s a solution-multiplier that was avoided for many years just on the question of cost, and is delivering significant benefits. Ideally we will build on the success and ensure the food used is organic, grown locally and that students can connect with growers. 

Another example is Wakatū, a company owned by 4000 Māori families in the Nelson region. Wakatū has a 500-year strategy focused on their tikanga, or values, the taonga that is the land and water, and manaakitanga for the people. Kono, their food branch, is one of the region’s largest employers and exports to more than 80 countries. 

Imagine if New Zealand and our food system had a 500-year strategy! We have made a start – factoring in well-being in our national budgets, and now we need to do that in all the decisions government and business make. How we grow a cabbage, produce milk or catch a fish matters more than just the quarterly profit and loss statement.

I believe thinking long term and holistically from a wellbeing perspective would encourage regenerative, restorative agriculture and food sovereignty. Tangata whenua would be able to harvest kai from healthy rivers and seas. We’d see more food forests and community gardens. We would eat food in season and we would know its provenance and how it was produced. Food poverty would be consigned to history and nutritious organic food would be available for all – not just those who can afford it. Let’s move from just counting commercial cabbages to valuing everything that matters.   

Gareth Hughes is a former Green Party MP and the country lead for the Wellbeing Economy Alliance: weall.org. 

Banned pesticide impacting New Zealand youth

/in ,

An insecticide called chlorpyrifos, banned in the US but still widely used here, is again under the spotlight due to risks of exposure in New Zealand children. An alliance of NGOs made an appeal to government on 5th June (World Environment Day) for regulators to start an urgent reassessment of chlorpyrifos – the next step towards tighter controls. The chemical is currently undergoing a UN process for a global ban because of its environmental and human health impacts.   

“Children are particularly at risk from exposure to even tiny amounts of chlorpyrifos, such as residues in food”, said Dr Meriel Watts of Pesticide Action Network.  

Dr Chris Hill of the EPA says chlorpyriphos has been identified on the Environmental Protection Authority’s priority chemicals list for reassessment. “Working through our priority chemical list is dependent on our assessment of need and our availability of resource.  When considering a potential reassessment, we look at the information available about the substance and about its use in New Zealand.  We also consider the technical evaluations of international regulators. If overseas information suggests we act sooner, we will.”

Fashion: the good, the bad, and the greenwashed

/in , ,

If you’re feeling overwhelmed and bewildered about what constitutes planet-friendly fashion, you’re not alone. Claire Brunette unpicks the multilayered environmental and ethical issues within the fashion industry.

 We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Sign up now for a print or digital subscription and get the latest from us each issue.

Clothing is powerful and necessary, and a handwoven burlap sack just doesn’t do it for most people these days. The right clothes can help get you the job you want, keep you safe, change how you see yourself and how others see you; they can be a source of joy.

If clothing production ceased tomorrow, there would be enough clothing in the world to keep us going for a very long time, but we keep producing more than we can use. It’s getting harder and harder to process the wall of information about clothing that is out there. What is actively environmentally harmful? What is exploiting the people making the fabric? What seems sustainable, and says it is, but shimmering below the surface has the nasty tint of greenwashing?

An oft-repeated statement is that the most sustainable piece of clothing is the item you already own, but what if that item is releasing tiny microplastics into the ocean every time you wash it? Microplastics are now found in our kaimoana, our honey, our salt and our blood. A report published by Scion in 2019 showed that 87 per cent of microplastics found on Auckland beaches were likely to be from fabric fibres released during laundering.

So how do we get dressed in the morning in a world that’s tugging us in different directions? Information is empowering, so before you buy anything, especially anything new, let’s explore fabrics. It’s important to note that no fabric is perfect and all have their own unique impact. It is still an essential tenet of sustainability to use what you have and to seek items that are already circulating.

Synthetics 

The big bads of fabric. Derived from fossil fuels and irresistibly cheap to make. Polyester, nylon, acrylic and their ilk are to be avoided whenever possible. They continue their dirty work post-production, shedding microplastic fibres into the marine environment every time they are washed. Many vegan alternatives are simply plastic. Companies are rushing to make garments out of recycled polyester, turning plastic bottles into tracksuits, but as these items are still capable of fibre shedding, it’s best to save your recycled polyester purchases for items that don’t need to be washed, such as shoes. See the box on page 64 for ways to reduce the impact of washing synthetics. 

Semi-synthetics 

Viscose, rayon and bamboo all come under the umbrella of semi-synthetic cellulose. The wood pulp, bamboo or other raw plant material is put through rigorous, chemical-intensive processes to break the fibres down into a product that can be spun and woven into fabric. The resulting fabric is biodegradable, breathable and silky on the skin, making it extremely popular with consumers.  

Unfortunately, the environmental and human cost of producing cellulose is high. According to the non-profit environmental organisation Canopy, 3.2 billion trees are cut down every year for cellulose production, up to 30 per cent of which is from ancient and endangered forests. The Changing Markets Foundation released a report in 2017 revealing that viscose factories in Indonesia, China and India were dumping highly toxic wastewater into local waterways, destroying marine life and exposing workers and local populations to harmful chemicals. Awareness around these issues has increased, and manufacturers have been making changes, so when purchasing cellulosic fabrics, look for brand names, such as EcoVero, that encourage responsible, closed-loop production. 

Flora Collingwood-Norris is an ethical, low-impact knitwear designer based in Scotland, and a champion of visible mending – a technique where repair work is deliberately made into a feature.

Please support our work by joining with a membership subscription (print or digital). OrganicNZ is independently published by the Soil & Health Association, a charity devoted to healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.

Our independent journalism relies on support from people like you!

Get the magazine ($55/year)

Become an online reader ($5/month)

Natural 

Cotton 

Soft and smooth, cotton allows air to circulate, keeps you cool in summer and is an ideal inner layer in winter. We love cotton! It also is an incredibly thirsty crop using often inefficient irrigation systems that divert water from natural sources. According to WWF,  cotton cultivation severely degrades soil quality, leading to expansion into new areas and the attendant destruction of habitat. Cotton production is heavy on pesticide use, threatening the surrounding ecology of cotton-growing areas and the people that live there. It is hard to forget the dark past of cotton production, and bonded and child slavery are still of concern today. 

GMO cotton has long been touted as an alternative and now accounts for close to 100 per cent of cotton grown in Australia. It is designed to increase both insect resistance and herbicide tolerance (so products such as glyphosate can be applied for a longer period of time) while reducing the need for water. An obviously controversial choice. 

If you want fresh cotton in your wardrobe, organic is the best choice. Check for labels with GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) certification. GOTS is a non-profit that prohibits the use of GMO cotton while maintaining high organic, labour and welfare standards.  

Most recycled cotton comes from pre-consumer waste, scraps and excess from factories. These are shredded and woven into new fabrics, which often have a pleasing speckled appearance. There are innovations that are creating a pulp out of those scraps by dissolving them with a solvent, so it’s worth looking into how the garment you are buying is recycled, but luckily most producers have this information prominently displayed on their websites.  

Linen 

Breathable, moth-resistant and durable, linen is grown from flax (Linum usitatissimum – a different species from Phormium tenax, our native harakeke), a resilient, ancient plant that can thrive in poor soils and requires a fraction of the water that cotton does. Organic linen is even better, as nitrates and toxic dyes aren’t used in its production. GOTS certification is also available for linen. Overall, linen is an excellent choice. The con is that all this comes at a premium price. 

Wool  

Our beloved national fibre is natural, warm and biodegradable. But is it sustainable? There are currently over one billion sheep in the world. That’s far too many to be considered planet conscious, and sheep farming is resource-intensive. According to Circumfauna, who do research on the impact of animal-derived materials, more than 367 times the amount of land is required for wool than for cotton in Australia, and an Australian wool-knit sweater emits about 27 times more greenhouse gas emissions than a cotton-knit sweater. The wool industry comes with a host of issues relevant to those interested in animal welfare. If you are looking for wool, check for accredited or organic wool to mitigate concerns. It may be easier for hand knitters to trace their wool through small suppliers.  Recycled wool is often blended with polyester for durability, so beware. There is nothing like the warmth of wool, so consider looking for second-hand items to keep the chill off.   

Silk  

The fanciest fabric of all, silk biodegrades and keeps rural artisans in business in an almost zero-waste industry. Unfortunately, it’s a fussy fabric to maintain, with the care instructions usually demanding dry cleaning. Its animal welfare credentials are nil, thanks to the traditional step of boiling the silkworms alive to separate the silk from the worm. Sericulture requires very little land use but unfortunately is water-intensive. The dyeing process is where toxic chemicals can shimmy their way into production, so look for naturally dyed items. New alternatives, such as peace silk (where the silkworms aren’t killed), spider silk and silk made from fruit fibre are being developed and offer exciting possibilities for the future.  

Second time round 

Cost can be a significant barrier to accessing responsibly produced clothes for many. Making beautiful clothes in a way that takes the planet and its people into account is unavoidably expensive. Natural, organic fibres cost more than synthetic, and fair labour costs more than exploitation.  

Purchasing second-hand clothing is a lower cost option, but generally requires a larger investment in time. Op shops can sometimes be a challenging place to shop as the racks are becoming increasingly filled with the poorly constructed, synthetic-heavy clothes of recent years. There are a number of people selling second-hand clothing online, curated according to particular needs or aesthetics. However, for some people, the stigma of second-hand clothing is hard to shake. And if you are at either end of the size spectrum, finding quality second-hand clothing can be close to impossible. It’s easy to see the allure of shops that stock your size, in your style, at a price that won’t eat too far into the weekly shop.  

Hamilton-based sustainable fashion label KoiNo’s garments are made to order and range from size 8 to size 28.

Slow wins the race 

Where the sustainable industry fails, where fashion fails in general, is in providing for a plus-sized market. Amanda Matthews, owner of KoiNo, a Hamilton-based, size-inclusive, sustainable fashion label, agrees that many brands don’t see the value in extending their sizing. “Increasing a size range to include plus size is not always as simple as extending sizing by taking standard sizes and making them bigger. Often new patterns are needed, with adjustments made to make the style fit well on a bigger body.”  

To avoid this problem, and its associated costs, Amanda bases her patterns on an XL, grading up or down from there, as she finds this creates a better fit on a wider range of sizes. This isn’t the only clever model that Amanda has adopted. Her garments are made to order, essentially eliminating unsold pieces. “I don’t need to invest in making every size in every style in every colour. I only make what is needed.” 

In Aotearoa, we are lucky to have a raft of fashion designers who are eco-conscious and innovative, from I Used To Be, who make frankly adorable bags out of discarded pool toys, to the chic Kowtow, whose clothes read as a love letter to the rain-fed, fair-trade organic cotton they are made from.  

Change is coming to fashion. Technology is firmly focused on future solutions. It won’t be long until we are wearing mushroom leather and lab-grown wool. Until then, choose your clothes wisely and love them well.   

Claire Brunette is a writer, worrier and textile enthusiast who lives in Tāmaki Makaurau. 

Kūmara recipes from Hapī

/in ,

Kūmara is something we need in our community. It’s an abundance crop, says Gretta Carney, owner of Hapī Ora organic café and māra in Ahuriri–Napier. She shares some of her favourite kūmara recipes.

Stuffed kūmara

This is a Hapī favourite. Salt baking the kūmara seals the skin, allowing the insides to bake into a melt-in-your-mouth mash. 
Serves 4
4 medium kūmara
Fine sea salt
1 medium onion
4 cloves garlic
Oil, for frying
4 large leafy greens (kale, silverbeet, collard, puha, watercress)
½ cup cream cheese (dairy or nut)
Salt and pepper
½ cup sour cream (dairy or nut)
Karengo salt
  1. Scrub each kūmara well and liberally sprinkle the wet skin with fine sea salt. 
  1. Place the kūmara on a baking dish. Don’t crowd them too much, as they need a bit of room for the skin to crisp up. Bake in a moderate oven at 180°C until soft to touch – about 30-45 minutes depending on the size.  
  1. Gently fry up some diced onion and thinly sliced garlic (we use deodorised coconut oil for most of our frying). Once the onions have softened, add some finely chopped leafy greens from your garden. We mostly use kale but puha would also be good. Only fry the greens for a minute so they have softened but still retain their bright colour, and turn everything out into a bowl. 
  1. Cut a strip off the top of each kūmara and carefully scoop out the flesh leaving enough intact so the kūmara holds its shape. Put the kūmara flesh into the bowl with the onion, garlic and greens and mash together. Add the cream cheese (we use our mushroom or cultured cashew cream cheese), mix to combine and season to taste. Stuff the mash into the kūmara shells, piling it up high. 
  1. Reheat as required and top with a dollop of sour cream and a sprinkle of karengo salt to serve. 
Reader support keeps us going

Please support our work by joining with a membership Join us here. Organic NZ is independently published by the Soil & Health Association, a charity devoted to healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.

Our independent journalism relies on support from people like you!

Roroi

This traditional pudding can be made with little or no sweetener given the sweetness of the kūmara.  
Serves 4-6
2 large kūmara
Honey – a couple of tablespoons

  1. Preheat oven to 180°C. Grease a shallow baking dish with butter or coconut oil.
  2. Peel and grate kūmara. Press kūmara into the greased baking dish. Drizzle or dab with honey.
  3. Cover with a lid or tin foil and bake for an hour until the kūmara has the texture of a soft mash.
  4. Serve hot or cold, with cream or custard.

Kumara canapés 

Kūmara can be turned into a versatile dietary friendly canapé base. Use medium-sized kumara for bite-sized canapés. 
  1. Cut kūmara into 2mm slices, skin on. 
  1. Place onto a baking tray and brush with olive oil and sprinkle with salt. Bake  
    in a moderate oven at 180°C until just cooked and slightly browned. 
  1. Allow to cool to room temperature and top with your favourite canapé toppings. We have been sending them out with smashed blue cheese topped with pan toasted walnuts in a honey reduction and dusted with toasted thyme salt, but you could also use slivers of roast beef with chutney, or pesto and roasted cauliflower. 
 

Gretta’s roroi and stuffed kūmara recipes have been reproduced with permission from:

Te Mahi Māra Hua Parakore: A Māori Food Sovereignty Handbook by Jessica Hutchings
Te Mahi Oneone Hua Parakore: A Māori Soil Sovereignty and Wellbeing Handbook, edited by Jessica Hutchings and Jo Smith.
jessicahutchings.org

The history of GE in New Zealand

/in , ,

Bonnie Flaws investigates New Zealand’s ongoing debate on the regulation of genetic modification

We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us for access to exclusive members-only content.

The question of whether we should allow genetic engineering in New Zealand has been raging for almost as long as the technology has been around – since the 1970s. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the sentiment among the public was decidedly anti-GMO, with protest a regular feature of the political landscape, including famous hīkoi that travelled from Northland to Wellington. Now the topic is in the headlines again after the Productivity Commission recommended in its 2021 report that New Zealand’s strict laws regulating genetic engineering ought to be reviewed, in part because the techniques used have evolved.

GM, GMO, GE, GEd – what exactly does it all mean?

  • New Zealand law defines a genetically modified organism (GMO) as any organism in which any of the genes or other genetic material have been modified by, inherited or otherwise derived through any number of replications, by in vitro techniques.
  • Genetic engineering (GE) is the use of in vitro techniques to make genetically modified organisms.
  • Genetic modification (GM) is used interchangeably with the term genetic engineering by experts in the field.
  • Transgenic techniques, what we traditionally think of as genetic engineering, use a foreign “gene of interest” that has been cultured and inserted into a cell of the host organism. Today, it’s more common to hear about gene editing (GEd) techniques, such as CRISPR-Cas9, TALENs and ZFNs.
  • Gene editing (GEd) techniques have been around since the late 70s, but some tools (nucleases) like CRISPRCas9, TALENs and ZFNs are new.

The use of language in the GM debate 

The language used to describe genetic engineering has often been contested by those who would like to see it deregulated. For example, it’s been argued that conventional and selective breeding of plants is a form of genetic engineering. More recently, it has been argued that the biochemical processes of gene editing are similar to those that cause natural mutations.  

Jack Heinemann, a professor at the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury, who promotes regulation, says the “equivalence to nature” argument is a semantic obfuscation, but a High Court ruling in 2014 made it unambiguous. New Zealand became the first country to make it explicit in law that gene editing is a technique of genetic modification, meaning it must be regulated. Heinemann was the expert witness in this case. This ruling hinged on the ability of the technique to make changes at scale that wouldn’t happen in nature, he says. 

Reader support keeps us going

Please support our work by joining with a membership subscription (print or digital). Organic NZ is independently published by the Soil & Health Association, a charity devoted to healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.

Our independent journalism relies on support from people like you!

A potted history 

This tension between those for and against regulation has been a continuous thread in the national discourse, with the public generally wanting controls, and industry and parts of academia wanting more freedom to experiment. 

After a field trial moratorium was lifted in 1987, the public became increasingly agitated about GE experimentation, particularly around the issue of contamination of agricultural crops, and demand for tighter regulation grew. The first big breakthrough for activists came with the 1996 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act, leading to the creation of the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA). This was the body responsible for overseeing importation, development, field trials and releases of GMOs. The act allowed scientists to experiment with GM techniques in the lab and in contained field trials. 

But GE experiments began to cross lines that many people found distasteful and unethical. The worry that GMOs might escape from the lab and contaminate and self-propagate in the environment, or that food with foreign genes inserted might end up on their plate kept activists like Zelka Grammer motivated.  

“You have this whole nefarious history of incompetence and slackness, and then even worse, MAF and MPI not adequately monitoring to catch significant breaches of ERMA’s rules of approval,” says the chair of GE-free Tai Tokerau. “People like Stefan Browning from the Green party and local orchardists had to go and find secret field trial locations, take photographic evidence, march down to MAF and MPI and say, ‘WTF! Why are these brassicas flowering out of doors when it’s not allowed under the conditions of approval?’ It was shut down in disgrace over and over and over.” 

There was a strong feeling that regulators were not adequately monitoring trials, and the rapid development of the biotech industry was seen as a threat to New Zealand’s agricultural sector. Despite this, industry and academic voices were keen to see the technology liberated for use in both the biomedical and agricultural spheres. Without deregulation, New Zealand would be left behind in the technological and economic race. 

Organisations such as the Royal Society Te Apārangi, Plant & Food Research, Scion, NZBio, Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Agcarm (New Zealand Association for Animal Health and Crop Protection) and Federated Farmers have all advocated for greater deregulation of genetic engineering over the years. 

A petition signed by 92,000 Kiwis called for a Royal Commission to investigate and establish a way forward for the controversial technology. This was done, and in 2000 the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification validated many of the concerns voices by activists. The overall recommendation was to “proceed with caution”, while also rejecting the unrestricted use of genetic engineering. Within a year, a voluntary moratorium was put in place – all in all a landmark year for people power.  

Several memorable hīkoi in 2001 and 2003 followed the Commission’s findings. Māori played a big part in their organisation but the movement was broad-based and many New Zealanders took part. Groups like GE-Free New Zealand and Mothers Against Genetic Engineering (MAdGE) had a prominent public voice. In 2015 the Northland and Hastings regions were successful in asserting their own “GE free” status in their district plans. 

It is clear that everyone is in it for the money. The risks can be dismissed by appealing to the benefits, and when the benefits are not forthcoming, the promises have to be kept alive. Biotechnology is the south sea bubble at the end of the millennium.

A quote from “The Biotechnology Bubble”, an article by Mae-Wan Ho, Hartmut Meyer and Joe Cummins, originally published in The Ecologist and reprinted in the July 1999 issue of Organic NZ.

However in 2012, CRISPR, a new gene editing tool, had been discovered. Proponents argued it was more precise than transgenics, and led to changes similar to what might happen naturally. Proponents said the technology should be set free to fulfil its potential. It could be applied not only in food production, but also in medical research, pest control and even to tackle climate change. 

At the same time, a growing body of scientific literature showed that gene editing gave rise to numerous unintended genetic mutations, and was not as precise as claimed. The Sustainability Council of New Zealand took the Environmental Protection Authority (formerly ERMA) to court to challenge industry claims that gene editing was not genetic engineering. 

The 2014 High Court ruling, which determined gene editing was legally a form of genetic modification, also established that the rate and specificity of change was what made the technology risky. 

Key dates in the history of GE

1973First recombinant bacteria is developed in the US.
1978The New Zealand government places a moratorium on field releases that remains in place for 10 years.
1980sThe early 1980s sees GE technologies begin to be applied in laboratories in New Zealand, largely for biological and medical research purposes.
1988The moratorium on field release is lifted and an Interim Assessment Group (IAG) is established for the field testing and release of genetically modified organisms.
1996Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 passes in law, which leads to the establishment of the Environmental Risk Management Authority New Zealand (ERMA).
1999The Independent Biotechnology Advisory Committee is established to assess and provide independent advice on the use of GE technology.
2000The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification is established and a voluntary moratorium put in place.
2008Activists chop down GE pine trees at a Scion forestry research site near Rotorua in 2008 and 2012. 
2011ERMA becomes the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).
2012CRISPR is invented, adding a new tool to the GE toolbox. 
2014The High Court rules that gene editing is a form of genetic modification.
2015Both the Hastings and Northland regions become GE free. 
2016Auckland becomes GE free.
2021Productivity Commission report recommends a full review of HSNO.

The Māori world view

Māori have largely been vocal opponents of GE from the beginning. “The issue is that using GE will have an impact on the mauri of our food and the soil,” says Lahni Wharerau, kaiwhakahaere of Te Waka Kai Ora, the National Māori Organics Authority. “Mauri is what gives us life force and underpins wellbeing. GE interferes with that.”  

Wider news reporting since the Productivity Commission’s report shows that attitudes aren’t set in stone. Maui Hudson, associate professor at the University of Waikato, said a national survey of Māori on the issue of genetic modification and gene editing was done last year, showing a wide variety of perspectives were held. “For some people it’s all the same, whether it’s genetic modification or gene editing, while for others they get that there is a difference and that may change the way you think about it.” However, a “proceed with caution” approach was still valued. “In the context of the conversations we’ve had, there is no appetite for a totally unregulated environment for gene editing.” 

The Productivity Commission and the global push for GE deregulation 

The New Zealand Productivity Commission last year called for a complete review of HSNO, as well as the legislative framework and institutional arrangements governing genetic engineering, suggesting separate legislation or a standalone regulator. 

“Technologies have moved on significantly over the last 20 years. In particular, advances in gene editing have produced technologies such as CRISPR, which enable much faster and more precise modification than earlier tools,” it says in its 2021 report. 

Once again, proponents have seized the opportunity to promote deregulation. Jack Heinemann says the push for deregulation is happening globally. Pulling no punches,  
he calls it an orchestrated campaign by vested interests – industry and those parts of academia aligned with industry outcomes – that follows the same pattern everywhere, drowning out voices of scientific doubt. 

As a geneticist, he is immensely positive about the benefit to society of regulated genetic engineering in the lab, but says both the utopian promise of genetic engineering – how it’s promoted to the public and the regulators – and the risk profile remain unchanged since regulations were put in place. What gene editing does is change the scale and speed at which interventions can be made in nature, he says. “That is precisely what makes a technology risky.” 

President of GE-Free New Zealand Claire Bleakley says the HSNO regulations follow a clear pathway to ensure products are safe. “Because GMOs are living organisms they might contaminate the indigenous flora and fauna, the economic crops, or have serious health effects. Our biggest concern is that the Productivity Commission report was basically minimising the dangers of GMOs and highlighting the simplicity of them.” 

Sociologist Jodie Bruning agrees the report obfuscates risk, and doesn’t represent what the bulk of submissions had been asking for – just two out of 80 submissions (both from the medical industry) that fed into the Productivity Commission’s 2021 report argued that HSNO should be opened up. 

The main fear Jack Heinemann, Claire Bleakley and Jodie Bruning convey is that without the appropriate checks and balances, and careful scientific oversight, niche experimentation with the ability to change organisms at pace and scale would proliferate, and with them, unintended consequences. 

“Regulation is not a ban. It isn’t stopping anything. Good science is like good democracy – it needs accountability and transparency. No dark corners,” Bruning says.  

Horopito: how to use our hottest native herb

/in ,

Herbalist Sara Mertens celebrates our hottest native herb and peppers us with ideas on how to use it in the kitchen and medicine cabinet. 

If you are unfamiliar with the native flora of Aotearoa’s bush and go walking with somebody who wants to treat you to a “taste of the bush” sensation, they will undoubtedly invite you to nibble on a leaf from an attractively coloured shrub. A nibble is all it takes! It will be an unforgettable moment as your taste buds encounter a peppery punch not unlike chilli spice.

Horopito, our native pepper tree boasts an ancient endemic New Zealand genus, Pseudowintera, and a primitive flower structure originating from the Winteraceae plant family. Unsurprisingly, introduced animals, such as wild deer find the hot-tasting leaves unpalatable,  a quality that has nurtured its longevity in our forests. Similarly, it is fungi resistant and insects are not attracted to it.  

There are four endemic horopito species. Pseudowintera colorata (pictured above) is a shrub variety that grows up to 3.5m tall and has distinctly identifiable foliage of red splotches on the topside of the pale green leaf, with a blue-grey underside. P. axillaris is not as peppery,  has no colourful markings and grows 7m tall. P. colorata and P. axillaris are often found growing in the same regions but in different parts of the bush due to P. colorata thriving in areas of adequate light to enhance its highly coloured leaves, and P. axillaris preferring cold, damp conditions. The other two horopito species are harder to find. P inseparata is critically endangered and only grows in Northland and P. traversii is found on the West Coast of the South Island and near Nelson. 

Reader support keeps us going

Please support our work by joining with a membership. Join us here. OrganicNZ is independently published by the Soil & Health Association, a charity devoted to healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.

Our independent journalism relies on support from people like you!

Apothecary 

P. colorata is known for its medicinal uses, and forms an important part of rongoā Māori. The fresh leaves can be chewed or simmered in water to make a medicinal decoction drink for tooth and stomach aches. Circulatory and respiratory conditions, such as coughs, colds and asthma, were once managed with this warming herb. It can also be used topically to treat skin diseases. The leaves and tender branches were steeped in water and used in a lotion for ringworm, and the bruised foliage was applied as a warming poultice to wounds and joint injuries.  

In the early 1980s, University of Canterbury research isolated the active constituent polygodial, which gives the distinct peppery taste to the foliage and has strong anti-fungal and antibacterial properties. It compares favourably to pharmaceutically compounded antifungal medicine, and can be used to treat  Candida albicans, which causes infections such as thrush. Horopito has also been effective against other fungal organisms, such as Trichophyton, which causes ringworm, athlete’s foot and fungal nails.  The pain killing action, analgesic, of the leaves is attributed to one of their 29 essential oils, called eugenol. 

Marlborough-based company Kolorex use horopito as their hero herb ingredient, and grow it to use in a range of efficacious antifungal products. 

Garden to pantry 

Grow horopito in your garden and the birds will love you when it bears its dark red to black berries in autumn. Meanwhile, you can be adventurous with the leaves in your kitchen. The peppery action of our native bush spice has found its way into the condiment range of chefs – what better way to “let food be your medicine, and medicine be your food” in the words of the great Hippocrates. You can dry them at home and grind them to use as a substitute for ground black pepper. It will take meat-rub seasoning to another level, and refreshingly uplift your favourite hummus For a ready-to-use horopito supply, visit Forest Gourmet’s website.  

Horopito is a botanical example of the land’s way of caring for us and providing a resource for health in life. Let it be reciprocal where we acknowledge how te whenua (the land) and ourselves are interconnected – if we care for the land, the land provides in return. 

Sara Mertens is a registered medical herbalist living in Rangiora (symphonyofherbs.nz). 

Pricing up organics

/in , ,

When it comes to groceries, many of us want to shop organic, but can’t afford the higher price tag. So why is organic food more expensive, and when you add up environmental and health factors, does it really cost us more?

By Bonnie Flaws
Illustrations by Vasanti Unka 
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Join us for access to exclusive members-only content.

Everyone deserves to be able to eat a nutritious diet free of nasty chemicals and spray residues, but for almost all of us, it’s out of reach. Even dedicated organic shoppers in New Zealand have to make compromises, either because of the cost or availability of organic foods. Given affordable options and ready access, I believe most of us would probably favour organic foods all of the time.  

But cost more they do, and with rising inflation and geopolitical conflicts impacting on supply chains and energy prices, they are only going to get more expensive. Despite this, there are very good reasons to purchase organic foods whenever your budget can stretch for it. 

The case for eating organic

Jodie Bruning, a sociologist with expertise in the public health impacts of pesticides, and a Soil & Health National Council member, says while it can’t be claimed that organics are more nutritious than conventional produce (there is too much variability in soil type, climate and farming practices to make this claim), what is known is that eating organic food dramatically reduces exposure to synthetic, exogenous chemicals. And the risks to health are clear.  

“Whether it’s an insecticide, fungicide or herbicide, we’re seeing inflammatory markers worsened. We see neurodevelopmental impacts right through the food chain from the smallest insects to humans in the in vivo studies. One of the biggest costs of pesticides is endocrine (hormonal) disruption.”  

 

In fact, scientists are seeing worrying associations between pesticide exposure – particularly organophosphates – on learning, IQ and behaviour. A major factor driving parents to purchase organic produce in New Zealand today will be to protect their children’s brain health, she says. 

“However it’s not just pesticides. Ultra-processed foods, low in nutrition and fibre and high in additive chemicals can also contribute to health problems and degrade the microbiome, leading to neurological issues, including depression. Organic diets help people move away from these food types.” 

Reader support keeps us going

Please support our work by joining with a membership subscription (print or digital). Organic NZ is independently published by the Soil & Health Association, a charity devoted to healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.

Our independent journalism relies on support from people like you!

Paying not to pollute

Another reason to buy organic is to protect the environment and biodiversity. And interestingly, this point illuminates something that goes more or less unacknowledged: that when we buy conventional food, in effect, we end up paying more. 

We might pay less at the checkout, but over the long term and in other ways, we still end up paying the price for polluting. Noel Josephson, chairman of Ceres Organics, the country’s oldest organic retailer, explains: “The price on the supermarket shelf is not the true cost of the product – it’s only the economic cost. It doesn’t account for the cost to your health or the damage to the environment – all of those are passed on to the future. That is the key to understanding what it is you’re buying and if it’s good value. If you apply ‘true cost accounting’, organics comes out cheaper than conventional.”  

True cost accounting factors in the externalised costs of conventional food production. One example, says Noel, is the amount councils pay to remove agricultural chemicals from the water supply. Another is the cost of health care to treat diseases resulting from toxic exposures. The cost is socialised, or delayed, but we still end up paying. 

However, Geoff Kira, a senior lecturer at the School of Health Sciences at Massey University, says food insecurity affects one in five Kiwi families, and many people are paying up to 50 percent of their weekly budget on the rent alone. Such abstract calculations are not realistically going to be a factor in the weekly food shop for many. 

“If you apply ‘true cost accounting’, organics comes out cheaper than conventional.”

NOEL JOSEPHSON, CHAIRPERSON, CERES ORGANICS

*Correction: the price quoted above for tinned tomatoes from Commonsense Organics should read $0.57 for 100g. We incorrectly listed the 400g price.

Why organics cost more 

Teva Stewart, retail manager at Commonsense, says price generally comes down to the cost of production.  Organic production doesn’t rely on chemicals to take care of weeds, so labour costs are higher. They’re also not intensively planted or stocked, so overall yields are lower. These, along with certification, add costs right off the bat. However, organic production is generally just more expensive in New Zealand. 

“It can cost more to eat an organic product produced here than one produced overseas and shipped in,” he says. Case in point: a 500ml bottle of imported Spanish extra virgin olive oil costs $7 less than a locally produced one at my local organic shop. Teva also notes that distribution is more costly because we don’t have a rail network, instead relying on trucks, while the volumes of organic products being distributed are vastly smaller than conventional in New Zealand.  

Countdown’s assistant manager of organic produce Savilla Manuel says while demand for organic products is growing – sales grew 24 percent year-on-year in the period ending June 2021 – the scale of domestic production is comparatively tiny. Supermarkets are largely reliant on local suppliers, so things like adverse weather events, labour shortages and import restrictions have a significant impact on supply. Compounding the problem, organic land conversion takes about three years, a time commitment many growers are hesitant to make, she says. “This effectively reduces the number of larger growers within the industry from making the move to convert to organic, which otherwise would help to improve overall supply and reduce prices.” 

How low can they go?

Organic retailers will tell you that they already do all they can to offer organic goods at the lowest price. Due to bulk importation, certain items, such as tinned tomatoes, can be offered on special regularly. However, other types of food, such as root vegetables, will generally always be the same price, Teva says. “Things like carrots, beetroot and potatoes, which are in the ground for a long time and require a lot of weeding, they are always going to be $8 per kg in an organic store because those labour costs are there.” 

Noel Josephson says the market conditions that apply to conventional usually apply to organic. For example, New Zealand is competitive at producing wine, apples and kiwifruit. Organic production of these goods can also be done competitively and at scale, he says. “The point I’m making is that there is not much that is going to change from market to market, which isn’t already there, which is really caused by other factors such as the growing environment, the trading environment or the government regulations,” he says. But that doesn’t mean the conditions for lower prices can’t be brought about. This is happening now in the European Union where 25 percent of all agriculture is set to go organic by 2030, he says.  

BioGro chief executive Donald Nordeng agrees, and says if the country could get over the idea that government shouldn’t support farmers directly, there would be more likelihood prices could come down. “We could do something amazing, but currently we don’t have price support, which I think is a misnomer,” he says. The EU is subsidising half the cost of certification and providing crop insurance for organic farmers, incentivising organic conversion. There is also money available for farming infrastructure, such as fencing, riparian planting and tree planting. “[There are] all sorts of improvements. Billions and billions of dollars that are being earmarked for [organic] agricultural production. Here we don’t have any regulation yet so the government really can’t take action.” The Organic Products Bill is currently making its way through the house, and when the regulation is in place, it will bring greater investment and funding to grow the sector, he says. 

Noel says it’s something the country should aspire to. “It’s definitely in New Zealand’s interest. If we went organic, we would get a greater return for the same amount of land, we would have a less polluted environment, and it could support the regions.”   

Bonnie Flaws is a freelance journalist and writer based in Napier. She grows an organic vegetable garden and shops organic wherever her budget allows. 

Investigating Aotearoa’s e-waste footprint

/in ,

Electronic waste is the world’s fastest growing waste stream, and in Aotearoa most of it ends up in landfill where it can leach toxins into soil and waterways. The good news is that we are taking steps to reduce our e-waste footprint. Bonnie Flaws investigates. 

We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Join us for access to exclusive members-only content.

Mobile phones, old computers, toasters and jugs, whiteware, batteries, televisions, gadgets, even children’s toys. We’ve probably all gone through numerous editions of each of these products in our lifetime. I run a little inventory and establish that I am on my fifth mobile phone, my fifth computer, and probably my fourth television. I’m only on my second GHD though after 20 years of hair straightening – pretty good, I reckon. My 30-year-old dishwasher is working but it’s falling apart, and it won’t be long before I’ll be replacing it. 

Electronic waste is increasing globally, and here in New Zealand it’s estimated we produce about 80,000 tonnes a year, of which only 2000 tonnes is recycled. “It’s a significant problem,” says AUT senior lecturer in the School of Future Environments, Jeff Seadon. And it’s everyone’s problem – it’s estimated each person produces about 21 kg every year, he tells me. 

Reader support keeps us going

Please support our work by joining with a membership subscription (print or digital). Organic NZ is independently published by the Soil & Health Association, a charity devoted to healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.

Our independent journalism relies on support from people like you!

What is it and why is there so much of it? 

E-waste comprises “anything with a plug or battery” that has reached the end of its life, Jeff explains. As the world has become increasingly digitised, the amount of e-waste continues to pile up and it has become the fastest growing waste stream in the world. Another culprit is ‘planned obsolescence’,  a business strategy with an ethics problem.  

Manufacturers want repeat customers and so longevity is not a priority. It costs manufacturers money to repair products, and it’s often cheaper to simply replace broken items. It’s also profitable to dictate who can do repairs, sometimes under threat of nullifying the warranty if something is repaired by an unauthorised party. 

“There is now a backlash occurring, and as a result, manufacturers are having to change their products so that there is a ‘right to repair’,” Jeff says. The ‘right to repair’ concept is becoming more widespread. Consumer NZ says it’s going mainstream, with companies like Apple making supportive noises, and legislators in Australia and the United Kingdom forcing manufacturers to repair cars through independent garages and supply spare parts for gadgets. Minister for the Environment David Parker is a fan and Kiwi businesses could soon be legally bound to ensure old devices can be repaired too. 

Jeff says this policy may force a rethink. “Producers are thinking, ‘If we have to repair it, that will cost us a fortune and that will come back on us. So, therefore we need to make things that are more useable’.” 

Environmental and health impacts 

E-waste contains a variety of minerals and elements, including precious metals and heavy metals. Many of these are contaminants, says University of Canterbury professor of environmental chemistry Brett Robinson. Elements like lead, cadmium, mercury and copper bind very strongly to soils where they stay forever or are taken up by plants. 

But Brett says there are many other chemical elements that are not well understood – such as gallium and indium, which are used in the manufacture of flat panel displays. It is not known just how mobile they are in soil or how harmful they can be. At some level, all of these contaminants are toxic to microbes and plants, he says. 

Some types of flame retardants that are used in plastics on electronic devices are also extremely toxic and very mobile, so can leach into groundwater. Air pollution can also be a problem. “If e-waste is burned, you get chemicals called dioxins forming – the same chemical that caused environmental damage in Vietnam with Agent Orange.” 

Brett says most of what is collected at recycling centres usually goes overseas to places like Japan, Singapore and South Korea, where it can be recycled more cost-effectively.  

Sadly, in New Zealand most e-waste ends up in landfill. There are upsides and downsides to this, he adds. On the downside, resources are being lost – there is far more gold, silver and palladium in landfills than there is in virgin mines, such as the one in Waihi. On the upside, since the 1990s, landfills have been required to be sealed, so the e-waste doesn’t leach out, although some of it ends up as leachate which is collected and reprocessed by the operator, he says. 

Farm dumps 

The biggest problem in Aoteroa is the amount of e-waste illegally disposed of on farm dumps, of which there are estimated to be about 30,000 around the country, Jeff tells me. “It’s very hard to regulate because if you have a little valley in the back of beyond, who is going to be there to check it?”  

Unlike landfills, these dumps do leach. As water passes through valleys, decaying metals pass into the water system and into vegetable and animal life, where it accumulates. Some elements can also get into groundwater, he says. Their accumulation in humans and animals via water and food can lead to side effects including kidney and bone disease, central nervous system damage and elevated blood pressure. 

Product stewardship for e-waste will become mandatory 

Spark, Vodafone and 2degrees have a recycling programme for phones called Re:Mobile, and there are collection points for e-waste recycling in many places that you can find out about through your local council or at ewaste.org.nz. However, options for responsible disposal of electronic waste are still limited. But this is set to change. 

The Ministry for the Environment is currently in the process of setting up a product stewardship scheme under the Waste Minimisation Act, and e-waste is one of the priority waste streams. Once in place, it will oblige producers to recover e-waste at the end of life and recycle it. There is no date set yet for its implementation. 

What we do know is that it will be a user-pays system. “When you go and purchase a piece of electronic equipment covered under the scheme, you’ll pay an extra amount that will pay for its recovery at the end. The scheme will build up money to capture goods at the end and it should be self-supporting,” Brett says.    

Not-for-profit TechCollect NZ was established by a group of global technology companies to support the development of a regulated product stewardship scheme in New Zealand, and is working with the government on delivering the scheme at present.  

Auckland based company Computer Recycling will likely to be collecting much of this waste once the scheme is up and running.  Director Patrick Moynahan has imported a high-tech piece of kit called Blue Box. One of only eight in the world, this machine will increase the amount of e-waste the country currently recycles to 5000 tonnes per year, he says. “That will go quite a long way to recycle the ‘hard to recycle’ material – things like flat screens, small electronics, laptops. We’ll be able to handle the vast majority of what New Zealand produces,” he says. Hard-to-recycle material is anything that can’t be disassembled by hand,  
he explains. 

The $3 million machine, a 40 foot container-sized shredding unit, operates in a negative vacuum environment, meaning nasties like mercury and cadmium will be contained and the recycling process won’t contribute to the contamination of the workers or the land. The metals will be exported as commodities, where they will be reused in manufactured goods. It also separates out the precious metals into pure commodity streams that can be sold back to refineries. 

Computer Recycling collects e-waste from all over the country at one-day-events via business networks and a fleet of trucks and vans that collect waste. “We also work with general waste companies to encourage the collection of e-waste at the point of landfill,” Patrick says. The company will be working with TechCollect and companies implementing the mandatory product stewardship programmes when the time comes.  

But Patrick doesn’t think it will be realistically operational for two to three years. Once the regulation is in place, the e-waste recycling sector will expand significantly especially with the help of Blue Box, he says. 

“We are hoping to import a few more machines [for other e-waste streams] in a couple of years. If stewardship is introduced and there is a conscious effort to educate the public then there is no reason why we can’t hit 50–60 per cent recycling of waste. Right now, we’re are at about 2 per cent,” Patrick says. 

Keep your garden growing

/in ,

Tips and tasks for the March/April māra,
by Diana Noonan

In the cooler months it’s tempting to wind down the edible beds, but try sowing and growing all over again for months of bountiful harvest at a time when store-bought veges command a premium price.  

We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Join us for access to exclusive members-only content.

Ki te hāmama popora te tangata e kore e mau te ika!  
He who yawns, catches no fish! 

Starting all over again

The summer māra can be disappointing, especially if you’ve been away from home over the holidays and your edible beds have suffered from a lack of attention. But the good news is you can put the past behind you and start growing all over again with cool-season veges – some of which will be ready to harvest in just three to four weeks (see our suggestions below). If you live in a warm region, sow some baby root crops too, as they will keep growing, albeit slowly, almost right through the year. 

Undercover agents

Greenhouses provide a whole new cool-season growing space once summer crops have been harvested. Make the most of this by replenishing the greenhouse soil with organic compost and manures, and sowing quick-turnover greens such as ‘Fiji Feathers’ peas. A semi-leafless pea with crisp feathered shoots and tasty tendrils, it is ready to snip and use just two to three weeks from sowing. Mesclun seed mixes will also come away quickly when sown undercover, and you can double their value by teasing out individual seedlings and planting them into their own spot in the greenhouse where they can grow on to maturity. In very cool regions, where the summer undercover harvest can linger on until mid-autumn, sow and plant into containers which can be placed under cloches until there is space available for them in the greenhouse.

Reader support keeps us going

Please support our work by joining with a membership subscription (print or digital). Organic NZ is independently published by the Soil & Health Association, a charity devoted to healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.

Our independent journalism relies on support from people like you!

Extend the season

In order for autumn-sown seeds and cool-season seedlings to be strong, healthy, and potentially productive throughout the winter and early spring months, it’s important to give them a quick start now, in warm beds. If autumns are damp in your part of the country, and you are not already growing in raised beds, mound up your soil by 10–20 cm. This will keep the ground temperature sufficiently damp but not wet, and therefore increase its temperature. If autumn conditions are warm, or if you live in a drought-prone region, use a mulch to lock in moisture and control weeds. If your autumns are on the cool side, skip the mulch (which shuts out the sun’s warmth) and weed by hand. 

Use cloches to harvest the autumn sun. While they can be store-bought, you can also make your own by bending over hoops of supple willow or number eight wire, and pushing the ends into the ground. Cover with recycled clear plastic (check out furniture stores for this valuable resource), and hold it in place with rocks. Prop the cloche open with a forked stick on very warm days so your plants don’t overheat. To make a mini cloche, cut the base off a PET bottle, and push the cut end into the ground. Remove the top to allow for ventilation, so your young plants don’t cook, or leave it on in cold weather to increase the heat. 

Sow me now

In all but the coldest regions, sow the following:
Veges: Radish, daikon radish, autumn mesclun mix, Asian greens, winter spinach, broad beans. In warm regions only: Carrot, beetroot, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, kale.
Herbs: Chervil, chives, coriander, rocket, spring onions.
Flowers: Hollyhock, nasturtium, phacelia, spring bulbs, viola.
Note: In very cold regions, sow quick-growing pea shoots and microgreens under cover.

Transplant me now

Veges (by February in cooler regions and March in warmer regions): Brassicas – especially spring cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli (including purple winter-sprouting broccoli), celery, celeriac, leeks, perennial beet, silver beet, winter lettuce.
Herbs: Most woody herbs including rosemary, sage, thyme, marjoram, and already-established potted lavender. Hardy leafy herbs including parsley, parcel and sorrel.
Flowers: Winter colour (polyanthus, primula, Iceland poppies, pansies) spring bulbs. 

Compost clean-up

Anyone who has ever painted or wallpapered knows that nine-tenths of the mahi goes into preparation – and it’s the same with making the perfect compost. In autumn, especially, it’s important to hot-compost because so much of the material cleared from the māra contains weed seeds that require significant heat in order to be destroyed. 

Composting instructions are easy to access, but the subject of assembling the necessary ingredients is seldom discussed. When building a hot compost, it’s essential to gather all your materials ahead of time, and to restrict the gathering of high-nitrogen materials to just two or three consecutive days before building the pile (any more and this nitrogen-rich material will begin to decay before you want it to). 

Assemble the materials in their different piles: browns (carbon-rich materials such as dead leaves, mulched branches and twigs, and organic straw), greens (nitrogen-rich materials such as green manure crops, lawn clippings, freshly cut long grass, mulched green leaves, seaweeds and kitchen scraps), and very high-nitrogen ingredients (if using), such as fresh and aged animal manures. Although it’s not essential to be totally accurate, a compost heats up best when the ratio of carbon to nitrogen materials is 30:1. You will also need on hand a good supply of water, and material to cover the pile (hessian sacks are ideal). Once you’re ready to begin, following the instructions will be fun and easy. 

Fill the larder

Your winter keep-crops have taken four to six months to grow to maturity. Don’t waste them through poor storage. Dry your alliums (onions, shallots and garlics) until there is no sign of moisture left in their tops (especially around their ‘necks’. Allow kūmara, yams (oca), mashua and ulluco (earth gems) to quick-dry in warm shade, turning them to hurry the process. Dry potatoes in a warm, dark, dry place to prevent greening. Sort crops thoroughly so that any that are damaged are separated out and used quickly. Be aware that different keep-crops require different temperatures and humidity levels to keep well, and do your research. Note that some root crops, such as Jerusalem artichokes and yacon, should be left in the ground until required (in very cold regions, cover the ground above the tubers with a layer of straw to prevent freezing). 

Close to home 

Think ahead to frequently used winter flavour boosters, and pot up rooted pieces of herbs that can be moved close to the door for easy access on wet, cold days. Give the rooted pieces a good start by growing them under cloches through autumn.   

Diana Noonan lives in the Catlins where she grows 70 percent of her food using a variety of methods including permaculture food forest to French intensive.