Zelka Grammer encourages you to press for a GE-free zone in your city, region or district
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Join us for access to exclusive members-only content.
Gardeners, beekeepers, seed savers, foresters, orchardists, organic growers and consumers: you know what’s at stake. GE experiments and releases present serious risks to our biosecurity, unique biodiversity, primary producers, economy and public health. Evidence of harm from GMO (genetically modified organism) land use overseas is irrefutable and continues to mount.
Here in New Zealand, we’ve held the line against GMO land use for many years. We have no commercial GE crops and firmly maintain our ‘zero tolerance’ policy for GE content in imported seeds.
Local government approach needed
Existing legislation for GMOs (the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act) is grossly inadequate, with a lack of strict liability and no requirement for the national regulator to take a precautionary approach. Ratepayers don’t want to end up forking out for GE experiments gone wrong!
By working constructively with our local councils, however, we can stop GMO land use. Independent reports and legal opinions commissioned by the Northland/Auckland Inter Council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options (the ICWP) clearly show that local authorities do have jurisdiction to control GMO land use out of doors.
Here’s some information to help you create a GE free zone in your district or region or, at the very least, a strong precautionary GE policy to create an additional tier of protection for communities, and serve as a deterrent to those who wish to experiment with GMOs out of doors in our fair land. Outright prohibition (a total ban) of GMOs is also achievable.
What’s been done already?
A number of cities and areas of New Zealand have already been declared symbolic GE-free zones, including Nelson city, Napier, Waitakere, areas of Auckland like Waiheke Island, Western Bays, Mt Eden and Mt Albert, and various community boards in Northland and elsewhere. Buller District Council put in place a two-year ban on all outdoor GMOs.
All councils from South Auckland to Cape Reinga have precautionary or prohibitive GE policies in their long-term council community plans (LTCCPs), and precautionary GE policies in some annual plans.
Whangarei District Council ‘has adopted a precautionary approach to the management of biotechnology in general and to GMO land uses in particular. It will continue to investigate ways of maintaining the District’s environment free of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) until outstanding issues such as liability, economic costs and benefits, environmental risks, and cultural effects are resolved. Together with other Northland and Auckland councils on the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options, Council has committed to investigating possible local and/or regional management of GMO land uses under the Resource Management Act.’
Auckland City Council (now part of Auckland Council super city) has already set a precedent, achieving outright prohibition for all GMOs in its Hauraki Gulf and Islands District Plan since 1998.
Enforceable GE-free zones: rules with teeth
Even more desirable than symbolic GE free zones are concrete regulatory options (with methods, policies and rules) through the Resource Management Act 1991. To create an enforceable (rather than symbolic) regional exclusion zone for GMOs, we need rules with teeth in regional policy statements and/or district plans. A regional policy statement (RPS) is an overarching regional document for the next 10 years; content in the RPS must be given effect to by the district councils of the region.
Bay of Plenty Regional Council has precautionary GE wording in its proposed RPS. Northland Regional Council is considering right now whether or not to include a strong precautionary GE provision in its new RPS. The council received a huge number of submissions requesting this, including submissions from all the district councils and all Tai Tokerau Iwi authorities.
Such precautionary GE policies (provisions) can require those who apply to do GE experiments (and clear the easy hurdle of the Environmental Protection Authority – EPA – in Wellington) to abandon their plans or, if GE experiments aren’t prohibited outright, to post a substantial bond and be financially liable for unintended adverse impacts of EPA-approved GE experiments.
Local plans should place a strong emphasis on prevention of incursions of new organisms, GMO and otherwise (not just management/suppression of existing problem organisms). They should specifically identify GMOs as a threat, due in part to the nature of these self-replicating organisms containing controversial viral promoters etc., but also ongoing flaws/gaps in the HSNO legislation such as a lack of strict liability and the fact that ERMA is not required under the Act to take a precautionary approach to GMOs).
Councils working together to evaluate GMO risk
In Northland and Auckland, all councils have become full members of the innovative Inter Council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options. The ICWP on GMOs was formed in 2003 as a direct result of strong lobbying and education of the councils by northern ratepayers.
Auckland Council and the Northland District Councils recently commissioned an independent section 32 analysis on GMOs (a requirement of the RMA), proposed plan change provisions, and a new legal opinion from Dr Royden Somerville, QC. This was done with a view towards a collaborative plan change to regulate GMOs in some way on a local level (this could include outright prohibition).
These new documents were made publicly available in February 2013, recommending that member councils of the ICWP on GMOs consider regulating the outdoor use of GMOs under the RMA through provisions in their planning documents.
Steps to a GE-free zone
- Ask your council for its policy on genetic engineering or genetically modified organisms, if there is one. If there isn’t (or the policy is inadequate), you can request the convenor of the ICWP on GMOs to email key policy documents and reports to your council’s relevant planner, your mayor (or chairperson) and councillors (contact details below).
- Read the independent GE reports and legal opinions provided at the GE page on the Whangarei District Council website. There are three ICWP commissioned reports, published in 2004, 2005 and 2012.www.wdc.govt.nz/PlansPoliciesandBylaws/Plans/GeneticEngineering/Pages/de…
- Join GE Free NZ (or your local GE-free group). Your membership subscription or donation helps to fund the good work they do.
- Obtain from GE Free NZ the precautionary or prohibitive GE wording / policies that other councils have already put in place (contact Zelka Linda Grammer – details below).
- Find out when public consultation takes place in your district/region for the council’s Annual Plan, Long Term Council Community Plan, proposed District Plan or Regional Policy Statement review. Make submissions asking your council to (at the very least) put in place a strong precautionary GE policy/provision. You can also ask for all GMO land use and GMO aquaculture to be a prohibited activity. Network with like-minded allies and write letters to your local newspaper to raise the profile of the issue.
- Collect signatures on a local petition (suggested wording available from GE Free NZ)
- Vote with your dollar for GE free, buying from Kiwi companies and manufacturers with best practice GE-free policies (organic and Fair Trade where possible).
Websites and contacts
- GE Free NZ, www.gefree.org.nz, email: susie@tasman.net
- GE Free Northland: Zelka Linda Grammer, spokesperson on local government issues), linda.grammer@gmail.com, web.gefreenorthland.org.nz, 09 432 2155.
- Dr Kerry Grundy, Convenor of the Inter Council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation & Management Options and Team Leader, Futures Planning, Whangarei District Council, 0800 WDC INFO or 0800 932 463, kerryg@wdc.govt.nz
- GE Free Policy – a list of companies who have pledged to avoid GE in their products: www.gmfreepolicy.com
- Soil & Health / Organic NZ: www.organicnz.org.nz
- BioGro NZ – largest organic certification body in NZ: www.biogro.co.nz/index.php/faqs-about-organics#o
- Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility: www.psgr.org.nz
- Sustainable Future Institute – an independent think tank: www.mcguinnessinstitute.org
- Sustainability Council of NZ: www.sustainabilitynz.org
- The Green Party: www.greens.org.nz/policy/archived-2005-agriculture-and-rural-affairs-policy
- Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (Canterbury University): www.inbi.canterbury.ac.nz
GE animal feed? No thanks!
/in Farming and Horticulture, Magazine ArticlesA piglet with a deformed spine.
Dead and deformed piglets are a problem where GE soy feed is used,
and Danish pig farmer Ib Borup Pedersen is convinced this is due to
glyphosate residues. Glyphosate is linked with reproductive problems,
birth defects, spontaneous abortions and a reduced live birth rate.
Growing reliance on supplementary feeds
Because chemical farming is reducing the ability to grow quality feed and the ability to withstand the increasing number of droughts, there is growing reliance on imported feeds to supplement the diets of our farm animals, mainly dairy cattle.
Typically these feeds consist of or include PKE (palm kernel expeller), canola, cottonseed, soy, maize and DDG (dried distillers’ grains, from maize).
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.
Beyond 1080
/in Farming and Horticulture, Magazine ArticlesDespite what the government would have you believe about the necessity of dumping a highly dangerous toxin from the sky, effective and safe alternatives to the poisonous war on possums are quietly springing up across the country.
Rebecca Reider investigates.
We knew there must be some better way than having 1080 poison dropped out of helicopters all over our community. In their endless quest to kill possums, the Animal Health Board dropped 1080-laced baits over 18,000 ha here in Golden Bay this past winter: in our forests, around rural properties, in the streams that supply our drinking water. If angry letters to the editor in the local paper are any indication, it riled up our community more than any other recent issue.
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.
How to create a GE-free zone
/in Features, Magazine ArticlesZelka Grammer encourages you to press for a GE-free zone in your city, region or district
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Join us for access to exclusive members-only content.
Gardeners, beekeepers, seed savers, foresters, orchardists, organic growers and consumers: you know what’s at stake. GE experiments and releases present serious risks to our biosecurity, unique biodiversity, primary producers, economy and public health. Evidence of harm from GMO (genetically modified organism) land use overseas is irrefutable and continues to mount.
Here in New Zealand, we’ve held the line against GMO land use for many years. We have no commercial GE crops and firmly maintain our ‘zero tolerance’ policy for GE content in imported seeds.
Local government approach needed
Existing legislation for GMOs (the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act) is grossly inadequate, with a lack of strict liability and no requirement for the national regulator to take a precautionary approach. Ratepayers don’t want to end up forking out for GE experiments gone wrong!
By working constructively with our local councils, however, we can stop GMO land use. Independent reports and legal opinions commissioned by the Northland/Auckland Inter Council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options (the ICWP) clearly show that local authorities do have jurisdiction to control GMO land use out of doors.
Here’s some information to help you create a GE free zone in your district or region or, at the very least, a strong precautionary GE policy to create an additional tier of protection for communities, and serve as a deterrent to those who wish to experiment with GMOs out of doors in our fair land. Outright prohibition (a total ban) of GMOs is also achievable.
What’s been done already?
A number of cities and areas of New Zealand have already been declared symbolic GE-free zones, including Nelson city, Napier, Waitakere, areas of Auckland like Waiheke Island, Western Bays, Mt Eden and Mt Albert, and various community boards in Northland and elsewhere. Buller District Council put in place a two-year ban on all outdoor GMOs.
All councils from South Auckland to Cape Reinga have precautionary or prohibitive GE policies in their long-term council community plans (LTCCPs), and precautionary GE policies in some annual plans.
Whangarei District Council ‘has adopted a precautionary approach to the management of biotechnology in general and to GMO land uses in particular. It will continue to investigate ways of maintaining the District’s environment free of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) until outstanding issues such as liability, economic costs and benefits, environmental risks, and cultural effects are resolved. Together with other Northland and Auckland councils on the Inter-council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options, Council has committed to investigating possible local and/or regional management of GMO land uses under the Resource Management Act.’
Auckland City Council (now part of Auckland Council super city) has already set a precedent, achieving outright prohibition for all GMOs in its Hauraki Gulf and Islands District Plan since 1998.
Enforceable GE-free zones: rules with teeth
Even more desirable than symbolic GE free zones are concrete regulatory options (with methods, policies and rules) through the Resource Management Act 1991. To create an enforceable (rather than symbolic) regional exclusion zone for GMOs, we need rules with teeth in regional policy statements and/or district plans. A regional policy statement (RPS) is an overarching regional document for the next 10 years; content in the RPS must be given effect to by the district councils of the region.
Bay of Plenty Regional Council has precautionary GE wording in its proposed RPS. Northland Regional Council is considering right now whether or not to include a strong precautionary GE provision in its new RPS. The council received a huge number of submissions requesting this, including submissions from all the district councils and all Tai Tokerau Iwi authorities.
Such precautionary GE policies (provisions) can require those who apply to do GE experiments (and clear the easy hurdle of the Environmental Protection Authority – EPA – in Wellington) to abandon their plans or, if GE experiments aren’t prohibited outright, to post a substantial bond and be financially liable for unintended adverse impacts of EPA-approved GE experiments.
Local plans should place a strong emphasis on prevention of incursions of new organisms, GMO and otherwise (not just management/suppression of existing problem organisms). They should specifically identify GMOs as a threat, due in part to the nature of these self-replicating organisms containing controversial viral promoters etc., but also ongoing flaws/gaps in the HSNO legislation such as a lack of strict liability and the fact that ERMA is not required under the Act to take a precautionary approach to GMOs).
Councils working together to evaluate GMO risk
In Northland and Auckland, all councils have become full members of the innovative Inter Council Working Party on GMO Risk Evaluation and Management Options. The ICWP on GMOs was formed in 2003 as a direct result of strong lobbying and education of the councils by northern ratepayers.
Auckland Council and the Northland District Councils recently commissioned an independent section 32 analysis on GMOs (a requirement of the RMA), proposed plan change provisions, and a new legal opinion from Dr Royden Somerville, QC. This was done with a view towards a collaborative plan change to regulate GMOs in some way on a local level (this could include outright prohibition).
These new documents were made publicly available in February 2013, recommending that member councils of the ICWP on GMOs consider regulating the outdoor use of GMOs under the RMA through provisions in their planning documents.
Steps to a GE-free zone
Websites and contacts
The dangers of aspartame
/in Health and Food, Magazine ArticlesAspartame is a highly addictive artificial sweetener and flavour enhancer, used in over 10,000 products worldwide. Produced by genetic engineering, aspartame is incorrectly classified as an additive, when it is in fact an excitotoxic and neurotoxic drug, supposedly developed to treat peptic ulcers.
Misleading claims
Since its creation, aspartame has been known to cause cancer, and only received approval by the American Food and Drug Agency (FDA) through fraudulent means.1,2,3,4,5 Since then, advocates of aspartame have relied upon numerous flawed industry-funded studies (which avoided the detection of ill effects). This has resulted in the misleading claim that aspartame is one of the most studied food additives – and therefore, is the safest food additive ever made. Yet, as more research is done and more people become aware, the harmful effects of aspartame are harder to ignore.
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.
Magnesium: The life and death mineral
/in Health and Food, Magazine ArticlesOrganic NZ Magazine: November/December 2012 Section: Features Author: Dee Pignéguy
Dee Pignéguy shows how important magnesium is for our health.
The death in February 2010 of Ms Natasha Harris of Invercargill, just 30 years of age, made headlines when her partner told the news media that she died as a result of her addiction to drinking coke. The Guardian headline ‘Coca-Cola habit linked to New Zealander’s death’, was just one example of the worldwide coverage.
Pathologist Dr Dan Morin told the court main the cause of Ms Harris’ death was cardiac arrhythmia, but she also had a lack of potassium in the blood, which caused severe hypokalemia (NZ Herald, 20 April 2012).
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.
How natural is that flavour? The dangers of MSG
/in Health and Food, Magazine ArticlesAs consumer awareness grows about excitotoxins, the food industry is making it harder for consumers to avoid them. Kyra Xavia investigates.
An excitotoxin is a substance that excites nerve cells until they die. One of the most commonly used but best-hidden excitotoxins is processed free glutamic acid (MSG). Contrary to what the food industry says, MSG is shorthand for ALL processed free glutamic acid, including monosodium glutamate (which is processed free glutamic acid combined with sodium).
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.
Don’t read this article
/in Magazine Articles, RegularsIn this opinion piece Jon Carapiet raises concerns about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), particularly around New Zealand’s GE-free status
It’s a bit hard writing an article about the TPPA, not just because I am no expert, but because of the secrecy that surrounds it. Like any secret, it is not open to scrutiny or evaluation. Even though we occasionally see mention of these innocuous-sounding initials, it seems the government is keen not to have public input on the TPPA negotiations. They’d rather you did not read this article or bother yourself with what this free trade agreement could mean for people living in New Zealand. The international calls for the draft agreements to be released have gone ignored and indeed these agreements are to be kept secret for years after a final agreement comes into force.
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.
Food Bill Folly
/in Health and Food, Magazine ArticlesFood Bill folly
In which Organic NZ questions the Food Quality Authority (also known as Christine Dann) about whether the Food Bill 2010, if enacted in its current form, would really protect New Zealanders from dying in their thousands from food-related diseases every year, and if not, what it would be better to do instead?
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.
Food Bill Blues
/in Health and FoodOur culture of home gardening, food sharing and small artisan producers is at risk of being suppressed by future ministerial decree, as is consideration of genetic engineering as a food safety issue. The Food Bill, supposedly intended to reduce compliance costs for the food industry and the incidence of food-borne illness, has such sweeping powers that even the best intent could be lost under bureaucratic pressure or a minister with a Monsanto agenda.
Social media campaign
A very effective social media and networking campaign regarding the Food Bill elevated concerns about bureaucracy intruding unnecessarily into the domestic food supply. Unfortunately some information circulated was incorrect, such as the Food Bill being put through during the summer holidays, or that seed saving was to be outlawed. Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson has clearly stated that seeds and plants for propagation will not be included in the Food Bill, following amendments possibly in February–March. However the social media campaign has been useful in exploring where the Food Bill may still need improvement.
Too much power to MAF and the minister
The current draft leaves the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and the Food Safety Minister significant power to make amendments by way of regulation once the Food Bill becomes law. Swapping of home garden produce with neighbours and friends, and direct sales from horticultural producers to consumers, are meant to be exempt from the need for food safety plans under the proposed legislation. However the Food Bill empowers the minister to later change most things by way of regulation, including the exemption to swap food, although the officials say home gardening is not included in the Schedules of the Bill, so the Bill does not apply. Without clear statements of exclusion, it is difficult to find anything relating to food that the minister would not be able to change.
Changes to the Bill
The minister does not want a fresh round of submissions on the Bill although public awareness and concern has grown since the first round, and many people have expressed interest in submitting their views on the Bill. However the minister and officials have said they would like wording suggestions from me. Blanket exemptions to encourage New Zealand’s culture of gardening, food preserving and community sharing must be drafted in such a way that any significant future changes must go through the full parliamentary process.
Registration and exemptions
Except for those selling horticultural produce direct to the consumer, most operators (even the smaller growers or pickle producers) will need to apply for an exemption in order to avoid food safety verification and registration costs.
School fairs, churches, and community fundraisers could have sausage sizzle fundraisers with just food handler guidance (a best practice food safety pamphlet and no safety checking), yet a small grower wanting to sell some surplus plums to the corner dairy has to enter the bureaucratic jungle: register at a cost, apply for an exemption, or wait and hope that MAF and the minister decide to make an exemption after the Food Bill is through, but no promises.
It is possible that only ‘charitable’ groups can run sausage sizzles or food stalls under food handler guidance. Those strong advocacy groups without charitable status, such as such as Greenpeace and the National Council of Women, and political parties/supporters, may have to pay registration and undergo food safety plan verification for their sins.
GE, food sovereignty and other concerns
There are several issues that need revisiting in the current draft of the Bill, including genetic engineering, international joint food standards, free trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and New Zealand food sovereignty, the level of force allowed by food safety officers, their immunity from prosecution, and the powers of the minister.
‘Genetic modification of food’ (GE) was included in a list of things that need food safety consideration under the minister’s regulatory powers, but has been deleted from the first draft. That is a double-edged sword, as whoever the current regime and minister is can clearly make a difference. However, with GE excluded, it is left to the trans-Tasman body Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to decide what GE food lines are safe. Our minister is one voice out of ten there. To date FSANZ has approved all of the more than 70 GE food line applications to potentially enter our food chain.
As the Food Bill is currently drafted, food standards separate from the trans-Tasman agreement can only be issued under certain limited and exceptional circumstances, and in both trans-Tasman and separate domestic standards the minister ‘must take into account’ the aim for consistency with international standards and ‘the need to give effect to New Zealand’s obligations under any relevant international treaty, agreement, convention, or protocol’ and ‘any other matters that the Minister considers relevant’. This is where free trade agreements such as the TPPA (currently being negotiated with the US without public scrutiny) slide on in.
Amendments needed
Amendments to the Food Bill could improve it significantly, ensuring New Zealand food sovereignty, confidence for growers and producers alike, encouraging food production at the local level and putting compliance costs where they belong: on the large agribusiness and food processors that manifest the greater food safety risks.
Steffan Browning is a Green Party MP and spokesperson for agriculture, fisheries, organics, GE, forestry, biosecurity and customs, security and intelligence.
The Natural Health Products Bill is here – have your say!
/in Health and Food, Magazine ArticlesThe Natural Health Products Bill is back in Parliament and this time it is a different story altogether.
In 2007 New Zealanders flexed their muscles and influenced their political representatives not to pass legislation for a joint Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Regulatory Authority (ANZTPA).
The then Labour Health Minister Annette King, in tandem with Medsafe (the pharmaceutical medicines regulator), tried to push through a regulatory system for natural health products that would have been under a heavy handed Australian-led pharmaceutical model and administered in Canberra with the loss of New Zealand sovereignty. This was against the advice of the cross-party Health Select Committee and against thousands of submissions from consumers, the natural health industry and professional bodies. It would most certainly have wiped out our small but thriving traditional herbal manufactures as experienced in Australia, and many tried and trusted natural health products used by generations of Kiwis would have been regulated out of existence.
In the end, there was enough discontent that the legislation lacked the numbers to be passed.
Looking back it is astounding how the Ministry of Health could spend millions of precious health dollars developing the binational regulatory system as set out in the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill 2006, without first working on a comprehensive New Zealand Medicines Strategy that included the wishes of more than half of New Zealanders to incorporate natural healthcare strategies. (For an overview of figures of prevalence of natural health care in New Zealand refer to my article ‘Children’s health: proven natural treatment strategies’, Organic NZ May/June 2011, pp. 28–29.) A thorough strategy that included professions outside the dominant medical and pharmaceutical industry would also have illuminated the contributions and health dollar savings that modalities like herbal medicine contribute to achieving the goals of better health standards in New Zealand as set out in the New Zealand Health Strategy 2000.
Integrating natural healthcare into the mainstream system
Subsequently, the Greens, and in particular Sue Kedgley who was instrumental in achieving a defeat of the proposed ANZTPA, secured funding for a small unit within the Ministry of Health to investigate how natural healthcare could be integrated into mainstream health system. The post of Chief Advisor Integrative Care was established in 2007, and in October 2008 the Minister of Health agreed to the formulation of a strategy to integrate complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) into New Zealand’s health system. One of the key areas to address was the gaps in the current system, such as early detection of and intervention in health issues, strategies to correct underlying physiological imbalances leading to suboptimal health, and support of chronic illnesses with effective medicines and treatments that have a low side-effect profile.
Integration on the back burner
Alas, with the change of government in November 2008 the National Party virtually suspended this work, and three years on such a comprehensive health strategy is still lacking. It may yet be a long battle ahead for official acknowledgement of the longstanding clinical and increasingly evidence-based value of natural healthcare in New Zealand; an acknowledgment that should finally entitle it be included into an overall healthcare strategy, make it eligible for product and service subsidies, a share in health research funds and professional representation in our schools of medicine as long practiced overseas. In the meantime, the new Natural Health Products Bill is a development in right direction.
What is the new bill all about?
The Natural Health Products Bill is one of the shared policy initiatives agreed to in 2009 by the National and Green parties in a memorandum of understanding, and demonstrates the value of smaller parties like the Greens in having input into policy and legislative process. The proposed scheme is a vast improvement on the heavy-handed trans-Tasman regulator. The bill was introduced into Parliament on 7 September 2011 and referred to the Health Select Committee, which is now calling for your submissions on it.
The new bill recognises that natural health products are generally low risk. Its key objectives are a New Zealand-based scheme that is cost-effective and gives New Zealanders confidence that the natural health products are true to label and can provide the health benefits claimed for them. Unlike the previous bill, this proposed legislation excludes natural health products and rongoā from the new trans-Tasman agency to regulate medicines, medical devices, and new medical interventions, and proposes instead a stand-alone New Zealand regulatory scheme for natural health products that are sold in New Zealand. The regulator is to sit within the Ministry of Health, but separate from Medsafe.
The principles to be included in the bill are that:
a) The level of regulatory control applied to natural health products should be commensurate with the risks associated with their use, e.g. pharmaceutical-level controls are considered unnecessarily onerous;
b) Consumers should be supported to make informed choices about their use of natural health products, e.g. standards for claims and labelling requirements will support the provision of accurate information.
Health claims will be allowed on labels
The bill envisages accepting assessments and approvals by trusted overseas regulators who have processes and standards at least as robust as those in New Zealand. Traditional claims and claims recognised by trusted overseas regulators will be allowed where appropriate. The bill will therefore for the first time allow industry to make legitimate claims about the health benefits of natural health products to those who use them. This will finally bring clarity for consumers who so far were left in the dark about the true scope of a product, as such a declaration would have breached the current Medicines Act. However, approval under the Medicines Act for products making high levels of claim will continue to be required.
Ingredients lists
The bill requires the regulator to develop and maintain two lists of ingredients:
The departure of the so-called ‘permitted’ or ‘white’ list, as exists in Australia, is a major victory for users of natural healthcare products. In Australia, if an ingredient is not on the list, the product becomes automatically illegal. This could have negatively affected our native herbs or traditional herbs from other countries that have been used for millennia.
Send in your submissions
The history of the Natural Health Products Bill is testimony as to how important submissions are. The proposed bill should be welcomed but only on the following conditions:
Ideally, all of this is just the first step, and in future plant-based medicines and supplements should be included as part of the national New Zealand Medicines Strategy. If natural products become eligible for subsidy once registered under the new regime, this will create a more level playing field, more choice and better health for New Zealanders.
Have your say
Submissions are due by 24 February 2012. Send to the Health Select Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, phone 04 817 9687.
You can read the bill at www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2011/0324/latest/versions.aspx
Proudly published by the Soil & Health Association NZ
Proudly published by the Soil and Health Association NZ