A guide to organic education in New Zealand

/in ,
Bridget Freeman Rock reviews the organic education options available in New Zealand

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

Many Organic NZ readers are hungry for practical skills and further knowledge of organics, and with a range of courses, workshops and educational experiences to choose from in New Zealand and abroad there is probably something for every appetite, if readers are prepared to do a little hunting.

At the grassroots

For the home gardener there are workshops in all manner of permutation and possibility: day or half-day workshops on specific topics, like Korito’s courses on chicken keeping, composting, and other topics (www.korito.co.nz); as well as weekend courses, and those offered over a series of weeks or months. The What’s On page in the back of Organic NZ lists many upcoming events, workshops and courses.

Find out if there is a local Environment Centre, Soil and Health Branch, or organic gardeners’ or growers’ group near you and make contact. They can let you know what’s happening locally and they usually meet regularly, often host talks and workshops, and are founts of organic-related knowledge.

Find out what programmes your local council offers. The Hastings District Council, for example, supports a campaign run in conjunction with the Sustaining Hawke’s Bay Trust, which provides information and assistance for sustainable living, including organic gardening courses (www.susd.org.nz).

WWOOF (Willing Workers on Organic Farms)

Every year thousands of young backpackers come to New Zealand, and as part of their travel experience, go ‘wwoofing’. This is a worldwide intercultural movement whereby voluntary labour is exchanged for board and an organic learning experience. There are currently about 1400 registered hosts in New Zealand, from large organic farms, orchards and vineyards to small family holdings, eco-communities and urban gardens, covering the gamut of ecological practice.

Wwoofing is a wonderful opportunity to explore organic living in action and offers a kind of journeyman apprenticeship for those willing and able. WWOOF is open to all people over the age of 16, including the locals. See www.wwoof.co.nz.

Permaculture

‘Permaculture (permanent agriculture) is the conscious design and maintenance of agriculturally productive ecosystems which have the diversity, stability, and resilience of natural ecosystems.’ (Bill Mollison) Permaculture Design Certificate courses can be taught as intensive 12-day courses, in blocks or over a couple of months, and are held all around the country. See www.permaculture.org.nz for courses and events, and a list of regional permaculture groups and teachers.

Apprenticeships in sustainable living

The Koanga Institute, in Wairoa, is committed to protecting and developing our cultural heritage food plants through practice, education and research into the broader aspects of sustainable ‘human ecology’. They run a one-year, possible three-year, apprenticeship programme specialising in one of four areas: permaculture design, small farms and wild harvesting, nutrient-dense food production, or building techniques and appropriate technology. Alongside this, the Koanga Diploma in Sustainable Living will be offered for the first time next year (www.koanga.org.nz).

Māori organics

Te Waka Kai Ora (the Māori Organics Authority of Aotearoa) is one of the facilitators of the Maara Kai (community gardens) project, which assists with education, coaching and networking opportunities for whānau to become more self-reliant in growing their own food and rongoa (medicines). To find out more about Maara Kai and/or about becoming verified under the Hua Parakore (pure product) Māori organic growing system, contact www.tewakakaiora.co.nz.

More formally, Te Whare Wananga o Raukawa in Ōtaki has a paper on Maara Kai as part of its Kaitiakitanga Putaiao programme, a NZQA one-year diploma or three-year bachelor’s degree on sustainable environmental practice from a te ao Māori worldview (www.wananga.com).

Biological farming

Biological, or carbon, farming is a ‘soils first’ approach to agricultural management, encouraging healthy soil microbial and mineral balance for healthier, more resilient and sustainable crops. See the Association of Biological Farmers (www.biologicalfarmers.co.nz) for resources, workshops and services, including farm consultations.

Biodynamics

Biodynamics is a holistic system of agriculture initiated by Rudolf Steiner. In addition to the usual organic practices, biodynamic methods include the use of special plant, animal and mineral preparations; working with planetary influences and the rhythms of the moon and sun.

For information, upcoming workshops and events, and for a list of regional groups and contacts, turn to the Bio Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association of NZ (www.biodynamic.org.nz).

Taruna College, Havelock North, has been a centre of life-changing adult education for almost 30 years. Their Certificate in Applied Organics and Biodynamics (NZQA level 4) has been designed as a part-time, 33-week distance programme for people actively involved in commercial agriculture and horticulture, with a new programme catering for viticulturalists now based in Marlborough. It is particularly suited to farmers and growers intending to convert their enterprise to organics/biodynamics, and/or wishing to work towards organic/biodynamic certification (www.taruna.ac.nz).

The Biological Husbandry Unit (BHU)

The Biological Husbandry Unit (established in 1976; a charitable trust since 2001) is located at Lincoln University on 10 hectares of certified organic gardens and orchards. Its aim is to promote organics through research, demonstration and education (www.bhu.co.nz).

The Organic Training College within BHU runs two year-long courses. The first year is a basic introduction to the fundamentals of organics (National Certificate in Horticulture, level 2 and Telford Division Certificate in Organics, level 3), and the second applied year includes their Stepping Stone Programme, in which students use the BHU land and greenhouse facilities to grow their own produce under the mentorship of experienced supervisors (National Certificate in Horticulture, level 4).

The College also delivers a winter course in sustainable farm management (Telford Division Certificate in Farm Management, level 3) as well as practical workshops and short courses. Contact: 03 325 3684, college@bhu.co.nz.

Other NZQA certificates

Rawene Learning Centre (Northtec) currently teaches organics, sustainability and permaculture under the umbrella of the National Certificate in Horticulture, levels 2 and 3 (20 weeks, full-time), and is exploring the possibility of an Organic Certificate course for 2012. Contact Kevin: krasmussen@northtec.ac.nz.

Tairawhiti Polytechnic, Gisborne, has a Certificate in Sustainable Horticulture (Sustainable Lifestyle), level 3, which includes organic practice, permaculture, beekeeping and heritage seed propagation (www.tairawhiti.ac.nz).

The Southern Institute of Technology delivers a Certificate in Organic Horticulture (level 3) through its distance learning programme (www.sit.ac.nz).

The Western Institute of Technology, Taranaki, offers Certificates in Organic Horticulture, levels 3 and 4. Each course is studied part-time over one year (www.witt.ac.nz).

Agriculture New Zealand also provides a Certificate in Organic Horticulture, both at level 3 and level 4. Their Go Organic courses run part-time over 12 months and are suitable for keen gardeners, lifestyle block owners and professional growers and farmers. Courses are offered, depending on interest, in 16 locations nationwide. Call 0800 475 455 or emailagnztraining@pggwrightson.co.nz.

Study at tertiary level

Brendan Hoare observes after 25 years’ involvement in organic education, that funding and support for organic courses in tertiary institutions has been gradually withdrawn in recent years, both here and overseas. In New Zealand, there is very little for undergraduate students, and certainly not for post-graduates, that is specifically organic.

Lincoln University offers two papers on the ‘Science and practice of organics’ at degree level, and under the umbrella of a Graduate Diploma or Masters of Applied Science students can structure their course content around organics (emailRoddy.Hale@lincoln.ac.nz) – other universities may offer similar options. However, Brendan recommends that those wishing to study organics at tertiary level seriously consider studying in ‘hotspots’ overseas.

In Australia, Charles Sturt University offers a Bachelor in Ecological Agricultural Systems and a Master and Doctor in Sustainable Agriculture, all of which can be studied extramurally (www.csu.edu.au). Both the University of Western Australia and University of New England have organic units within their Masters of Agriculture programmes, and options for organic research at PhD level. Further afield, the USA has a variety of tertiary programmes (see www.attra.ncat.org/education.html), and Germany’s University of Kassel has a department of Organic Agricultural Sciences (www.uni-kassel.de/agrar), which runs a very respected dual bachelor’s and master’s programme.

The website for the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (www.ifoam.org) is a rich resource of research articles and links, as is the Journal of Organic Systems (www.organic-systems.org), a peer-review journal for researchers in the Australasia–Pacific region. It is worth sleuthing to find out who is doing research in your field of interest, where they are based, and what study options are available there.

Learning from your own land

It is also worth remembering that the best teacher on organics you will probably find is your very own garden, orchard or farm, if you are willing to engage your senses, your powers of observation and to learn through action and inquiry.

Bridget Freeman Rock works with words and community in Hawke’s Bay, between caring for her children and co-creating an oasis of sustainable family living.

Letter from the Minister for Food Safety regarding the Food Bill

/in ,
Organic NZ Magazine: September/October 2011
Section: Letters to the Editor
Author: Kate Wilkinson, Minister for Food Safety

I am writing in response to Guy Ralls article in the July/August 2011 edition of Organic NZ, in which it was suggested that the Food Bill is a threat to seed saving / and the sharing of seeds and natural medicines.

The Food Bill has wide definitions of food and of sale. Such broadness of coverage is not designed to regulate every possible permutation of trade in food or every possible thing that could be eaten. It is designed to prevent legal loopholes and gaps that could be taken advantage of by food businesses to avoid necessary and appropriate regulatory requirements to manage food safety.

With such broadness, there is inevitably the potential for activities it was never contemplated as ‘in scope’ being captured. By way of example, the barter or selling of propagation food seeds and food seedlings is in scope because the definition of food includes anything that is ‘capable of being used’ for human consumption. However, the sale or exchange of seeds for propagation, and seedlings (whether this occurs in the context of a garden centre, a market, or between those in a community of interest), is not intended to be captured.

I therefore asked officials for advice on how the meaning of food could be amended to make it clear that seeds for cultivation and food seedlings are not within the definition. Once we have the wording needed I intend to include it as an amendment in a Supplementary Order Paper.

In respect to the impact the Food Bill may have on the Willing Workers on Organic Farms system (or WWOOFing), it would certainly not ‘outlaw’ such activity. However, as currently drafted, it would mean that the provision of food and accommodation in exchange for labour would fall within scope of the sale of food. It is certainly not my intention to impose food safety regulatory requirements on those hosting WWOOFers or those who provide food to boarders or personal guests in exchange for money, work or assistance. I asked my officials to look at how the meaning of ‘sale’ could be amended to reflect my intentions. Again, I am open to proposing an amendment via a Supplementary Order Paper.

As to the age old kiwi tradition of individuals or communities of interest growing food for themselves and swapping their excess with friends or neighbours for other food or goods, the Food Act 1981 already applies to such activities. This is because the definition of sale in that Act (and the Food Bill) includes “bartering”. If bartering was excluded, this could perversely incentivise large scale or commercial food traders to avoid regulatory requirements through setting up some sort of bartering system.

If enacted the Food Bill would not therefore change the legal status of fruit and vegetable bartering. It would maintain the duty to only trade in food that is safe and suitable and it would not impose any other requirements or costs.

Technically, the trade in horticultural produce, where a person only trades what they have grown and trades only with the end consumer, falls within scope of food handler guidance. Such guidance will be available free of charge from MAF and territorial authorities and will simply be a set of food safety tips.

The article referred to the need for ‘licensing’, and to the Food Bill having particular implications for natural medicines. The Food Bill will cover herbs and plants sold as food, whether they are in an unprocessed or processed state. The applicable requirements will depend on the extent of processing of a herb or plant represented as a food (whether or not it is understood to be medicinal).

I am aware that the Natural Health Products Bill (the content of which has been the subject of public consultation) includes a ‘licensing’ requirement and that that Bill may cover natural health products (herbs, medicinal plants etc) that are not represented as food (for example when sold as an ingredient in a capsule or as a tincture).

I appreciate that in terms of herbs and plants that are ‘natural medicines’ the interface between the Food Bill and the Natural Health Products Bill is somewhat complicated. I trust however that on a case by case basis it will not be difficult to distinguish which statute applies (should both be enacted).

The article mentioned that the Food Bill is likely to be advanced to second reading in the next few weeks. Although the Food Bill is on the Order Paper awaiting the second reading in the House, it is likely that this will not now happen before the general election. Factors such as the Christchurch earthquakes have reduced the time available for the Governments’ legislative programme in what is already a short House sitting year.

I would like to conclude by thanking Organic NZ for publishing the article and those who have written to me on the matters it raised. I hope my response has allayed your concerns about the impact of the Food Bill.

Hon Kate Wilkinson
Minister for Food Safety

What’s in that vaccine?

/in ,
Organic NZ Magazine: May/June 2011
Section: Health and Food
Author: Sue Claridge

In the last issue of Organic NZ [March/April 2011], a reader wrote that she was ‘shocked to find out that the generic immunisation injection drug INFANRIX is based on a culture of genetically engineered yeast cells’.

The horror with which some may regard the idea of genetically modified vaccines may pale into insignificance once they gain an understanding of what else goes into vaccines. The worrying aspect of this is that few people have any idea what is being injected into their own or their child’s body.

 

How are vaccines made and what’s in them?

Vaccine manufacture essentially involves the growth of the virus or bacteria on a cell culture, then modification or inactivation so that the virus or bacteria is theoretically incapable of causing disease, followed by the addition of a number of chemicals to stabilise, strengthen and sterilise the vaccine.

Cells from other organisms are used, as a medium on which to grow the virus or bacteria; as part of a nutritive broth in which the growth medium is bathed, or for serial passage – passing the virus through the culture numerous times in order to reduce its potency. The cell cultures include monkey kidney, foetal calf serum, chick embryo fluid, yeast and human diploid cells (cells from aborted human foetuses).

In the case of the human cells, cells derived from the lung tissue of a three-month old female foetus are used in the manufacture of the rubella vaccine,1 and cells from the lung tissue of a 14-week-old male foetus2 are used in the manufacture of the chickenpox,3 hepatitis A4 and some killed virus polio vaccines. 5

 

Contamination by viruses and pathogens

While the use of animal and human cells to culture viruses and bacteria has moral implications for many people, the most serious problem with the use of these cell cultures is the potential contamination of the vaccine by remnants of the host tissue and viruses – known and unknown – that may be present in the host animal tissue and are transferred to the vaccine.

Contamination of vaccines by viruses and other pathogens from cell cultures is well documented; the most infamous episode is the contamination of polio vaccines with the SV40 virus in the 1950s and 60s. This simian (monkey) virus contaminated both the killed and live virus vaccines that were administered to millions of children. It has been confirmed beyond doubt that the virus has caused a variety of cancers in a large number of vaccine recipients.6,7 SV40 has also been found in the sperm and blood of healthy people,8 indicating that the virus can be transmitted from generation to generation along gene lines.

More recently the widespread use of foetal bovine serum raised the spectre of transmitting mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) as variant Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease (vCJD)9 in the UK. It was found that a pharmaceutical company was still using locally sourced foetal bovine serum for a polio vaccine in 2000, at the height of the mad cow disease outbreak, despite previous assurances that this practice had ceased in 1994.10 The vaccine had been given to seven million people. Closer to home, SmithKline Beecham discovered that its oral polio vaccine in Australia was made using foetal bovine serum sourced from Britain and that there was a risk of Australians developing vCJD as a result.11

Despite reassurances from the pharmaceutical industry and health agencies about the safety of vaccines made using animal cell cultures, the absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of absence. They can’t find something they are not looking for. It is all very well testing vaccines for known animal viruses, but who is testing for all the viruses we don’t yet know about?

Chick embryo cells are used for a number of vaccines including measles and mumps vaccines, and the yearly flu vaccine. Most readers will have heard of avian flu; culturing flu vaccines on substrates that may harbour as yet unknown avian flu viruses seems to be an exercise in futility, if not stupidity. Avian viruses have already been identified in the chick embryo cell culture used for measles and mumps vaccine,12,13 and in 2006 flu vaccine manufacturer Sanofi Pasteur found that 11 lots of its concentrate used to make the flu vaccine at its Pennsylvania factory were contaminated with an unnamed microbe; they were subsequently chastised by the US FDA.14

 

GE used to speed up mass manufacture

Contamination issues, together with the sheer scale of producing enough vaccine every time there is a official panic over a possible influenza pandemic (real or imagined), has led to suggestions that the flu vaccine should be manufactured using genetic engineering, making a recombinant vaccine. It was reported in early March 2011 that the US Department of Health and Human Services had awarded two contracts for the development of next-generation recombinant influenza vaccines that do not require egg-based technology. Using new vaccine technology and insect cells to express influenza proteins, one company says that they can manufacture commercial quantities of vaccine within 10 to 14 weeks, compared with four to six months with traditional egg-based methods.15

 

A cocktail of chemicals

While you won’t know whether or not you get a dose of unidentified – and not tested-for – pathogen of avian, bovine or some other animal origin, what you definitely will get in your vaccine is a cocktail of chemicals including:

  • Agents that are used to inactivate the virus, bacteria or toxoid.
  • Preservatives that are used to prevent bacterial growth in the vaccine solution.
  • Stabilisers that are used to help maintain vaccine ‘effectiveness’ and stability during transport and storage
  • Adjuvants that enhance the immune response to the vaccine.

Most vaccines, except for live virus vaccines, contain formaldehyde, an extremely toxic compound which is known to cause cancer in humans and animals.16,17,18 Some contain 2-phenoxyethanol, a preservative that irritates the skin, eyes, mucous membranes and respiratory tract19 and is a suspected developmental and reproductive toxicant.

 

Adverse health effects

The use of aluminium as an adjuvant is of particular concern because of its toxicity.20,21 Babies can receive up to 3.75 milligrams of aluminium from vaccines in the first six months of life. It is known that vaccines that contain aluminium frequently cause reactions at the injection site22 and can precipitate an allergic response to subsequent doses of the vaccine.

Among a number of serious health effects – including Macrophagic myofasciitis23 and aluminium allergy24 – aluminium containing vaccines can cause a transient rise in brain tissue aluminium25 and aluminium has been associated with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.26,27 One study showed that aluminium may affect the permeability of the blood-brain barrier and allow neurotoxins such as aluminium to reach the central nervous system.28 It is a suspected cardiovascular and blood toxicant, neurotoxicant and respiratory toxicant.29

A variety of other compounds can be found in vaccines, including lactose, sorbitol, sodium chloride, sucrose, sodium borate, magnesium chloride, sodium phosphate, hydrolised gelatin, human albumin and the antibiotics neomycin, gentimicin and streptomycin.

 

Make an informed decision

Before you make a decision to have any vaccine administered to yourself or a child, ensure you know what is in the vaccine. Don’t just rely on the information provided to patients. Check out the vaccine data sheet online atwww.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/datasheet.htm and insist on reading the package insert before you have the jab.

And you should obtain the following information prior to vaccination for your records, verified and signed by the vaccine administrator: evidence that you (or your child) are healthy; evidence that a child is developing normally; time and date of administration; name of vaccine administrator and credentials; name and manufacturer of vaccine; the lot and batch number; and written verification that the vaccine has been stored correctly at all times.

 

Having been very careful about everything she did during pregnancy, to ensure her baby was as healthy as possible, Sue Claridge was not about to vaccinate her first child without knowing exactly what was being injected into her body and why. Armed with skills gained during her MSc research, she began investigating vaccinations, and eleven years later is still researching and writing about vaccine issues.

 

 

References

1. Merck Sharp and Dohme, 2002: M-M-R II Data Sheet, on www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/datasheet/m/mmriiinj.htm(accessed July 2002).

2. ViroMed Laboratories Inc: Selected Profiles of Cell Cultures, http://vml.viromed.com/services/product/profs.htm(accessed July, 2002).

3. SmithKline Beecham, 2000: Varilrix Data Sheet, on www.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/datasheet/v/Varilirixinj.htm(accessed July, 2002).

4. GlaxoSmithKline, 2001: Twinrix and Twinrix Junior Data Sheet, onwww.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/datasheet/t/Twinrixinj.htm (accessed July 2002).

5. CSL, 2000: Inactivated Poliomyelitis Vaccine (Diploid Cell Origin), onwww.medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/datasheet/i/Inactivepolioinj.htm (accessed July 2002).

6. Fisher, S.G., et al., 1999: Cancer risk associated with simian virus 40 contaminated polio vaccine, Anticancer Res, 19 (3B): 2173-80.

7. Carbone, M., Rizzo, P., Pass, H., 2000: Simian virus 40: the link with human malignant mesothelioma is well established, Anticancer Res, 20 (2A): 875-7.

8. Martini, F., et al.,1996: SV40 early region and large T antigen in human brain tumors, peripheral blood cells, and sperm fluids from healthy individuals, Cancer Res. 56 (20): 4820-5.

9. Cashman, N.R., 2001: Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies: vaccine issues, Dev Biol (Basel) 106: 455-9.

10. Derbyshire, D., 2002: Drugs agency ‘failed’ on BSE in vaccine risk, The Telegraph, 6 July, 2002.

11. Metherall, M., 2000: Sydney Morning Herald, 8 November, 2000.

12. Tsang, S.X., Switzer, W.M., Shanmugam, V., Johnson, J.A., Goldsmith, C., Wright, A., Fadly, A., Thea, D., Jaffe, H., Folks, T.M., Heneine, W., 1999: Evidence of avian leukosis virus subgroup E and endogenous avian virus in measles and mumps vaccines derived from chicken cells: investigation of transmission to vaccine recipients, J Virol. 73 (7): 5843-51.

13. Johnson, J.A., Heneine, W., 2001: Characterization of endogenous avian leukosis viruses in chicken embryonic fibroblast substrates used in production of measles and mumps vaccines, J Virol, 75 (8): 3605-12.

14. Elder, D.K. 2006: Warning Letter sent to Sanofi Pasteur by the Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration, June 30, 2006, accessed atwww.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g5899d.html in July 2006.

15. Neale, T., 2011: HHS Funds New Vaccine Technology, MedPage Today (2 March 2011), accessed online atwww.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/URItheFlu/25144 on 30 March 2011.

16. Nelson, N., Levine, R.J., Albert, R.E., Blair, A.E., Griesemer, R.A., Landrigan, P.J., Stayner, L.T., Swenberg, J.A., 1986: Contribution of formaldehyde to respiratory cancer, Environ Health Perspect, 70: 23-35.

17. Blair, A., Saracci, R., Stewart, P.A., Hayes, R.B., Shy, C. 1990: Epidemiologic evidence on the relationship between formaldehyde exposure and cancer, Scand J Work Environ Health, 16 (6): 381-93.

18. Hansen, J., Olsen, J.H., 1995: Formaldehyde and cancer morbidity among male employees in Denmark, Cancer Causes Control, 6 (4): 354-60.

19. Occupational Health Services, Inc. 1988: Hazardline, Occupational Health Services, Inc. New York.

20. Gupta, R.K., Relyveld, E.H., 1991: Adverse reactions after injection of adsorbed diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccine are not due only to pertussis organisms or pertussis components in the vaccine, Vaccine, 9 (10): 699-702.

21. Fiejka, M., Aleksandrowicz J., 1993: Aluminum as an adjuvant in vaccines and post-vaccine reactions, Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig, 44 (1): 73-80.

22. Bordet, A.L., Michenet, P., Cohen, C., Arbion, F., Ekindi, N., Bonneau, C., Kerdraon, R., Coville, M., 2001: Post-vaccination granuloma due to aluminium hydroxide, Ann Pathol, 21 (2): 149-52.

23. Gherardi, R.K., Coquet, M., Cherin, P., Belec, L., Moretto, P., Dreyfus, P.A., Pellissier, J.F., Chariot, P., Authier, F.J., 2001: Macrophagic myofasciitis lesions assess long-term persistence of vaccine-derived aluminium hydroxide in muscle, Brain, 124 (Pt 9): 1821-31.

24. Nielsen, A.O., Kaaber, K., Veien, N.K., 1992: Aluminum allergy caused by DTP vaccine, Ugeskr Laeger, 154 (27): 1900-1.

25. Redhead, K., Quinlan, G.J., Das, R.G., Gutteridge, J.M., 1992: Aluminium-adjuvanted vaccines transiently increase aluminium levels in murine brain tissue, Pharmacol Toxicol 70 (4): 278-80.

26. Bilkei-Gorzo, A., 1993: Neurotoxic effect of enteral aluminium, Food Chem Toxicol, 31 (5): 357-61.

27. Roberts, N.B., Clough, A., Bellia, J.P., Kim, J.Y., 1998: Increased absorption of aluminium from a normal dietary intake in dementia, J Inorg Biochem, 69 (3): 171-6.

28. Banks, W.A., Kastin, A,J., 1983: Aluminium increases permeability of the blood-brain barrier to labelled DSIP and beta-endorphin: possible implications for senile and dialysis dementia, Lancet, 2 (8361): 1227-9.

29. Environmental Defence Network, 2002: Scorecard, environmental chemical and pollution information atwww.scorecard.org.

GE: don’t swallow it

/in ,
Organic NZ Magazine: July/August 2010
Section: Features
Author: Kyra Xavia

Kyra Xavia investigates how genetically engineered ingredients sneak into our food unlabelled, and offers tips to avoid eating them

Like many Organic NZ readers you may be a conscious consumer who makes informed decisions about the food you eat. Unfortunately you may also be ‘eating in the dark’ because most consumers in New Zealand ingest genetically engineered food (GE or GMOs) whether they want to or not.

The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.

GE Free Field NZ

GE in NZ: Trials and errors

/in ,
Claire Bleakley provides an overview of the main field trials of genetically engineered animals and plants in New Zealand over the past two decades, with a focus on the recent acceleration of GE animal experimentation

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

What a beautiful country we live in, promoted as clean, green and 100% pure. We have innovation, expertise and wild places. Our country has great potential to become an organic nation providing New Zealanders and the world with safe, healthy GE-free foods.

The government budget in May ignored the immense contribution that organics is giving the nation, but increased the funding to GE sector. Why?

Background

As early as 1988 GE field trials were carried out by Lincoln University and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) on broccoli, goats, sheep, and potatoes in the Lincoln region. These trials were approved by the Interim Assessment Group (IAG), which assessed GE organisms prior to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act being passed in 1996.

The HSNO Act is administered by the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA). Anyone who wants to introduce new organisms (non-GE and GE) in New Zealand has to apply to ERMA for approval.

After the 1992 outbreak of BSE in Britain, biotech company PPL relocated to New Zealand to create sheep engineered with a human gene for cystic fibrosis (hAAT). Environment Minister Simon Upton at first turned down the request, as New Zealand then had no laws around GE technology.

In 1994 PPL set up a flock of sheep under IAG approval in Whakamaru. Up to 10,000 conventional ewes were mated with GE rams in order to produce human alpha-1 antitrypsin (hAAT) protein for cystic fibrosis sufferers in the milk of their progeny. The sheep were East Friesians, chosen for their high milk and lambing percentage. But lambing rates were low (6%) and the GE sheep were susceptible to disease and arthritis.

Bayer conducted clinical trials on humans using PPL’s hAAT protein. These were stopped six months into the trials because of immune system and respiratory problems experienced by the participants, and this bankrupted PPL. The 3000 GE sheep were incinerated and buried in the paddock.

The government-owned Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) have approvals for thousands of indoor laboratory experiments to create GE animals and plants. AgResearch joined the outdoor ‘biotechnology revolution’ at their Ruakura site on 200 acres in 2000. Across its many campuses, AgResearch has approval to genetically engineer a wide range of forage legumes, grasses and vegetable plants in laboratory containment and glasshouses. The reason that these are not being trialled in the field is that ‘the climate in New Zealand is not favourable’ to outdoor experiments and they are waiting for a change in opposition to outdoor GE trials.

Past field trials

In 2001 a HortResearch trial in Kerikeri on tamarillos genetically engineered to be resistant to mosaic virus ended. GE-Free Northland raised concerns to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification about the persistence of GE DNA in soil biota, and as a result the Commission recommended post-trial monitoring.

In 2003 Scion (previously the Forest Research Institute) gained approval to field trial GE pine and spruce trees carrying reproductive-altering and herbicide-resistant traits. Breaches in facility maintenance were publicised by Soil & Health spokesman Steffan Browning in the media, including Organic NZ. This led to a person or persons entering the facility and cutting down 19 trees. The trial ended in 2008 but gained further approval in 2009. Another new application for 4000 GE pine trees is being sought by Scion.

In 2004, Crop and Food with partner Seminis (a subsidiary of Monsanto) gained approval for a GE onion field trial at Lincoln. The trials did not perform as expected as the GE onions were infested with thrips and the bulbs did not store well, and the trial ended early. A 2006 application for garlic, onions, leeks and other alliums is on hold.

Crop and Food (now part of Plant and Food) received approval in 2007 to trial GE brassicas (cauliflower, broccoli, cabbage, kale) that would produce an insecticide (Cry) gene. This trial, conducted at a secret location in Lincoln, breached regulatory controls after only four months, and in 2008 a flowering plant was discovered from unchecked regrowth and publicised by Steffan Browning. The breach was so serious that Plant and Food and MAF-Biosecurity NZ closed down the trial site. There are no field trials running in the area at the moment.

Failure of GE worldwide

Over the last decade international research results have documented a rise in weed resistance, insect tolerance, and failure of GE crop yields leading to farmer suicides. Animal GE feeding studies are showing adverse effects on kidneys, liver, heart and blood, changes to the immune system, with death and sterility being common. This poses a serious safety warning for us and future generations. There are still no diagnostic tools for GE adverse events that health professionals can carry out.

GE animal suffering

The New Zealand Government, through AgResearch, has relentlessly pursued GE animal production and entered into partnership deals with overseas companies (Genzyme Transgenic Corporation and Pharming NV) to produce a wide range of GE products. These partnerships were signed amid controversy over the high level of animal suffering and deformities that the technology creates.

Dolly the sheep (a clone) had arthritis and died of lung cancer at six years old.  AgResearch’s GE animals have a poor pregnancy to term rate (0–8%) and the calves and cows suffer both congenital and intergenerational abnormalities. For example, in the first-year (2007) cows carrying embryos engineered with a follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) gene all aborted. Transgenic cells were harvested from aborted foetuses, and from approximately 200 embryo transfers there were only four calves born carrying the FSH gene. At six months, three calves were dead, two from uterine artery hemorrhage and ovarian rupture, and one was euthanased.1 1 Autopsies revealed abnormal enlargement (hyper-stimulation) of the ovaries. The survivor has bone growth abnormalities.

Over the past decade, hundreds of GE animal embryo transfers have been made.

GE animals anywhere, any time, forever?

Last year GE Free NZ successfully challenged in the High Court a large, four-stage application by AgResearch for GE animal trials, but this was overturned on appeal. The extreme application basically seeks to be able to run GE trials on animals anywhere, any time, and if it’s approved AgResearch would never need to reapply for an approval for GE animals again. The application is now postponed until August after ERMA staff recommended that it be declined, and is at the Supreme Court for leave to be heard.

In November 2009, ERMA approved an indoor development of sheep, goats, cattle, pigs, cats, dogs, rabbits, chickens and guinea pigs, all extremely similar to the illegal application. In March this year, approval was given to allow the GE outdoor development of cattle, sheep and goats. These applications have been further challenged in the High Court by GE Free NZ.

The next onslaught of GE field trials planned is a vast range of fodder crops and grasses, and GE ryegrass is on the field test horizon. We already have traditionally-bred grass cultivars that are producing excellent results and contain many of the same qualities for high sugar and drought resistance that are hoped for from genetic engineering.

Drop GE, focus on ethics, biodiversity and organics

We cannot allow animal suffering to be perpetuated further, especially when the potential products are already being created in safer and less risky conditions of vat fermentation, for example – insulin.

It is arrogant and stupid to presume that we can create one grass type to outperform and provide all nutritional needs for our stock. Reliance on one type of fodder, such as GE ryegrass, will cause serious nutritional depletion and increased susceptibility to diseases. Fodder diversity and traditional herbal leys are essential to good farming.

At the moment New Zealanders are under extreme pressure to drop their GE-free brand. This means giving away the quality and safety we currently have in our food and environment. We must remember our brand and our country are special and coveted. We can still make New Zealand organic by 2020 if we resist the pressure and focus on what we have always done best: safe, high quality food, grass-fed farming, selective breeding and build on our renowned organic sector that is growing exponentially.

Thanks to Steffan Browning and to Susie Lees for their input into this article.

Deformities in AgResearch’s GE calves

Internal organ problems

  • Uninflated lungs
  • Lack of diaphragm
  • No bladder
  • Congenital heart abnormalities
  • Bladder and pericardia fused
  • Excessive abdominal fluid
  • Ovarian and uterine deformities
  • Squamous cell carcinoma
  • Endocrine disruption

Deformities in limbs

  • Clubfoot and fused neck
  • Rear fetlocks bent back
  • Severe contraction of tendons
  • Early fusion of bone growth plates

Source: AgResearch Annual Report 2000–09

Status of AgResearch GE programme at Ruakura

Application codeGE organism / therapeutic proteinApplication status as at 2009; notes
1. GMF980092   Approved 1999 for 5 yrs (Nov 1999–2004) Approved May 2001–2006Outdoor field trial (200 acres) of cattle genetically engineered with the following proteins.March 2010: ERMA extended application without public input
(1) Casein plus (+) extra casein protein gene added.63 cows
(2) Beta lactoglobulin minus (BLG-)No viable GE embryo created   No animals exist
(3) Myelin basic protein (MBP) – protein for multiple sclerosis4 cows
3. GMD020283   Approved 2002 for 7.5 years. 2002–2009Outdoor field trial of GE cattle using human genesAs per GMF98009 above
(1) Lactoferrin (from human breast milk)23 cows
(2) Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) – fertility hormone.1 cow remaining (2 sudden deaths from ruptured ovaries and 1 euthanased)
4. GMC070124   GMD07074 GMF07001 GMD08012 under considerationFor GE animals, to   import develop, indoor/outdoor field test with a range of genetic engineering techniques for research, breeding and production of potential commercial products. Anywhere, any time, forever.AgResearch has withdrawn the applications until August to consult with stakeholders to consider options. ERMA NZ Evaluation and Review report recommended the applications be declined.
5. ERMA2002235 Approved 13 April 2010 for 20 years. (2010–2030)Outdoor containment to create GE goats, sheep and cattle with human therapeutic proteins, or with altered protein levels.Approved, but not in operation yet. AgResearch is discussing with MAF which cattle will be held under this approval.
6. GMD 090116 Ruakura and Palmerston North Approved 25 Nov 2009Indoor containment of GE cats, dogs, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, cattle, possums, guinea pigs, rabbits, rats, mice, human cell lines, E-coli.GE Free NZ applied for a reassessment of this trial but was turned down. Laboratory work unlimited and forever.
7. GMD 090177 13 April 2009 –foreverGE plants in indoor containment   Brassica spp. Broccoli, cabbage cauliflower, forage kale, oilseed rape, swede, mustard, turnip, Chinese mustard, cabbage, Thale cress Grasses Tall fescue, ryegrass, darnell, couch, bentgrass, blue grass Barley Wheat: bread, durum Oils Safflower, sunflower Soy bean, sesame Solanum tomato, potato tobacco Legume garden pea, birdsfoot trefoil, lotus, lupin, alfalfa, Clover: red, white, Kenyan, western, rabbits-foot Broom Flowers PetuniaTrials for plant development, metabolic processes, symbiotic relationships and pathogen interactions for the development of novel gene delivery systems and plant-based biotechnologies. GE ryegrass field trial signalled for 2013.

GM or GE?

The terms GE (genetically engineered) and GM (genetically modified) are often used interchangeably but this is confusing as all GE crops are GM, but not all GM crops are GE.

Genetic modification (GM)

GM the alteration of an organism’s genes made through traditional or hybrid breeding, mutagenesis or genetic engineering. Yeasts and yoghurt are often used as an example of the thousands of years humans have been using GM.

Genetic engineering (GE)

GE (or recombinant DNA technology), including transgenics and cisgenics, is the creation of a synthetic gene from related and/or unrelated organisms through splicing together bacterial, viral, animal or plant genes.

Techniques of genetic engineering include, but are not limited to: recombinant DNA, cell fusion, micro and macro injection, encapsulation, gene deletion, and doubling.

GE Free NZ

GE Free NZ is a not-for-profit organisation. We have been successful in raising the awareness of the risks that genetic engineering brings to our economy, health and environment. Please support us by becoming a member or donating towards our legal expenses.

Go to http://www.gefree.org.nz to join us and see our press releases and past actions, and join us on the GE Free NZ in Food and Environment Facebook page.

References

  1. ‘Mutant cows die in GM trial’ www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10642031; AgResearch Annual Report to ERMA New Zealand, 31 December 2009
  2. www.ermanz.govt.nz/Find/WebResults.aspx?Search=GMF98009
  3. www.ermanz.govt.nz/Find/WebResults.aspx?Search=GMD02028
  4. www.ermanz.govt.nz/find/WebResults.aspx?search=erma200417
  5. www.ermanz.govt.nz/Find/WebResults.aspx?Search=ERMA200223
  6. www.ermanz.govt.nz/Find/WebResults.aspx?Search=GMD09011
  7. www.ermanz.govt.nz/Find/WebResults.aspx?Search=GMD09017

Claire Bleakley is president of GE Free NZ (in food and environment).

The Dirty Dozen – 12 foods with the most pesticide residues

/in ,
Organic NZ Magazine: May/June 2010
Section: Health and Food
Author: Alison White
 
 

Alison White of the Safe Food Campaign answers these questions

– Which foods in New Zealand have the most pesticide residues?
– What’s wrong with pesticide residues in food?
– How can pesticide residues in food be reduced?

The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.

Safe food policy

Safe food storage: healthy options for food packaging and storage

/in ,

Kyra Xavia investigates at the health risks of plastic used for food packaging and storage, and offers suggestions for healthy alternatives

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

Plastic pervades every area of our life. Unfortunately it also permeates our body where it does not belong. As consumers we assume packaging materials are safe but what’s being uncovered does not look safe at all.

So far bisphenol A (BPA), styrene and families of chemicals called pthalates, (there isn’t enough room to list them individually), adipates, organohalogens, nonylphenols, and heavy metals, have all been identified as having detrimental effects on health. Vinyl chloride, a known carcinogen, is used to produce polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

Despite mounting scientific evidence and consumer concerns, these substances are still used in packaging that is supposed to keep our food safe. Plastic packaging is used because it’s inexpensive, light, durable, liquid and grease resistant. Packaged products have a long shelf life and are easier and cheaper to transport. Unfortunately our dependence on plastics comes with a high cost to our health and the environment.

Why are plastics nasty?

Some plastics are hardened and are less reactive but the majority of plastics used in packaging leach chemicals, whether from the plastic itself, synthetic antioxidants it has been coated with, residue from production, or numerous additives that give it ‘desirable’ properties. Claims plastics are safe because only minute amounts of these chemicals migrate into food and liquid (measured in parts per million) are based on flawed reasoning.

Traditional toxicology assumes the higher the dose the higher the effect. At low doses, there is a point at which no observable adverse effect occurs, known in scientific circles as the ‘no observable adverse effect level’ (NOAEL). But the disruption of the body’s sensitive hormonal system can occur at doses far below the NOAEL, and the existing safety assessment framework for chemicals is ill-equipped to deal with hormone mimicking substances found in plastics.

Some chemicals increase in toxicity when combined and no one knows the effects of these unlimited combinations. Testing does not account for the effects of simultaneous exposure to many chemicals and may lead to serious underestimations of risk.

One controversial fact remains: food and drink packaged in plastic becomes contaminated to some degree. Up until April 2002 the FDA called these plastics ‘indirect food additives’ which acknowledged they migrate into the products they come into contact with. In April 2002, this was changed to a more benign term, ‘food contact substances’.

Hazardous to the hormone system

Probably the most talked-about compounds in plastics are xenoestrogens, which were investigated and documented in the book Our Stolen Future. Since then numerous scientific studies have linked xenoestrogens with cancer and other illnesses.

Xenoestrogens are now more commonly called endocrine disruptors because these chemicals affect the body’s endocrine system, which includes the pituitary, thymus, thyroid, adrenal, pancreas and ovaries and testes glands. The endocrine system regulates the body in extremely complex and subtle ways, which is why endocrine disruptors have such wide-ranging harmful impacts. Most importantly cell division, development and growth are negatively interfered with, so those most vulnerable are unborn babies, children and teenagers.

Endocrine disruptors have been implicated in low fertility, insulin resistance, thyroid dysfunction and type two diabetes in men, endometriosis, breast cancer, polycystic ovarian disease in women, as well as altered germ cell and fetal development, behavioural as well as developmental problems and early onset puberty in children.

Endocrine disruptors accumulate in fatty tissue, and although some substances from plastics may be excreted, their metabolites often have more toxic effects, as is the case with pthalates.

Hidden plastics

Plastics are used in the linings of canned foods and beverages, on bottle tops, in heat-seal coatings on metal foils such as those found on yoghurts, cream and individual portions of milk and in aluminium paper-foil laminates like tetrapaks and also as a component of paper and paperboard in contact with liquid, fatty and dry foods, such as butcher’s paper. Plastics are also used in inks, resins, adhesives, sealants, protective coatings and finishes of food packaging.

Plastic confusion

How many consumers know the names and properties of plastics coded 1 to 7 and their intended uses? To add to the confusion, the recycling number 7 is a catch-all for those plastics not made of resins numbered 1 to 6, or made from a combination of those resins. Products can also be packaged with a combination of plastics.

New ‘bio-plastics’ are being developed with consumer concerns in mind – stay informed if you decide to use them. Some types of polyethylene are biodegradable but require specific environmental conditions in order to decompose. Also the presence of certain additives can prevent the degradation of such plastics. High levels of lead and cobalt have also been detected in some biodegradable plastic shopping bags, which raise concerns about toxic residue in the environment. Some food packaging simply will not decompose. Those that do break down can release toxins that end up in the water, soil and air which go back into the food chain.

Heating, leaching and storage time

Warmth and heating softens and weakens plastics, which accelerates the migration of endocrine disruptors into food. During the canning process high temperatures cause BPA in the plastic lining of cans to be absorbed by food.

Liquids absorb chemicals more readily than dry foods. Oils, and foods with a high fat and oil content, absorb endocrine disruptors from plastics, because oils and fats have an affinity with hormone-like molecules. Acidic food such as citrus, tomatoes and vinegar will also react with plastic.

The duration food and liquids are stored in plastic packaging, plastic lined cans and tetrapaks also determine the amount of chemicals that are absorbed.

The precautionary principle

ALL plastics are unsafe when heated, scratched, worn, broken or tacky to the touch. Plastics release harmful volatile organic compounds and all plastics degrade over time. With scientific evidence stacking up against the safety of plastics, consumers should err on the side of caution and reduce their exposure to plastic as much as possible.

Glass, ceramics, stainless steel (for non-acidic items), uncoated cardboard, unbleached paper and cheesecloth are inert and will NOT react with the food and liquids they come in contact with.

Reduce your exposure to plastics

Shopping
  • Ask shops to supply paper bags.
  • Choose loose items instead of those in plastic bags, and put them in paper bags.
  • Select loose dry foods from bulk bins and use paper bags instead of plastic.
  • Choose items packaged in glass over those in plastic, especially fruit juices, tomatoes and products containing vinegar.
  • Avoid canned food, especially canned tomatoes and citrus fruit.
  • Avoid beverages in cans.
  • Avoid butter and oil-based spreads sold in plastic containers.
  • Buy butter wrapped in waxed paper at your local organic outlet or delicatessen.
  • Check expiry dates – fresher products will have less time exposed to plastic.
  • Buy cheese and meat cut to order from the deli or butcher. Get it wrapped in plain, uncoated paper (butcher paper is often coated with shiny, waterproof PVC).
  • Avoid foil-lined tetrapaks and foil laminated sachets as these are often coated with polyethylene on the inside.
  • Shop at outlets that provide recycled glass containers for refilling liquids.

At home

  • Serve food and drinks from ceramic, glass, stainless steel, natural bamboo and wood.
  • Replace items stored in plastic into glass or ceramic containers once you get home. Farmers retail outlets stock a range of glassware with plastic lids imported from France called Frigoverre. Ensure the food inside doesn’t touch the lid.
  • Use unbleached cheesecloth to wrap items that need protection in the fridge. For those that need to be kept moist, wrap with damp cheesecloth. The cloth can be washed and reused many times.
  • Avoid any form of plastic when thawing, microwaving or reheating food.
  • Use a plain paper towel, preferably unbleached, to cover food in the microwave instead of plastic wrap.
  • Ceramic and glass containers are best for microwave use.
  • Use glass, ceramic or stainless steel bowls for mixing and baking.
  • Avoid electric plastic mixers. Use a glass bowl with a stainless steel handheld barmix or eggbeater.
  • Wooden cutting boards are preferable to plastic.
  • Squeeze your own juice instead of buying it in plastic bottles.
  • Buy fresh produce instead of using pre-cut/frozen vegetables and fruits.
  • Dispose of scratched, cloudy, sticky, worn and damaged plastic utensils and bowls.
  • Invest in quality cast iron or stainless steel cookware, pyrex glass and ceramics. These should last a lifetime.

For your baby

  • Glass baby bottles are safest. They won’t leach any chemicals when washed, heated or scratched.
  • Store breastmilk in glass in the fridge with a tight screwcap lid.
  • Choose baby food in glass jars instead of cans, plastic and foil sachets.
  • The best baby food is homemade from fresh organic vegetables, fruit and meat. Store in glass in the fridge and serve from ceramic plates. Avoid plastic cutlery.
Healthy drinking
  • Avoid large clear polycarbonate containers of distilled water. They leach BPA. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic water bottles are BPA-free but should only be used once.
  • Avoid buying plastic bottled water altogether.
  • Invest in a quality water filter and fill your own safe containers.
  • Use glass bottles or lightweight stainless steel drinking canisters with stainless steel tops (e.g. from www.ecotanka.com).
  • Fill up on spring water if you have a safe local source (such as that available on tap outside Speight’s Brewery in Dunedin).
  • Avoid drinking water from plastic containers left in cars or warm environments.
  • Avoid drinking hot drinks in polystyrene cups.
  • Replace plastic electric jugs with stainless steel ones.
  • When using tap water (especially if you don’t have a water filter), run the water for a few minutes, particularly in the morning. Most water pipes are made with unsafe PVC.
School lunches and picnics
  • Avoid clingwrap made from PVC, and check with manufacturers that E320 butylated hydroxy-anisole (BHA) and E321 butylated hydroxy-toluene (BHT) aren’t used.
  • Invest in long lasting recyclable cloth fabric wraps and snack bags lined with bio-plastic from 4yourearth (www.4myearth.co.nz ). Wrap food with a handy towel before putting inside.
  • For picnics use disposable plates, cups, cutlery, serving utensils and dishes made from bamboo fibre, cardboard and starch.

References

  1. Lougheed, T, ‘Outside Looking In: Understanding the role of science in regulation’, Environ Health Perspect 117:A104-A110, 2009
  2. Colborn, Theo, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers, Our stolen future: Are we threatening our fertility, intelligence, and survival? A scientific detective story, New York, Dutton, 1996, www.ourstolenfuture.org
  3. The Prague Declaration on Endocrine Disruption. In June 2005, over 100 research scientists from 15 countries actively involved in research on endocrine disruptors issued a joint, signed statement raising concerns about endocrine disruption.
  4. National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Science, Substance Profiles: Vinyl Chloride, in Report on Carcinogens, eleventh edition, http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s186viny.pdf
  5. Krimsky, Sheldon, Hormonal Chaos: The scientific and social origins of the environmental endocrine hypothesis, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000
  6. Phillips, ML, ‘Phthalates and Metabolism: Exposure correlates with obesity and diabetes in men’, Environ Health Perspect 115:A312–A312, 2007
  7. Renner, R, ‘New Phthalate Link?: DEHP metabolites and altered thyroid hormone levels in men’, Environ Health Perspect 115:A363–A363, 2007
  8. Weinhold, B, ‘Gamete Gamble: Phthalate alters germ cell development’, Environ Health Perspect 117:A33–A33, 2009
  9. Tillett, T, ‘Bisphenol A, Chapter 2: New data shed light on exposure, potential bioaccumulation’, Environ Health Perspect 117:A210–A210, 2009
  10. Guenther, K et al, ‘Endocrine Disrupting Nonylphenols Are Ubiquitous in Food’ Environ. Sci. Technol. 36(8), pp 1676–1680, 2002
  11. Marla Cone, ‘Chemical in plastic may harm children’, Los Angeles Times, 16 April 2008
  12. Fred Pearce, ‘Biodegradable plastic bags carry more ecological harm than good’, The Guardian, 18 June 2009
  13. McGovern, V, ‘Polycarbonate Plastics and Human BPA Exposure: Urinary levels rise with use of drinking bottles’, Environ Health Perspect 117:A406–A406, 2009
Brydone

A cornucopia of vegetables

/in ,
Organic NZ Magazine: May/June 2010
Section: Farming and Horticulture
Author: Annie Stuart

Annie Stuart visits Brydone Growers Organic Farmshop south of Oamaru, and discovers a thriving and expanding market garden built on decades of organic history

One of my favourite stalls at the Otago Farmers’ Market is that of Brydone Organic Growers. Their range of robust, deeply colourful, beautifully formed vegetables is a delight to the eye and the tastebuds, and proof of the consistently high quality organic produce can achieve.

The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.

Eucalypts: Sustainable timber

/in ,
Organic NZ Magazine: July/August 2009
Section: Building
Author: Philippa Jamieson

Philippa Jamieson investigates a new initiative to grow and use versatile, hardwood eucalypts

Do you want to plant a woodlot that will give you durable wood for farm posts and building, give you a return in as little as 16–20 years, as well as sequestering a lot more carbon than pine? Think eucalypts.

The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.

Power-down pioneer: cycling for change

/in ,

Joseph Dougherty introduces Ted Howard, a champion of ‘powering down’, of social change directed at encouraging greater sustainability.

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

Ted Howard is an inspiring example of how someone can make the transition away from a fossil-fuelpowered lifestyle. He runs two businesses: a permaculture gardening business and a kite sales business; both off the back of his bike.

That’s right, his bike! He transports gardening materials like hay bales on his bike and carries his kite stock and stall gear for his spot at the Nelson market on his bike and bike trailer. He can do this because he has an unusual bike with extra space for gear.

He was not a constant cyclist nor super strong prior to taking this up. In fact, Ted is in his fifties and took up cycling seriously in his mid-forties and says he wasn’t fit when he did it.

Pulling heavy gear around and gardening all day takes fitness though – or perhaps it creates it. Ted says he got into gardening because “there was nothing like putting my hands into the dirt to help dealing with the grief of living in a dominant insane culture that is heading towards collapse.” Three years ago he needed to get out of his shop selling kites full-time.

Maybe it was his awareness of the impending end of cheap oil and the potential collapse of the biosphere that pushed him out of that comfortable carseat and onto his challenging bike seat.

Now, he delights in challenging others: appearing with incredible loads (like ladders and weedeaters) or leaving the supermarket with his bike seriously loaded up and thinking “Every day, it’s like an adventure: ‘what can I carry today?’ and ‘how can I mess with people’s heads?’”

He got into permaculture because it gave him a way to integrate his knowledge and make sense of it. Ted has not only completed a Permaculture Design Course, but helped out at three subsequent courses, and given talks at others on his lifestyle and demonstrating how it is made possible by his amazing bike, which is where I met him. It certainly garnered full attention from the permaculture students.

He also continues learning: he upskills himself as he works, slapping headphones on and listening to tapes of lectures and audio books while using power tools.

When Ted started his permaculture gardening business he was leaping into risky territory. He only had a couple of clients, he wasn’t that fit, his vehicle was a bike, he didn’t have formal horticulture qualifications (at least not initially).

So what made it work? Contacts and optimism. Being involved in Transition Nelson and several subgroups, as well as Bike Nelson Bays, Friends of Nelson Haven and more – he has contacts. He asked friends if they knew anyone who needed garden work done and here is where being involved in your community helps out – enough work has turned up to not only keep him almost 100% financially supported by work he can do off his bike.

His vision is that these networks will be able to provide enough work to sustain all the gardening members of the Transition Nelson Permaculture Group, which fits into the cultural transition Ted believes is essential we make: connecting and supporting each other.

“We need to ‘power down’, go from being Homo colossus, used to being able to move all over the place in our little cages, to learning energy accounting and taking steps like using ‘e-assist’ on bikes to help the transition to animal power or walking as means of transport,” says Ted.

“I am moving gradually in the direction of becoming a city farmer – I am changing. We need to become a land-based culture, and permaculture gives us tools to do this.”

For all of us who flinch in the face of the challenging changes we need to make to move towards sustainability, people like Ted are showing us we can. Even in midlife, even without great physical prowess, we can adopt far more physically demanding lifestyles. And more satisfying lifestyles.

As Ted observes: “I am having fun in a garden and upskilling, connecting to my community, and people are paying me.”

Ted’s bike

Ted’s bike is a Kona Caldera with Xtracycle extensions. Xtracycles, like Yuba Mundos, are ‘cargo’ or ‘utility’ bikes, with extended wheel bases and strong chassis and strong panniers to which one can strap heavy (up to 150 kg) or large loads like long ladders, machinery and 2–3 people.

But of course, I must mention that Ted has a special helper for his bike for when conditions get tough. A helper named ‘Stoke Monkey’, a tiny electric motor (or ‘e-assist’) bolted on to the frame which helps riders with loads keep going at reasonable speeds, even on hills. The engine and battery add 20 kg to the bike’s weight, so how useful is it? “Going up steep hills loaded without ‘e-assist’ is impossible for me,” says Ted. It probably isn’t on the cards for most of us, so it makes gardening off a bike in hilly places feasible. Anyway, studies considering embodied energy show that an ‘e-assist’ bicycle is 2–4 times more efficient use of energy than just pedalling if you source your food via the supermarkets, and 1–2 times more efficient if you grow your own. (See http://clevercycles.com/p=125).

As for maintenance and costs thereof, “I’ve had no problems with the engine in two years,” says Ted. The battery is a nickel/metal hybrid which takes a couple of hours to recharge, will last 300–400 recharges and gives stable performance. As Nelson is mainly flat, Ted doesn’t need to use the ‘e-assist’ all the time.

His bike and gear did cost a bit though – over $4000. Helpfully, the Xtracycle is a kit you can fit to an existing mountain bike, and modify if necessary to take the extra strains of signifi can’t loads, as Ted did.

Yuba Mundos are dedicated cargo bikes and are sold by Stu Edwards of cargobikenz.co.nz in Levin. They are a bit stronger than ordinary mountain bikes and not expensive either, as bikes go. Other options include the Wisper model.

Ted’s winter permaculture garden tips

  • Save seeds
  • Put in winter greens, green cover crops
  • Prune and mulch
  • Build up compost
  • Prepare for planting out fruit and nut trees to keep building edible landscapes
  • Keenly observe natural processes: where is the windy spot, where is the frost damage happening, where is the winter suntrap?
  • Are you collecting enough water?
  • Train! Do a permaculture course!

Links

‘Cargo’ or ‘utility’ bikes and suppliers
www.xtracycle.com
www.southendcycles.co.nz
cleverchimp.com (Stoke Monkey)
www.electricbikes.co.nz (Wisper model)