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.
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
A guide to organic education in New Zealand
/in Features, Magazine ArticlesBridget 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 Health and Food, Magazine ArticlesI 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 Health and Food, Magazine ArticlesIn 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:
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 Health and Food, Magazine ArticlesKyra 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 in NZ: Trials and errors
/in Features, Magazine ArticlesClaire 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
Deformities in limbs
Source: AgResearch Annual Report 2000–09
Status of AgResearch GE programme at Ruakura
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
Claire Bleakley is president of GE Free NZ (in food and environment).
The Dirty Dozen – 12 foods with the most pesticide residues
/in Health and Food, Magazine ArticlesAlison 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 storage: healthy options for food packaging and storage
/in Features, Magazine ArticlesKyra 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
At home
For your baby
Healthy drinking
School lunches and picnics
References