Approval of 2-4-D Food Crops Based on Flawed Science
'World First' approval of 2-4-D Food Crops Based on
Flawed Science
Information received under
the Official Information Act by GE-Free NZ shows the
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and Food Standards
Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) are ignoring the toxicity
risks of GE soybean 'A1073', by refusing to consider the
combined effect of three chemicals and multiple novel genes
in the food.
The information released about the
MPI's view of the new soybean comes just as FSANZ completes
a second assessment of the controversial 2,4-D transgenic
soybean which will tolerate spraying with three different
herbicides: 2,4-D, glyphosate and glufosinate.
It
is not scientifically credible for the MPI and FSANZ to
refuse to evaluate the combination of these chemicals and
gene interactions, and to assume the combination will have
the same risks as each chemical used
separately.
FSANZ appears to be claiming a 'world
first' for New Zealand by approving this food, even before
it has been approved by the US. The Dow Agrichemical
applications to the USDA to commercialise 2,4-D soy and
corn, have been delayed until 2014 [1]. There
is nation-wide public concern amongst Americans because of
the rising levels of pesticides used in GE food crop
production. [2]
"Why are FSANZ approving GE
foods even before the US regulators have said it is safe
for commercialisation? It is wrong to allow more herbicides
like 2,4-D to be used on food,” said Jon Carapiet,
spokesman for GE Free NZ (in food and
environment).
"It is astonishing that regulators
at FSANZ have already approved foods sprayed with 2,4-D
before any other regulatory body. Why are the not demanding
feeding studies in the interests of safety of the
Australasian food chain?"
“There is a complete
absence of any mammalian feeding study to justify the
regulators deeming this food as safe,” said Claire
Bleakley, president of GE-free NZ.
"The Minister
has not responded to our letter asking for an urgent meeting
about the imminent and dangerous approval of this soybean
without even the most basic data from feeding
studies."
The Minister must be warned that she
lacks vital information to justify any approval of this new
level of chemical toxicity in the food chain. The public
also has the right to know what they will be
eating.
The Minister cannot and must not assume
the officials are providing good advice. The rush and lack
of rigour with which FSANZ approaches approval of GE foods
is a clear breach of sound
regulation.
ENDS