'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