The Inquiry is open from March 2020, and is accepting submissions from people who have been harmed by chemical exposure, or have observed the effects first hand. The Inquiry also welcomes submissions and reports from scientists, researchers and those working on non-toxic sustainable solutions in New Zealand.
A Hearing will be held in Auckland in mid-2020 with carefully selected independent expert Commissioners. Further information on dates, venue and Commissioners will be released soon. To express your interest in making a submission or following the Inquiry click through to the registration form at the link below…
In May 2018 the EU banned three of the significant pesticides implicated in the collapse of bee populations. Clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam are now prohibited for use on crops.
However France has gone a step further and set the high bar in the effort to save the bees. Given the importance of pollinators to nature and the survival of the biosphere, this could not happen too soon!
Studies have reported that the neonicotinoid pesticides attack the central nervous system of insects, leading to loss of memory and homing skills, in addition to reduced fertility. Bees that cannot find their way back to the hive quickly die. However the pesticides have also been shown to affect butterflies, birds and other pollinating insects.
There is a reason why France is ahead of the field in this regard: The “bee killing” pesticides were tested first on French fields in the 1990’s – and the French farmers witnessed first-hand the catastrophic effects that occurred in 1994; describing “a carpet of dead bees”. 400,000 bee colonies died within days – yet the story was buried under a layer of corruption and distorted science.
Note: Twinings the worst. I posted on their substituting chemical flavouring in lieu of real bergamot in their Earl Grey brand a while back.
There’s nothing nicer than sipping on a warm cup of herbal tea on a cold midwinter’s day. But besides being tasty and warming, tea provides a host of different health benefits – that is, unless your tea is soaked in pesticides.
CBC News recently conducted an investigation on the pesticide levels in some of the most major tea-producing companies. Using an accredited lab, the investigators utilized testing methods employed by the National Food Inspection Agency to test pesticide residues on dry tea leaves.
Pesticides in Tea
The investigators at CBC found that over half of all teas tested had pesticide residues that were above the legally acceptable limit. Multiple chemicals were found in 8 out of 10 teas, with one brand of tea containing over 22 different types of pesticides (Uncle Lee’s Legends of China tea brand).
A large majority of these pesticides are currently being banned in several countries due to the health risks they pose to workers that handle them, and the negative effects they have on the environment (as well as the health of those that consume the products).
“This is very worrisome from a number of perspectives…The presence of so many pesticides on a single product and so many products that exceed the maximum residue limits for pesticides, suggests that we’re seeing very poor agricultural practices in countries, which poses risk to the environment where these products are being grown; which pose risk to the farm workers who are growing these crops, and ultimately pose risk to the Canadians who are consuming these products.”
Thanks to Carol Sawyer for this piece of investigation. Just how organic is organic these days? With NZ’s current sell out to corporate interests I’m wondering more and more. Just how honest are these industries being? Some of these people just refuse to examine the independent research and profits win out over our health & conservation. Folk need to think about this as they purchase products from a country that falsely advertises itself as ‘clean and green’, and pledges to be protecting its wildlife. Gone are the days. All these advertising ploys are just that and pay little more than lip service it appears, to sustainable practices. EnvirowatchRangitikei
I have talked to many, many Central Otago vineyards over the last month and it has … become completely clear to me that it is perfectly possible to maintain a low, no-nuisance rabbit population without using cruel poisons… Carol Sawyer
PEREGRINE WINES, CENTRAL OTAGO – KILLING FALCONS ?
Why is a vineyard that names itself after a FALCON, has a brand logo that is a stylised falcon, and is certified organic with BioGro, using a poison that will kill falcons by secondary poisoning ?!!! Today I have been sent these photos and the irony has just struck me.
Their website says “A natural extension of our passion for the land, Peregrine are dedicated to helping protect some of New Zealand’s rarest native birds. As well as taking part personally in some of this country’s most successful preservation programs, Peregrine is proud to have worked with the Wingspan Trust, the Department of Conservation and the Fiordland Conservation Trust.” ???!!!!!!
I have been compiling a register of Central Otago vineyards who do not use cruel poisons on their vineyards, (see link is below also, but it is not yet complete) and when I spoke to Peregrine about a month ago I was told they had used Pindone on some of their surrounding land on the river boundary, but about 30 metres from the vines. I have today rung the poison contractor (name supplied). That information I was given was incorrect. He has told me that Pindone was spread on ALL their surrounding land, just not on the vineyards
The Eastern Falcon DOES eat carrion and can be killed by ingesting poisoned rabbits. Many hawks are killed this way too. NOT GOOD ENOUGH PEREGRINE !!!
I have talked to many, many Central Otago vineyards over the last month and it has therefore become completely clear to me that it is perfectly possible to maintain a low, no-nuisance rabbit population without using cruel poisons. The vast majority of vineyard managers do just that! Good rabbit fencing, shooters, and dogs work well.
Peregrine are on the Central Otago Wines register of vineyards that do not use cruel poisons (1080, Pindone, Magtoxin ) on their vineyard land. Should they stay or should they go? Is using the stuff on surrounding land acceptable?
As well as this they are exporting their wines. Peregrine say on their website : “We are thrilled to have cemented our relationship with our premium US wine importer, Vineyard Brands as a result of a visit earlier this month by Greg Doody, President and CEO of Vineyard Brands. During the trip hosted by our owners, Lindsay, Jude and Fraser McLachlan a long term business agreement was signed that will see our full range of wines distributed across the US.” It is a pity their website is so dishonest!
More on the insidious pesticide that is poisoning NZ. Kiwis love the stuff & spray it everywhere totally oblivious to any independent research that goes against the well established Monsanto mantra that tells them it’s pretty much ‘safe as houses’. See our Glyphosate pages at the main menu for more info & for links to the huge body of research that says it isn’t safe as houses. EnvirowatchRangitikei
(NaturalHealth365) Roundup has been a top-selling weed killer since its release in the 1970s. Numerous studies have connected its active ingredient, glyphosate, with a number of serious health problems – especially to the unborn child. More recently, it’s been found that one of the so-called “inert” ingredients in Roundup could be making the effects of glyphosate much worse.
“Inert” ingredients refer to preservatives, surfactants, solvents and other substances that are added to herbicides and pesticides. About 4,000 different inert ingredients have been approved for addition to weed killer products like Roundup by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Editor’s note: The collusion between the biotech (chemical) industry and government agencies is far worse than you can imagine. I strongly suggest you watch GMOs Revealed – a docuseries that exposes how corporate giants, like Monsanto, are knowingly poisoning our food and environment. Educate yourself and discover a definite way to avoid being harmed.
Not all so-called “inert” ingredients in Roundup are inert
Research conducted by a French team associated with the University of Caen shows that certain inert ingredients can have the effect of amplifying the toxicity of glyphosate on human cells. One specific inert ingredient, POEA (polyethoxylated tallowamine), was particularly deadly to human placental, umbilical cord and embryonic cells.
These findings indicates that the so-called inert ingredients in Roundup weed killer are far from inert. This effect occurred even at concentrations of the herbicide that were considerably more diluted than what is typically used. Even at residual levels on lawns, gardens and crops, these chemicals could be causing major cellular damage.
This is excellent news! A long time coming. Wake up people and see beyond the surface stories you are told … this NZ man who is spraying the stones in the course of his work day is wearing no protective equipment for his hands or face, as is the custom with most people who use it here. One contractor I questioned on this matter told me he didn’t wear a mask because it would alarm the public! Let’s just not frighten them because after all if any of us gets cancer nobody will be able to prove how it happened anyway. Farmers swear by it and their Agricultural texts recommend spraying their fields with it … this means it is likely in your non-organic meat. One in three people now get cancer … time to join some dots people. And this is not the only product that carries similar health risks, there are many more in our environment … we are bombarded from many angles. Read our Cancer pages.
By Dr. Mercola
In March, 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), reclassified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” (Class 2A).1,2
The decision was based on “limited evidence” showing the weed killer can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with “convincing evidence” linking it to cancer in animals.
The IARC is considered the global gold standard for carcinogenicity studies, so its determination was of considerable importance. It’s also one of the five research agencies from which the OEHHA — the California agency of environmental hazards — gets its reports to declare carcinogens under Prop 65.
Monsanto has vigorously pursued a retraction of the IARC’s damning report,3 to prevent California from pursuing a cancer warning on Roundup and other, newer weed killers in the pipeline, designed for use on the company’s latest genetically engineered (GE) crops.
Monsanto Forced to Put Cancer Warning on Roundup
Their efforts have so far failed, and Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan recently struck another nail in the company’s coffin, striking down Monsanto’s attempt to overturn California’s 2015 ruling to require Prop 65 warnings on glyphosate.4,5,6
While Kapetan has yet to issue a formal decision on the matter, Monsanto says it will challenge the ruling, if upheld. As reported by LA Progressive:7
“California would be the first state to order this level of labeling if this decision by the California Carcinogen Identification Committee is sustained by further court action.
Monsanto previously sued the nation’s foremost agricultural producing state by filing court motions to the effect that California’s carcinogen committee … had illegally based their decision for mandatorily requiring the warnings on “erroneous” findings by an international health organization …
For more info and links to docos see our Glyphosate pages (remember the sub pages). Educate yourself and make informed decisions from all the data, not just what mainstream feed you. And remember to share the information and expose the untruths we’ve been told. Use the share buttons & thank you for reading.
A timely reminder here as we ponder on the extensive slathering of chemicals over our once clean green land happening now. Historically it was going on as well, we were just less privy to the info being minus the internet and social media. The fact it has been censored from NZ television speaks volumes. People suffered and died from this insanity. Again, follow the money. It will pay you to research this well because the powers that be, being corporately controlled, will not be warning you any time soon of the dangers of the wares they peddle to the unsuspecting public. Check our our related pages or search articles under ‘categories’.
Above all, watch ‘The Corporation’ doco to see why the cover ups. EnvirowatchRangitikei
Published on Apr 8, 2013
The TV 3 Expose censored from NZ TV. A must see for any member of the public, this doco covers the exposure of the Paritutu and New Zealand community at large to the chemical 2-4-5-T, manufactured at Ivan Watkins Dow in New Plymouth between 1962-1981, and the disastrous effects it had on those exposed.
For further info visit our post on this earlier in the year. It includes other articles and links that are related.
On ‘The Dangers of Willful Blindness’ …. “Gayla Benefield was just doing her job — until she uncovered an awful secret about her hometown that meant its mortality rate was 80 times higher than anywhere else in the U.S.
But when she tried to tell people about it, she learned an even more shocking truth: People didn’t want to know. In a talk that’s part history lesson, part call-to-action, Margaret Heffernan demonstrates the danger of “willful blindness” and praises ordinary people like Benefield who are willing to speak up. (Filmed at TEDxDanubia.)” TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world’s leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design — plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more. Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at http://www.ted.com/translate
Here’s an illustration of what one person’s research into hidden environmental hazards can turn up. You would think people would be pleased to be warned however not so. In this instance nobody wanted to hear why their town’s death rate was 80 times higher than anywhere else in the US. I encounter similar disbelief when I relate the hidden dangers of Smart Meters and other RF radiation risks, and chemicals in our food, water and air. Too often people only begin to take this all seriously when bad health strikes. We need to remember again, corporations are about profits for their shareholders and these come first. Any environmental risks are only disclosed (if at all) in very fine print which few read. Corporations are not devoted to the good health of their buying customers … we the people need to fulfill that mandate. Be warned.
Following on from the recent update on the chemical spraying presentation made to the Rangitikei District Council forum in November 2014, and featured in the Central District Times recently, I’ve offered some thoughts on the Council process. This may be informative for some, and may also dispel some illusions about our so-called democratic processes.
When anyone presents an issue of concern at a Council forum the time limit is five minutes which includes question time, so it is really only four. Bear in mind with an issue this large this is not long. I had to condense my case to the quintessential and speak at top speed. Also bear in mind that in attending Council meetings there is little if any space for actual dialogue around issues. Five minutes is it. The process is not that people friendly (one Cr didn’t hide the fact he found the issue humorous) nor conducive to meaningful interaction or problem resolution. The Mayor, Andy Watson, allowed two questions from the Councilors … one centered around other possible alternatives. These I provided as I’d researched them. The other was not a question, rather it was to tell me that Horizons could provide the correct information about spraying parameters / guidelines / exposure etc. That completed I was duly thanked for my presentation and I sat down. I quietly whispered to a member of the Community Committee who was also there that day, asking her what happens next (quietly because you’re not supposed to be talking in there … and the Community Committee by the way, is a conduit group between community and Council). It appears that I should have asked specifically for somebody to get back to me on the issue. Since I hadn’t, that could well have been the very last I’d have heard about the issue. Now who ever would know that ‘minor’ technicality about being heard? It could have effectively disappeared into the black hole, forgotten forever. As good fortune would have it however, after I’d left and the meeting continued, Cr Sheridan voted for the matter to be put on the Agenda. It was seconded by Cr Ash. The Council was going to research other NZ Council methods of weed treatment and write a report.
Now, bear in mind here, seven or so months prior, I’d emailed Council citing the research on the health risks of using glyphosate sprays (the herbicide of choice by most councils throughout the country). This research had been dismissed as ‘unproven extrapolation’. Cr Ash, and myself, had then met with the Mayor to discuss the research and the possibility of using non chemical sprays in the urban areas. He had sent us each away to research weed control methods used by other Councils with the prospect of RDC’s possibly considering a non-chemical alternative that was cost-effective … should we find one that is. In addition, information was given regarding how to get this issue onto the agenda using Council protocols. By all appearances, to the uninitiated, a very convoluted process. Because of these prior happenings, I already had a great deal of information on other councils, so later, I emailed contact details for an Auckland contractor with a cost effective hot water treatment.
During the interim I endeavoured to email updates to the Mayor and all Councilors about the surrounding facts on this issue since four minutes had clearly not enabled me to do this. In addition I kept them up to speed with all the latest research that comes in at quite a steady pace these days. Councilors apparently, have a great deal of information to wade through I’m told, so there are seldom any responses. Not even an ’email received’ message.
Mayor, the CEO nor the Councilors (bar two) are impressed by WHO’s research, or any of the large body of research that is available on Glyphosate. Not surprising since our Government approves it, end of story. Note here, many governments have actually banned it though and France’s highest Court ruled that Monsanto (the manufacturer) has lied about Roundup’s biodegradability. Sadly, with the way Council works, there has been no opportunity for dialogue on this issue. Still, I do not believe it is rocket science. I would be placing my money on WHO, Professor Seralini’s evidence and France’s highest Court, as opposed to the wisdom of the Rangitikei District Council in Marton or the NZ government (aka corporation) that says it is GE free by the way and is not. Remember, Monsanto initially tested their lab rats for the required ninety days … not long enough for tumours to develop. Professor Seralini’s team tested them for two years… long enough to grow enormous tumours.
Why is Monsanto not now re-testing for two years themselves to prove to the public their product is safe? And why was it so difficult for Prof Seralini to even get a sample of their Glyphosate-laced GM corn to use in his research?
(Watch the Seralini video HERE or read the damning transcript). Would you buy a used car on the car salesman’s word alone? This is historically what the authorities have done with Roundup. It’s all been on Monsanto’s say so. Read more about the RDC’s decision in my next post.
“Massey University Research Nurse, Heather Duckett, wants to talk to farmers (sheep & beef, dairy, deer), orchardists and horticulturalists/flower growers in the Lower North Island from Taranaki across the Central Plateau to Hawke’s Bay and south to Wellington as part of her research into the use of sprays (pesticides, fungicides and herbicides) and the effects on health.
She wants to contact 50 farmers who either use sprays or who may enter paddocks after spraying has been done.
The research is around the higher risk these people face as an occupational group of developing blood and lymph node cancers.”
To find out more information email: H.G.Duckett@massey.ac.nz, or call (06) 350 5064.