Govt extends plastic ban to fruit stickers
Experts warn ‘approved’ chemicals could result in untrackable genetic modifications and even biological weaponry. Paul Gorman reports.
THE Government will move to ban non-compostable fruit stickers today in response to a huge new report about single-use plastic, the Sunday Star-Times understands.
It’s understood the Government will also move to ban plastic cotton buds and single-use plastic cutlery, items which both have biodegradable alternatives made out of bamboo.
Compostable apple stickers are available but are not in widespread use.
The announcement will be made this morning as part of a response to a report from the prime minister’s chief scientist, alongside a host of other measures.
The Government is looking to follow up on the ban of single-use plastic bags, which it sees as having been a huge success.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is particularly invested in the policy programme, noting repeatedly that the number one thing she receives letters about is reducing waste.
Part of the announcement will be making clear that the Government is not against all plastic – just single-use nonrecyclable plastic.
Around 30 per cent of plastic produced is single-use.
The Government is very keen to see this type of plastic not being produced in New Zealand at all, and wishes to ban only products where there are biodegradable alternatives.
It’s understood the overall theme will be a return to the simple message of ‘‘reduce, reuse, recycle’’.
More than 8 billion tonnes of plastic have been produced since the 1950s, and over 80 per cent of it has ended up in landfills or discarded into the environment.
New Zealand has serious problems with managing its waste, compounded by China’s recent decision to stop buying plastic waste.
The Government has proposed raising the waste levy by up to $50 over the next three years, from $10 a tonne to $60 a tonne in 2023.
The Provincial Growth Fund has also allocated $40 million for projects that turn waste into useful products.
Polling suggests the public will back further moves to restrict single-use plastics.
An August 1 News/Colmar Brunton poll found that 82 per cent of New Zealanders wanted the plastic bag ban extended to other single-use plastics.
Green Party supporters were the most behind the move while National supporters were the most opposed.
Many have conflated the issue of climate change and waste but the two are quite different. While waste contributes to New Zealand’s emissions profile, it pales in comparison to agriculture and transport.
SCIENTISTS are alarmed at new spray-on chemical techniques that could genetically modify crops as they grow and even affect animals and people.
There are fears that, in the wrong hands, the technology could spawn new biological weapons.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) last year approved one such technique in New Zealand, calling it ‘‘leading-edge science’’ that could improve disease resistance in plants.
The technique uses doublestranded ribonucleic acid (dsRNA) to stop some cells from producing certain proteins.
University of Canterbury geneticist Professor Jack Heinemann and Defence Technology Agency scientist Dr Sophie Walker have written of their concerns in the peerreviewed Biosafety and Health journal.
They say they are concerned these uses could result in ‘‘untrackable genetic modifications and global spread, regardless of whether or not the materials are ‘approved’ for use in New Zealand’’.
Heinemann told Sunday News the spray-on pesticide technology was not just for crops and could be on the market as soon as next year.
‘‘It can be used on everything – viruses, bacteria, fungi, plants and animals – and outdoor use could result in everything, even people, being exposed.’’
Until now, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) had been made in laboratories and tested for safety before use in the field.
These new techniques could possibly now be ‘‘done in garages using easily-acquired chemicals, or in an entire field of crops using a drone or airplane’’.
These penetration technologies transferred editing proteins and nucleic acids – DNA, RNA – into the cells of nearly all known organisms including plants, animals and fungi, changing their genes, he said.
‘‘In New Zealand there are millions of undescribed species that could be exposed to this new technology. The genes are ‘targeted’, but may not be unique to a targeted species.
‘‘The types of traits that might be changed go well beyond use as pesticides. They may be used to alter colour or ripening. Consumers may not know what is being altered.’’
Lincoln University Professor of animal breeding and genetics Jonathan Hickford said the worst-case scenario could be the development of new biological weaponry.
‘‘One could envisage a rogue state or ‘bio-terrorist’ group engineering a dsRNA construct that is harmful to an economically important plant or plants, such as rice, wheat or potatoes, and that could spread unchecked.
‘‘Unlike other microbiological weapons – for example, anthrax – where the target is humans directly, and the producer of the weapon is also at risk, these things might be safe for humans to handle, easy to manipulate, easy to multiply, and easy to distribute and apply.
‘‘While biological weapons are covered by a UN convention, the 1975 agreement probably didn’t envisage a technology of this kind some 45 years down the track,’’ Hickford said.
California State University professor of environmental studies Wayne Linklater said the technologies and their uses were ‘‘advancing faster than is our understanding of their consequences’’.
The precautionary principle should be followed but was not, as ‘‘large economic interests’’ in the technologies were
‘‘dictating terms and railroading their use’’.
‘‘As scientists, we have a moral obligation to speak to the substantial uncertainties about
‘We need clear regulations to enable a focus on the balance of benefits and hazards for each individual application.’ PROFESSOR JULIET GERRARD