The first is that while I trust the Ministry of Primary Industries’ (MPI) tests in New Zealand, I’m more than a tad cynical about foreign tests and the potential for trading barriers.
MPI wants all honey tested in an approved laboratory, otherwise they won’t grant an export certificate for that consignment. I would have thought that would have been sufficient for the Japanese.
The second issue is to ask if glyphosate in honey is a problem? According to MPI’s food risk assessment manager Andrew Pearson the risk is minimal.
“A five-year-old child who was consuming honey with the default minimum residue level in NZ would need to eat roughly 230kg of honey every day for the rest of their life to reach the World Health Organisation (WHO) acceptable daily intake of glyphosate,” he said.
Much as I like honey, eating 230kg each and every day would be excessive.
Finally, as the Japanese trader pays for their honey on delivery, tying the product up for tests has an adverse effect on the NZ producer.
MPI has conducted tests for glyphosate in honey in both the 2017-18 and 2018-19 seasons. None of the samples of honey available for sale had glyphosate residues above regulatory limits and there were no food safety concerns.
So, what’s the problem?
It is important to recognise that glyphosate is the world’s most popular herbicide. How are you going to get glyphosate-free honey from any reputable first-world country?
The problem for us is that honeybees forage over an area up to three kilometres from their hives, so if you’re wanting to control glyphosate application that’s a lot of country.
The additional issue is you’re not just talking pastoral farming. The forestry sector uses a lot of glyphosate, as do local councils.
Also, as it is available at supermarkets and hardware stores in the city, town or village, people can purchase it as well. It’s everywhere, and rightfully so.
So, the fact is that glyphosate in honey or any other product for that matter isn’t just a pastoral issue, it’s everyone’s.
Federated Farmers spokesperson on arable affairs Colin Hurst told us that the glyphosate traces in honey were a puzzle as bees gather nectar when plants were in flower. If a plant has been sprayed with glyphosate there is no flower because the plant is dead.
There is an additional issue from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, (IARC), who classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” My dictionary defines probably as “likely to be or to happen, but not necessarily so.”
If that’s the best they can do, it isn’t much. It is also contrary to the European Chemicals Agency who said, “All the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as carcinogenic.” The American Environmental Protection Association agreed.
Putting it in further perspective, on the product cancer ratings, alcohol is at one with glyphosate at two, along with frying and red meat, and don’t forget cigarettes that make glyphosate look like a health food by comparison.
So, my view is that although the Japanese are claiming glyphosate is in honey, I don’t believe it is, and if it was, what harm is it? There is absolutely no evidence of harmful concentrations and as analytical methods keep improving, we can measure much smaller concentrations.
What needs to happen is that our government needs to talk to theirs and, if necessary, fly a representative to NZ and show them the reality of our honey industry.
With glyphosate, however, the issues are bigger than just honey.
The carbon footprint of glyphosate cultivation use is a fraction that of mechanical cultivation.
Using glyphosate, you can spray a paddock once with a 30-metre boom, wait for the vegetation to die and then plant your crop. The carbon footprint is minimal as is the nutrient loss.
With mechanical cultivation you must first plough. Your everyday plough has a narrow cut, meaning the CO2 emissions are high. The bigger the cut, the larger the tractor. A farmer then needs to grub a paddock, harrow it and roll it sometimes more than once before sowing. The carbon footprint is many times that of chemical ploughing, so if we’re remotely concerned about global warming, we should be encouraging chemical ploughing using glyphosate.
It is also safe to use and doesn’t readily leach into groundwater.
My strong view is that glyphosate is a vital tool for NZ agricultural production. It is efficient, not harmful and environmentally responsible.
If the Japanese get angst over their accusation of glyphosate residue in honey, I believe we’re better off risking our $68 million honey exports to Japan than the future of our farming and forestry industries.
