19 Jun 2013
Fonterra's fracked milk
Today, the Taranaki Daily News reported:
May contain? Does contain more like. Not only does fracking waste contain a number of highly toxic chemicals, some of which are known to cause cancer, it also contains Radium 226, often well above safe levels.
The fact that this hazardous practice was allowed to occur in New Zealand at all is astounding!
Thankfully Fonterra have finally realised that accepting milk from any new landfarms will be detrimental to their clean and green image, something the dairy industry relies heavily upon for much of its profits from overseas markets.
Let's hope they also decide to stop accepting milk from the existing six landfarms. With most countries not having a bar of it, surely having any contaminated milk product because of landfarming will be detrimental to Fonterra's bottom line.
Pity it's just a perception, not a reality. With Fonterra being associated with the Chinese melamine scandal in 2008 and growth hormone scandal in 2010 plus the more recent contamination from soil-treatment product DCD found in 371 New Zealand milk samples, a safe and clean dairy industry is clearly not happening.
Unfortunately milk produced in New Zealand isn't being tested for Radium 226 at all. Fonterra is talking about testing for other toxins and Cesium 137, which is a requirement by most of our main overseas markets. With the milk and farms themselves not being tested for Radium 226, there can be no real assurance that consumer’s health isn't being put at risk.
There's no scientific information to show that landfarming "improves coastal sandy soils" or is in fact safe, and a number of reports from overseas that show it isn't safe and has adversely affected people's health. That's why many countries have moved to ban the practice outright.
Being that the Taranaki Regional Council consists mainly of people associated with the oil and gas industry, we should be sceptical about anything they claim.
In my opinion, any potential threat to people's health through contaminated milk products should be eliminated, and therefore landfarming and likewise fracking in general should be halted forthwith. The potential adverse affects clearly don’t outweigh the benefits.
Dairy giant Fonterra will not collect milk from any new landfarms.
Taranaki has a number of landfarms where oil and gas drilling waste is stored in pits and then spread over paddocks.
The practice has attracted critics who claim the landfarms may contain toxins in the soil that could have an effect on the milk produced by cows that graze on the grass.
May contain? Does contain more like. Not only does fracking waste contain a number of highly toxic chemicals, some of which are known to cause cancer, it also contains Radium 226, often well above safe levels.
The fact that this hazardous practice was allowed to occur in New Zealand at all is astounding!
Fonterra already accepts milk from six farms but has said no more will be taken on, Radio New Zealand reported this morning.
Thankfully Fonterra have finally realised that accepting milk from any new landfarms will be detrimental to their clean and green image, something the dairy industry relies heavily upon for much of its profits from overseas markets.
Let's hope they also decide to stop accepting milk from the existing six landfarms. With most countries not having a bar of it, surely having any contaminated milk product because of landfarming will be detrimental to Fonterra's bottom line.
The company said the cost of testing the milk is too expensive at about $80,000 per year, and the need to have a public perception of a safe clean dairy industry was also taken into consideration.
Pity it's just a perception, not a reality. With Fonterra being associated with the Chinese melamine scandal in 2008 and growth hormone scandal in 2010 plus the more recent contamination from soil-treatment product DCD found in 371 New Zealand milk samples, a safe and clean dairy industry is clearly not happening.
Unfortunately milk produced in New Zealand isn't being tested for Radium 226 at all. Fonterra is talking about testing for other toxins and Cesium 137, which is a requirement by most of our main overseas markets. With the milk and farms themselves not being tested for Radium 226, there can be no real assurance that consumer’s health isn't being put at risk.
The Taranaki Regional Council says landfarming is safe and has no environmental effect except to improve coastal sandy soils for productive farming.
But they admit there is limited information to inform their decisions.
There's no scientific information to show that landfarming "improves coastal sandy soils" or is in fact safe, and a number of reports from overseas that show it isn't safe and has adversely affected people's health. That's why many countries have moved to ban the practice outright.
Being that the Taranaki Regional Council consists mainly of people associated with the oil and gas industry, we should be sceptical about anything they claim.
In my opinion, any potential threat to people's health through contaminated milk products should be eliminated, and therefore landfarming and likewise fracking in general should be halted forthwith. The potential adverse affects clearly don’t outweigh the benefits.
 |
| Fracking waste leaching from BTW's Browns Road landfarm in Taranaki - June 2013. |
18 Jun 2013
Family First wrong
Yesterday, Voxy reported:
Actually, the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (PDF) is likely to be the main reason children requiring the care of the Chief Executive reduced by 18 per cent (from 6136 cases to 5020) between 2008 and 2011. Likewise, children being placed in CYF's care reduced by 14 per cent (from 4522 placements to 3885) in the same time period.
The amendment came into effect in June 2007, and the only plausible explanation for such a dramatic reduction is that the law change has in fact worked.
On Monday, the Prime Minster was interviewed on Breakfast TV about the issue:
If Key's figures are correct, it's astounding that there's been such a huge increase of children requiring the states assistance. From 5020 in 2011 to "about 6000" in 2012 is an astronomical jump in just one year. So what's the reason for this increase?
Thankfully Mandatory reporting for Police and DHB's was implemented in 2009, so we would expect to see an increase in children being placed in care in the following two years if there was previously widespread underreporting.
Personally I think Key and Family First are both wrong! For Key to be correct, underreporting would have to be extensive, which is clearly not the case. The conservative Christian group is simply wrong! There has been four years of steady decline in severe cases of abuse requiring the states intervention since the law was amended.
In my opinion, that initial decline in children being referred to CYF's care because of the law change has now been surpassed by the degradation the neoliberal agenda has caused society. With reduced wages, less services and a harsher welfare regime, more people are stressed, and this sometimes results in them taking it out on their children.
It would help the debate immensely if those concerned with the welfare of children got their facts straight. With approximately 15 per cent of children in New Zealand at risk of abuse, and over 80,000 children witnessing family violence each year, this is something we simply cannot get wrong.
Family First NZ says that six years since the anti-smacking law was passed in a supposed effort to lower our child abuse rates, it has been confirmed as a spectacular failure based on flawed ideology.
Actually, the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 (PDF) is likely to be the main reason children requiring the care of the Chief Executive reduced by 18 per cent (from 6136 cases to 5020) between 2008 and 2011. Likewise, children being placed in CYF's care reduced by 14 per cent (from 4522 placements to 3885) in the same time period.
The amendment came into effect in June 2007, and the only plausible explanation for such a dramatic reduction is that the law change has in fact worked.
On Monday, the Prime Minster was interviewed on Breakfast TV about the issue:
But there were about 6000 children who were in um Child Youth and Family care, so essentially looked after by a foster parent or more likely than not last year in which there were 23 cases of abuse. So we do have to say most foster parents do a fantastic job of looking after children, some are not.
If Key's figures are correct, it's astounding that there's been such a huge increase of children requiring the states assistance. From 5020 in 2011 to "about 6000" in 2012 is an astronomical jump in just one year. So what's the reason for this increase?
Family First is also rubbishing claims by Prime Minister John Key that the increased numbers of child abuse simply reflect an increase in reporting.
Thankfully Mandatory reporting for Police and DHB's was implemented in 2009, so we would expect to see an increase in children being placed in care in the following two years if there was previously widespread underreporting.
Personally I think Key and Family First are both wrong! For Key to be correct, underreporting would have to be extensive, which is clearly not the case. The conservative Christian group is simply wrong! There has been four years of steady decline in severe cases of abuse requiring the states intervention since the law was amended.
In my opinion, that initial decline in children being referred to CYF's care because of the law change has now been surpassed by the degradation the neoliberal agenda has caused society. With reduced wages, less services and a harsher welfare regime, more people are stressed, and this sometimes results in them taking it out on their children.It would help the debate immensely if those concerned with the welfare of children got their facts straight. With approximately 15 per cent of children in New Zealand at risk of abuse, and over 80,000 children witnessing family violence each year, this is something we simply cannot get wrong.
17 Jun 2013
Where the buck should stop
Today, the NZ Herald reported:
Considering there's a complete lack of any ministerial accountability, one has to ask the question; do we really need a government at all? If all a Minister of the Crown needs to do is pass the buck down the chain of command in order to save their own hides, then what use are they?
I ask because with big business effectively owning the government, more and more decisions are being made that only benefit the 2 per cent, while the vast majority of people are paying a very high price indeed for a failing system. Clearly the current situation is detrimental to democracy, and verily to society in general as well.
There simply isn’t any progress when Ministers continually make the wrong decisions because it suits their business interests or defunct ideology, and without any consequences for those wrong decisions, how can we hope the current lot of errant Ministers will start making the right decisions instead?
...It is now common practice, when things go wrong, for ministers - not to defend their officials, but to blame them - as a means of avoiding any responsibility themselves.
The most recent and egregious example is the outfall from the Novopay debacle. A process that has created huge damage to an important public sector undertaking - our schools - was monitored and eventually signed off by three ministers; when they put their signatures to the sign-off, they in effect accepted responsibility for what they had decided.
We are now told that they did not know what they were signing because they had been provided with inaccurate information by their officials. The consequence is that the senior officials involved have been hung out to dry; two have departed (the second under threat of an investigation) and the pressure is mounting against the third.
The ministers sail on unchallenged and unaffected. It was not, it seems, anything to do with them. In this, they are following an unfortunate precedent set - among others - by Murray McCully.
Considering there's a complete lack of any ministerial accountability, one has to ask the question; do we really need a government at all? If all a Minister of the Crown needs to do is pass the buck down the chain of command in order to save their own hides, then what use are they?
I ask because with big business effectively owning the government, more and more decisions are being made that only benefit the 2 per cent, while the vast majority of people are paying a very high price indeed for a failing system. Clearly the current situation is detrimental to democracy, and verily to society in general as well.
There simply isn’t any progress when Ministers continually make the wrong decisions because it suits their business interests or defunct ideology, and without any consequences for those wrong decisions, how can we hope the current lot of errant Ministers will start making the right decisions instead?