Butter Should Be Cheaper in New Zealand

In New Zealand, the land of dairy abundance, the price of butter has become a bitter pill for Kiwis to swallow. A 500g block now costs an arm and a leg, a staggering 46.5% increase in the year to June 2025 and a jaw-dropping 120% higher than a decade ago. The stats are even worse when you compare the April 2024 with April 2025 prices, a 65.3% increase. For a nation that produces a third of the world’s trade in dairy products, this is nothing short of scandalous.

The National-led coalition, under Chris Luxon and Finance Minister Nicola Willis, has failed to address the cost of living crisis, with the price of butter in particular an affront to household budgets, instead offering hollow platitudes and tax tricks while the ability of voters to purchase basic necessities worsens. It’s time to demand real relief, starting with making butter affordable again.


On August 6, Stuff reported:

 

Global butter prices have dropped by 3.7%, this is what it means for us

The Global Dairy Trade (GDT) revealed that butter prices had dropped 3.8%, but what does that mean for shoppers?

Butter prices are up around 47% annually in the past year according to Stats NZ, with the average price of 500g sitting upwards of $8.

A tub of butter worth a whopping $18.29 was even spotted at an Auckland supermarket in early July.

Brad Olsen, Chief Executive and Principal Economist of Infometrics, said butter prices dropped or held steady during the last three GDT auctions, declining around 8.6% since the second half of June.

So if global prices have fallen, will we start to see cheaper butter?

Nowhere, not immediately at least.

New Zealand’s dairy industry, led by Fonterra, is a global powerhouse, yet ordinary Kiwis are paying international prices or higher for a staple produced in their own backyard. Export parity pricing means we’re hostage to global market rates, driven by demand from China and the Middle East, despite our five million dairy cows grazing local pastures and polluting local rivers. We're paying a premium to ship our own dairy products abroad.

This system prioritises Fonterra’s yearly NZ$22.82 billion revenue over the needs of New Zealanders struggling to afford the basics.

Nicola Willis, whose past ties to Fonterra as a senior manager raises questions, has become conspicuously silent on challenging this dishonest pricing model. Her refusal to consider a fairer two-tiered system, where domestic consumers pay less than export markets, smacks of loyalty to corporate interests over constituents, and flies in the face of their pre-election promises.

Willis’ claim that supermarkets, not Fonterra, set retail prices dodges the core issue: a lack of competition in the grocery sector, dominated by Foodstuffs and Woolworths, allows unchecked margins to inflate costs further. But all we get from the coalition of chaos is promises of doing something, not any real quantifiable action.

The National-led coalition’s broader economic mismanagement has only worsened the cost-of-living crisis. Luxon’s repetitive mantra, “people are doing it tough,” rings hollow when paired with policies that fail to deliver any tangible relief. Two-thirds of New Zealanders, according to ConsumerNZ, have low confidence in this government’s ability to tackle the affordability of basic necessities...and they're not wrong.

Removing GST from dairy, as some have suggested, was dismissed by Willis due to a supposed $3.3bn–$3.9bn revenue hit, an excuse that prioritises fiscal optics over struggling families, struggling families that will still spend any savings from cheaper butter on other basic necessities. In effect there's no net loss for the government in making butter prices cheaper for consumers, raising a valid question about whom exactly Nicola Willis serves?

The coalition’s tax cuts, touted as relief, have done nothing for low-income households facing skyrocketing prices for essentials like butter, which isn't just a spread but a cultural staple in Kiwi baking and cooking.

In a country that produces enough food to feed 40 million people, no one should be going hungry. Yet 500,000 New Zealanders are accessing food banks or food support services each month, indicating a complete failure by the current system to distribute the nations wealth equitably. Impoverished kids, people the Prime Minister views as "bottom feeders," cannot simply make a Marmite sandwich when their school lunches are inedible if there's no butter in the house, Mr Luxon.

Small businesses, like Kayes Bakery in Southland, are being crushed, forced to import cheaper Australian butter or raise prices, risking declining revenues and closure. This irony, importing butter into a dairy nation, highlights the absurdity of the status quo, and the absurdity of National's neoliberal policies that ensure many New Zealanders miss out.

Consumers are resorting to desperate measures, from driving hours to Costco to churning butter at home, reflecting a deep frustration with a system that feels entirely rigged.

Then there's the environmental cost of intensive dairy farming (polluted rivers, cancer causing aquifers and increased climate emissions) adding insult to injury, as Kiwis pay a premium while bearing the ecological fallout and costs.

The high butter prices aren't helping to pay for the cleanup. Instead, they're effectively subsidising the dairy industry’s massive profits and increased farmer payouts, which aren’t being spent in the struggling economy. Instead, much of these profits service debt, which only enriches foreign-owned banks.

Luxon’s rhetoric and Willis’s inaction are emblematic of a government out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders. We need bold action: regulate supermarket margins, explore domestic price controls, remove GST off of essential items and challenge Fonterra’s export-driven model that is turning New Zealand into a wasteland, all while providing dairy products only the wealthy and sorted can afford.

Willis’s Fonterra connections demand scrutiny...her reluctance to confront the dairy giant suggests a conflict of interest that undermines public trust. But the crux of the matter is that butter should be cheaper in New Zealand, not just for affordability but as a matter of fairness in a dairy-rich nation.

Who is Katherine Rich?

Today, Whaledump released yet more communications that prove there's a right wing conspiracy to undermine our democracy. This latest release of messages between Cameron Slater and Carrick Graham showing that they were likely working with Nestle and Fonterra also mention somebody called Katherine Rich.

Here's the Whaledump tweet that should end Katherine Rich's career in New Zealand:

Katherine Rich http://t.co/QGCbDNSx22
— Whaledump (@whaledump) September 3, 2014

Who is Katherine Rich you might ask?  Well, Katherine Rich is a former National party MP and now turned chief executive of the New Zealand Food & Grocery Council, an industry lobby group that promotes unhealthy products that have been shown to cause widespread ill-health effects in the general population.

Strangely enough, Katherine Rich also published an article today:

For any type of business negotiation to be successful there has to be a degree of trust and respect – trust that the person on other side of the table is playing with a straight bat, and respect for the position they represent.

That's a bit rich coming from somebody like her. She also blathers on about how negotiations should be fair, courteous and respectful. Talk about a complete hypocrite!

What entirely contradicts her bullshit claims in her article today is that she was and most likely still is using Cameron Slater and Carrick Graham to secretly attack people who don't share there misguided belief in the free market, a belief that has caused this great country vast amounts of economic and social damage.

Here's one such discussion between Katherine Rich, Slater and Graham showing them conspiring to undermine Generation Zero, which is a group determined to cut New Zealand's carbon pollution through smarter transport, liveable cities and independence from fossil fuels:

Slater and Graham often talk about their smear campaigns as if they were some sort of mafia hit men. In fact it's too disgusting to repeat what Cameron Slater wrote to describe Labour MP Damien O'Connor after it was initially reported that there was E coli in Fonterra's dairy products.

I believe what Slater's overreaction shows is that Fonterra, like Nestle, were employing the attack bloggers to run smear campaigns against anybody who might help their clients to dodge any investigations into their questionable business practices. They were clearly campaigning for less regulation and being paid handsomely for their services.

Here's how Wikipedia sums up Katherine Rich's involvement:

Emails leaked to political writer Nicky Hager indicate that Rich, in her role as Chief Executive of the Food & Grocery Council, has while on the board of the Health Promotion Agency (a Crown entity) fed prominent blogger, Cameron Slater, with posts that denigrate individuals in academia and the media who report on news or support health initiatives inimical to the interests of the food, alcohol, tobacco and soft drink industries. The posts have been published as if by Slater himself on his blog Whale Oil Beef Hooked as recently as February 2014.

I would suggest that an in-depth inquiry needs to look at exactly who was writing the numerous attack posts on Whale Oil Beef Hooked, who was paying for such defamatory material to be published under Cameron Slaters' name and who else was conspiring to undermine our democracy. Because without that, we should be be banning these companies outright.

Radioactive Fonterra

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Fonterra has been forced to defend its brand once again amid fresh claims milk powder from the company, being sold in Sri Lanka, had been contaminated with radioactive chemicals.

Radioactive chemicals in our dairy products…how on earth did that happen? The only way I can think of for radioactive chemicals to contaminate milk products in New Zealand is from the landfarming that is occurring all around the Taranaki region.

Landfarming is the quaint name given to the practice of disposing waste from the hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells, contaminated with hydrocarbons, chemicals, heavy metals and quite often radioactive particles, by spreading it onto land where cows graze.

In light of this recent development, I would also like to know why two government officials from the Ministry of Primary Industries travelled to Sri Lanka earlier this year to try to make their Atomic Energy Authority stop testing New Zealand milk powder samples for radiation?

In May 2013, the Sri Lankan Sunday Times reported:

A Government Minister has warned Sri Lankans against the use of imported milk powder while New Zealand, the largest supplier, has mounted pressure to halt an inquiry by the Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) over alleged radioactive contamination. The warning came from Agriculture Minister Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena who told Parliament on Friday that imported milk powder from New Zealand should be avoided until conclusive studies were done about the harmful effects.

Those conclusive studies have obviously come back positive and show radioactive chemicals in Fonterra's milk powder. Talk about 100% pure down the drain.

Reports that chemicals used to spray grass in New Zealand get transferred to the milk are troubling and had to be taken seriously, he said. Minister Abeywardena warned that it could exacerbate the chronic kidney diseases. Atomic Energy Authority Chairman Dr. Ranjith Laxman Wijayawardena told the Sunday Times that New Zealand authorities recently asked the AEA to suspend tests being conducted on random samples of milk powder.

He revealed that two officers of the New Zealand’s Small Industries Ministry recently visited Sri Lanka and met AEA officials and requested the suspension of tests for radiation in New Zealand milk powder. But he said that instructions have been issued to continue radiation tests.

Dr. Wijayawardana vowed that the AEA would not bow to any such foreign pressure when carrying out its duties.

It's just as well Sri Lanka did continue to test for radiation in milk products from New Zealand, because those tests have now come back positive and at levels that are not allowable under Sri Lankan regulations. Sri Lanka has quite rightly moved to halt all imports of milk powder from New Zealand.

According to Sri Lankan regulations, the maximum radioactivity level allowed is 20 Bq/kg for milk food and 100 Bq/kg for other food items. This is laid down in a 1969 act of parliament and in a Gazette notification issued in 1995. Bq is the measurement of radiation in food items.

Why exactly government officials have pressured Sri Lanka's Atomic Energy Authority to stop testing for radiation in New Zealand milk products just before those tests proved positive is a question that must be answered?

It appears that the government knew that Fonterra's milk powder was contaminated with radioactive chemicals and instead of informing their markets, which could include domestic sales; they have tried to bully our fifth largest export market for milk products into silence.

This isn't just a cover-up of huge and despicable proportions; this makes the government liable under various international product safety laws.

If the melamine, DCD and botulism contamination wasn’t enough to get a few heads rolling, the radioactive chemicals in Fonterra milk powder damn well should be. It’s time to get rid of these evil bastards!

UPDATE: The NZ Herald has edited the first paragraph of the article Fonterra powder recalled in Sri Lanka to remove the part highlighting that Fonterra's milk powder sold in Sri Lanka had been contaminated with radioactive chemicals. However there is no mention of an update on the article.

I presume this has occurred because government officials have pressured the NZ Herald to remove that information from their website. There has been no apology or retraction published thus far in the print edition. Here's a link to the original article. Unfortunately for them, the internet never forgets.

Citizen A with Chris Trotter & Selwyn Manning

Russel Norman vs John Key

100% Pure festering sore

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

China's state-run news agency has delivered a sharp critique of New Zealand in the wake of Fonterra's contamination crisis, describing this country's 100 per cent Pure tourism campaign as a "festering sore" and saying free market ideology resulted in Kiwi homes becoming damp, leaky and uninhabitable.

Clearly the 100% Pure marketing campaign is aspirational at best. With 61% of our waterways being too polluted to even swim in, mainly due to farm runoff, the government simply cannot keep promoting New Zealand in such an obviously dishonest way.

John Key even acknowledged that the 100% Pure brand isn't real when in April this year he compared it to McDonald's "I'm Loving it". Clearly such slogans should be taken with a 'pinch of salt'. However, it is doubtful that the Prime Minister will ever admit that the leaky building debacle was caused by free market ideology...similar ideology to that being once again argued for by National. They want to open up more land and reduce the consent process for new housing projects, measures that will only benefit the developers. The end goal is to make even more money while the public is left with an inferior and in many cases dangerous product.

It's little wonder then that other countries are noticing the failure of New Zealand's capitalist system. Governments in places like China clearly don't see any distinction between Fonterra and our current government, and quite rightly so. Deregulation and a lack of safety checks is likely to blame for this latest failure, a failure that will cost New Zealand millions if not billions of dollars in lost trade.

In an editorial article published on a number of major Chinese news websites overnight, Xinhua says the time has come to ask the New Zealand Government, "Where is the quality control?"

The news agency, regarded as a mouthpiece of China's Government, says this country's food safety problems are not "mere details" - they are beginning to look systemic.

"One could argue the country is hostage to a blinkered devotion to laissez-faire market ideology. Many New Zealanders fell victim to this when the construction industry was deregulated two decades ago resulting in damp and leaky homes that quickly became uninhabitable," Xinhua said.

"While it's true the government isn't responsible for the contamination of Fonterra produce, it should be held accountable for the fact that nothing was done to identify the problem before it was dispatched to export markets and domestic customers."

With the previous Melamine and DCD contamination problems which were both similarly badly handled by Fonterra, no wonder the Chinese government perceives there to be serious endemic faults with our deregulated system. The main issue here is why has it taken so long for Fonterra to inform the public about the potential for botulism in their baby products? Also, why haven't the authorities managed to properly inform the public about what products are likely contaminated?

In light of this more recent failure, Russia and China halting all imports of New Zealand made dairy products is justified. However, Tim Groser isn't saying this because he accepts there to be widespread issues with our system and its oversight. He doesn't care that the proper tests are lacking. The Minister of Trade along with John Key only cares about trying to quieten the latest round of discontent from our export markets. It is pretty obvious that National has no long-term plan to increase safety and it won't be until we have a change in government that any progressive and positive change is implemented.

So, how exactly will New Zealand repair the damage caused by a lack of proper regulations and how will we diversify our production base to create a more robust economy? Simply swapping brands isn't going to fix anything...because it's the New Zealand brand that is now tainted.

Firstly, we must ensure that appropriate regulations are implemented as soon as possible. These regulations must ensure that the proper checks and balances are in place to reduce the risk of further contamination occurring. New Zealand must also diversify into cleaner and greener production techniques that don't have such a serious detrimental impact. One industry springs to mind, organics. Reducing the amount of chemicals used will reduce the risk of contamination and also mean our 100% Pure branding actually stands for something. Because at the moment, under this failed National government, it effectively means nothing!

Time to sack Fonterra

Today, the NZ Herald reported:

Authorities have recalled up to 1000 tonnes of dairy products across this country and seven others after Fonterra announced tests had found a bacterium that could cause botulism.

The Ministry of Primary Industries said the tainted products included infant formula, sports drinks, protein drinks and other beverages. Countries affected beside New Zealand included China, Australia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia.

The botulism bacteria scare is likely to cause "sheer, absolute panic" in China as the news filters through the world's second biggest economy, says a Kiwi involved in the dairy trade.

Gregg Wycherley, managing director of Auckland baby milk brand Fresco Nutrition, said he anticipates "wholesale removal of New Zealand infant formula off Chinese supermarket shelves" by tomorrow morning.

The New Zealand Dairy industry was only just recovering from a severe drought, so this is really bad news for the sector.

Couple this latest botulism scare with the 2008 melamine scandal that killed far more infants than China disclosed, a terrible case of corporate manslaughter that Fonterra was implicated in, and there's no doubt that our clean and green image in terms of dairy products has been badly damaged.

There was also the DCD contamination and the radioactive milk scare earlier this year, whereby Sri Lanka’s Atomic Energy Authority was pressured by New Zealand officials to suspend testing milk powder for radionuclides. In light of these events, the public is clearly justified in having serious concerns about the safety of milk products produced in New Zealand.

The lesson to learn here is to not have all your eggs in one basket. New Zealand must diversify its production base away from dairying to provide better economic security. Not only will this help to repair some of the environmental damage caused by an improperly regulated industry, it will also mean our exporting income is resilient and can handle any future changes in worldwide markets.

In the meantime, the idiots over at Fonterra who've allowed these multiple milk contaminations to occur should be sacked. In fact let's just sack Fonterra altogether. The so-called cooperative clearly isn't working in the best interest of farmers, the general public or our export markets. It's time for a change.

Fonterra's fracked milk

Today, the Taranaki Daily News reported:

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.

The cost of climate change

I happened to watch the Late Show with David Letterman last night. It was somewhat subdued compared to their usual exuberance and energy, mainly because there was no audience and the super-storm Sandy had just ripped the heart out of the United States.

It was interesting to see the issue of climate change being raised by the entertainer, being that on the whole it hasn't been reported on. Unfortunately Letterman's guest did not do well in explaining the link between Sandy and climate change. In fact he looked decidedly nervous in even broaching the subject.

By now, most people would have heard that climate change is resulting in more extreme weather events such as increased drought and flooding in areas that are already prone to such phenomena. Climate change is exacerbating the problem, and making storms like Sandy far worse than they would normally be. There is no doubt that the oceans have warmed, which is one of the main driving factors in storms. Sandy had another driving factor, there has recently been unprecedented Arctic ice melting, far greater than scientists previously anticipated.

Despite the United States recently suffering from another devastating storm in the form of hurricane Katrina, which occurred just seven years ago, some people are still claiming that hurricane Sandy is a once in a hundred year storm. This might work to delude people who can't remember what they were doing yesterday, but it won't work on most people. Perhaps after Sandy we can expect a change in policy direction from the United States' administration concerning their over-reliance on fossil fuels. With such devastation, how can they honestly ignore the main cause of Sandy's power?

The same can be said for the New Zealand government... What kind of moron ignores such hugely damaging events and the fact that they're undeniably linked to manmade climate change? What kind of devastating event will it take before the New Zealand government wakes up and changes our economy so that it's clean and sustainable? New Zealand is better placed to reduce GHG emissions than most other countries, and yet we are failing to do so.

Today, the Ministry for the Environment reported:

In 1990, New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions were 59,797.2 Gg carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e). In 2010, total greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 11,860.0 Gg CO2-e (19.8 per cent) to 71,657.2 Gg CO2-e. The four emission sources that contributed the most to this increase in total emissions were road transport, dairy enteric fermentation, agricultural soils, and public electricity and heat production.

New Zealands failure to reduce GHG emissions is one of the main reasons National is throwing in the towel concerning the Kyoto protocol. The issue is that to reduce emissions would mean putting a limit on dairying and using less fossil fuels while many National MP's have personal vested interests in promoting farming intensification and further oil and gas exploration. This essentially means that nothing will change while they're in power because they're selfishly putting their own investments ahead of the common good.

Just like the United States' presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, National is tactically avoided discussing the importance of climate change and the environment. They are also trying their best to inhibit the mainstream media from having that all-important discussion as well.

Unfortunately New Zealand is entirely unprepared for a storm of Sandy's magnitude. Most of our townships and cities are situated in areas close to the sea where flooding and tidal surges are a distinct possibility. Our isolated provinces would be left to their own devices because of slips and broken bridges. Indefinite power cuts would occur because most of our power generation is distanced from the consumer and much of our infrastructure is old and prone to damage. This would have a devastating effect on our economy. That's before we even talk about the cost of repairing things when we can least afford it.

All of these costs would soon add up to be far greater than the income the government hopes to achieve from further dairy intensification and increased drilling for fossil fuels, both of which will increase our GHG emissions. National is gambling with our future in a game they will surely lose. Unfortunately we are all going to lose along with them as a consequence of their stupidity. It's not if a storm like Sandy wreaks havoc across New Zealand, because of a failure to reduce GHG emissions, it's when?

Click image to enlarge

National ignores democracy

Yesterday, Stuff reported:

The release of confidential documents has for the first time shed light on reasons behind the Government's reluctance to restore full democracy to Canterbury regional politics.

The Government suspended democracy and restricted legal action in Canterbury to protect an agriculture boom potentially worth more than $5 billion to the national economy, documents reveal.

It feared the economic boom promised by Canterbury irrigation could be in jeopardy unless Environment Canterbury (ECan) was "stable, effective and efficient", says a Government report on August 27.

Despicable! National have got rid of the democratically elected council because they were more likely to adhere to the laws that protect the environment.

As an excuse for removing the council the Minister for Primary Industries said the council was ineffective, had lost the confidence of its community, including every one of its 10 mayors. David Carter also said the council had put at risk the region’s prospects for economic growth. What a load of rubbish!

Without that democratically elected oversight, the tax-evading farmers will install their huge irrigation systems with no concern for the environmental impact and the public will have no way of holding the polluters to account.

Being that farms are generally privately owned businesses, this is a direct attack on the people's democratic rights to have a say in how the country is being run. If there's no dully elected oversight in how the irrigation systems operate, there will be an increase in effluent discharge and therefore more pollution in our already polluted waterways.

52% of monitored recreational sites are already unsafe to swim in.

A Government document, disclosed to The Press under the Official Information Act, reveals that this needs to be continued because there is a "strong risk" people could revert to appealing to the Environment Court.

It's interesting that National view the already weakened laws and often-ineffectual Environment Court that sometimes fails to safeguard the environment for future generations as a threat to their commercial interests. They seem completely oblivious to the fact that in the long run not protecting our environment will be far more costly.

There is no doubt that Nationals environmentally naïve policy direction will not only be detrimental to our clean and green branding, but our Kiwi way of life as well. Clearly the farmers and their political party are only interested in the commercialization of nature.

It also shows that Nationals talk of cleaning up our waterways is entirely meaningless. In fact it appears that they have no consideration for the environment at all. They're also willing to forego democracy in order to further their private interests in the farming industry. What a bunch of fascists!

In my opinion, a few farmers becoming wealthier is no reason to forego our democratic process... It's also no reason to increase the pollution in our waterways either.

Fonterra environmental bullies

On Saturday, the Manawatu Standard reported:

Emotions have run high at the Fonterra Pahiatua plant's discharge consent hearing, with one submitter breaking down in tears as he told how he had seen the Mangatainoka River decline over his lifetime.

Fonterra wants to discharge 2250 cubic metres of condensate into the Mangatainoka River for the next 22 years.

They're actually wanting resource consent to discharge 2,250 cubic metres per day (2,250 m3/day), so that works out to be 17.6 million cubic metres in 22 years, which is a shit load.

It currently discharges into the Brechin Stream, which flows into the Mangatainoka, but is asking at a hearing in Palmerston North for permission to discharge directly into the river.

The water in the Brechin Stream, considered a valuable trout spawning area, is degraded with sewage fungus caused by the current discharge.

Fonterra said the discharge would have less effect on the environment if it had the larger mixing area of the river. Horizons Regional Council environmental scientist Logan Brown stated in his evidence to the hearing yesterday that the fungus prevented fish from laying eggs.

Pahiatua resident and submitter Ross Gillespie said he had watched trout numbers dwindle in the stream for many years. He remembered watching multitudes of juvenile fish swimming through the water when he was a child.

"You're lucky to find any now," said Mr Gillespie, before breaking down in tears. Corina Jordon, environmental officer with Wellington Fish and Game, said the Mangatainoka River was a significant and popular trout fishery that was affected by pollution and high water takes.

She said the river regularly breached nitrogen, phosphorus and dissolved oxygen limits, all of which affected aquatic life.

I enjoy watching Rural Delivery in the weekends. They've been running stories recently about developments in effluent treatment systems, and this made me hopeful that we might finally see a reduction in the amount of farm pollution going into New Zealand waterways.

That's why it's disappointing to see stories like the one above, as I've also witnessed the degradation of our waterways due to farming, which unfortunately impacts directly on one of my favourite leisure-time activities... Fishing.

But what really gets my goat about this is that the Fonterra Pahiatua consent application (PDF) states that effluent can be discharged when wet weather events make the discharge of condensate to land unsustainable, even if the River is below median flow rate. That means there is no adherence to dilution rates, which will mean more nitrogen, phosphorus, particulate organic matter and dissolved oxygen in the water, and less fish.

The problem here is one of money, whereby the technology is available to reduce if not completely mitigate the environmental damage caused by farming to our waterways (90% of lowland waterways are too polluted to swim in)... it's simply far more cost effective for farmers to just dump cow shit into our fisheries. What a bunch of environmental bullies!