COALITION PROMISES:-BUT THERE’S NO HALTING THE CANCEL CULTURE ‘ CULTURAL MARXISM’ RACE BASED POLITICS

The Three Party Coalition made a pledge not to advance policies that seek, ascribe to different rights, responsibilities on the base of Race. (Race Based Politics) That ‘Principles’ will be removed from  legislations . After all the Treaty did not create Principles, neither did it create Partnerships. They pledged that all NZrs are equal before the law. (However the University Law Schools are introducing Te Kanga Maori in January 2025 that will be embedded in all aspects of the laws of NZ). And only Iwi can decide how that plays out in the Courts.

The Three Party Coalition Fast Track Bill, a faster pathway through consent processes for major infrastructure projects and to reinstate Local Boby Petition Rights. Now at Select Committee. Includes recommendations to Local Govt as to those that sit on panels, whether this should proceed or not. Section 3. Schedule 3 of the Fast Track Bill stipulates that up to 4 people can be appointed to the local body panel, specifying that 2 of these position include one being appointed by Local Govt and the other nominated by Iwi Authorities.

Hence  the Three Party Coalition already breaking the pledge, commitment the Three Party Coalition made to the NZ People. Additionally Section 7 (1) outlines the skills needed for panel members, with © specifying ‘An understanding of the Treaty Of Waitangi and its ‘Principles’. (The originality of the Treaty did not create Principles) and (d) An understanding of Tikanga Maori and Matauranga Maori. (Again Race Based Ideology- Fascism)

The Local Govt NZ Website still states “Indicating future partners with Iwi. Building the Principles of Te Tiriti O Waitangi, committing to robust partnerships as grounded in direct collaboration with Iwi. A shared vision for the future where Iwi/Maori, Tikanga, values, perspectives are integral to decision making at all local levels. (Captured by the Iwi Elite). Mana Whenua interests represented by 18 Iwi Tribal Authorities. Auckland Council engaging with Mana Whenua Iwi Tribal affiliations. Voice your point of view, and cancel culture will be sure to be afoot. Being called Racist, the blame & shame game often causes self censorship.

Obviously the Three Party Coalition did not consider Cancel Culture, Censorship which  should have been debated at length, instead they are all captured by Woke Leftist DEI. Diversity Equity & Inclusion. Not included will be excluded. (Cancelled out) Those that oppose Iwi/Maori wards  are called Racist, it works most times, and many times individuals, groups will self censor and will continue to allow a privileged Iwi Elite to do whatever they like, when they like and as often as they like.

Lets look at the so called ‘ Social Justice System’ those that are protected under the NZ Human Rights Umbrella- a minority revolutionary movements, individuals, groups  who are determined that their rights are more justified than the majority of New Zealanders rights. Where does this fit in with the ‘All One People Equal Rights under the Laws of NZ? This can only be described as a tyranny of Human Rights which is a dam right travesty of the Treaty Of Waitangi. The fascist economy of the Iwi Elite. The University Law schools in NZ January 2025 introduce Tikanga Maori, embedding it in every category of the law. Iwi have stated they are the only ones that can advise the Judicial on cases involving Tikanga Maori in the courts of Law.

Parliament makes the laws. One Law for All People why is it that the Three Party Coalition has not stopped this? (Race based judicial system. Identity Politics). Tikanga Maori  will be a compulsory subject in the University of Law, Gary Judd Kings Council fronted the Select Committee opposing this compulsory Tikanga (Law/New October 16th 2024 (https://lawnews.nz/treaty-maori/gary-judd-kc-fronts-up-to-select-committee-to-oppose-compulsory-tikanga/) He referred to this as  Judicial Activism. Advancing the Iwi Political agenda for Law Students. Overstepping constitutional boundaries, saying that Tikanga Maori is the first law of NZ and this has been regarded as such

Gary Judd Kings Council (5th August 2023 NZ CPR https://www.nzcpr.com/tikanga-is-not-law/) Explains why Tikanga cannot be the first law of New Zealand – Because “It is not a law” at all. Judges ought to apply the law as the term used in the judicial oath “to well and truly serve His Majesty… according to law…; and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of New Zealand, without fear or favour, affection or ill will….”  Beliefs and principles of a spiritual nature and a way of life  of some people of our nation  are not law. The way of life for some is not part of the law of the land”

Just because the authors of Tikanga Maori says its law, does not mean its law. Calling tikanga something which patently it is not, not only offends reason but undermines the value of what it actually is. Making a falsehood a fundamental part of the description of its nature is not a good way to ensure its survival. I suspect this will become apparent in the fullness of time. Race Based Politics are alive and well. Parliament make laws not judges. Therefore the Three Party Coalition have  not even discussed this important concern publicly.

The referencing of ‘Treaty Principles’ given that the Coalition pledged to their voters that they would remove them from legislations. Public trust sure goes flying out the window when you see that the Coalition does not intend to remove racial privilege. Section 3 of Schedule 3 of the Bill, and Section 7, part (1) (c) and (d), and part (2) – must be removed from this Bill during the Select Committee process, to ensure the Coalition’s commitment to equal rights for all New Zealanders prevails.

And still LGNZ (Local Government NZ) stance is that Iwi should be key players in Maori Ward decisions. Councils saying they make these decisions based on feedback from their community and Iwi Representatives. Auckland Council has 19 Tribal Iwi Representatives. The Council happily accept rate payers money and Central Govt Funding but who actually calls the shots. (Iwi Decision Making under  Government Governance or should I say Corporate Governance) The LGNZ Website “We see ourselves as partners with Iwi. Building on the Principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, committing to established robust partnerships between local government and Iwi/Maori. To ensure these partnerships are grounded in genuine understanding, respect, collaboration by working closely with Iwi/Hapu/Maori Mana Whenua as we foster a shared vision for a future where Maori Tikanga, values, believes, perspectives are integral to decision making at the local level

What changes? Local Government NZ continue to be captured by the Iwi Elite. LGNZ  boast “We have the highest representation of Iwi/Maori elected members in local government ever” . LGNZ Website 4th April 2023 Complete Overreach by Govt on Maori Wards  as the Coalition Govt is removing decision making from councils mandating polls be run on Maori Wards and constituencies alone.  Is it time for a One Vote a One People instead of a Maori and Non Maori  Electoral Roll, surely that’s racist in itself.

Back to the power of Cancel Culture ‘Censorship’ And this time ‘Opposition to ‘Maori Wards’  referencing RNZ Report dated 8th August 2023 ‘Iwi spokes-person questions if councilors ute was shot at over Maori Wards (https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/524490/iwi-spokesperson-questions-if-councillor-s-ute-was-shot-at-over-maori-wards) New Plymouth councilor Murray Chong said a gun was fired at his ute, indicating it was due to his opposition to Māori wards. He abstained as the council voted to retain its Te Purutanga Mauri Pūmanawa Māori Ward. Said he would not be fronting any resistance to a Maori Ward next year because he feared for his safety

Chong said he could not be 100 percent sure the slug-gun attack on his car was related to the Māori ward issue, but threats to himself, his dog and family members he outlined in council on Tuesday coincided with the earlier debate on Māori Wards. “This is essentially as [current] mayor Neil Holdom acknowledged will become a race debate and it won’t be about who are the best elected members to sit at our council it will get dragged back into this Māori versus the wider community sort of debate which is just unfair.” Student Haka’s for pro Maori Wards. The politicizing of children and young people through the Education System

This is a prime example of Cancel Culture, who gets to say what, and who does not, whom gets cancelled out. Or out of fear cancel themselves out, self censorship. This is the modern day political agenda of leftist wokist aggressive oppressive cancelling people out, destroying another persons freedom to express their opinion. “Just call them Racist”. Shaming and blaming identity politics, cultural Marxism. Critical Race Theory. Subset of Critical Race theory ‘Just Critical Theory’.  Its time for the people of NZ to take the freedom of choose out of the hands of Race Based Politics. Stop the political targeting of Councilors, let the people of New Zealand decide. A One Vote for a One Nation of People. Stop the Cancel Culture Now. Stop the Race based Politics. Stop the Iwi Elite. Stop the money being robbed from Taxpayers, ratepayers pockets that pays for this insane shite that causes division, where democracy no longer exists.

NZ Identity politics causes deep divide in our society in New Zealand. There is this re-tribalism, re-story telling, a reimagining of the historical past that is oppressive, and this is about a self obsessed successive government that have allowed this to happen. Prof., Elizabeth Rata has documented how changes have happened, backed by small political and academic elite that were extremely subversive, threatening democracy, they destroy the system within. She referenced those early days when Maori Sovereignty activists heavily influenced by resistance movement from around the world, where revolutionary strategies were adopted in New Zealand. Their ‘Goal’ being “To Take Back New Zealand” this was outlined in a series of inflammatory articles published in the Feminist Magazine ‘Broadsheet’ in 1982

In those early days, radical Maori Sovereignty activists, heavily influenced by resistance movements from around the world, adopted revolutionary strategies for New Zealand. Their goal, ‘to take back the country’, was outlined in a series of inflammatory articles published in the feminist magazine “Broadsheet” in 1982: The aim of Māori sovereignty is… to redesign this country’s institutions from a Māori point of view… This country belongs to Māori. At this stage there is a clear distinction of whom namely Iwi/Maori whom have their figures in the pie.  O’Regan alleges justice, ownership, descent count regardless of race and ethnicity then why are some tribes more relevant than Maori Identity?  Why chuck it into a tribal pot if a smaller pot can be found? In any case the number of pots seems to expand as time goes on and Sir Tipene may be hoisted on his own petard as new tribes hive off from his own. More and more, though, tribes have been discovering that there is money to be made from resource-rich tribal lands. Clearly, though, some tribes benefit more than others from Tribunal decisions, To involve all those people with Maori ancestry would also result in ‘tribal jockeying for the slice of the pie’. (https://www.postcolonialweb.org/nz/maorijlg10.html)

NO Not ALL People With Maori Ancestry Stir The Same Pot. There are many  people whim identify with their Maori and Non Maori ancestry and others that ignore their Non-Maori Ancestry. Their clothing was basic in the extreme and they lived harsh, crude, brutish and mostly brief lives. Maori  Tribal warfare was brutal, slavery existed yet so many of these academics, politicians, activists choose not to acknowledge the benefits that the Europeans brought to these shores. Do not acknowledge those advances, Christianity, Education, Infrastructure, Laws to stop Tribal Warfare.

This is crazy. I immigrated to NZ in early 1960. My father was offered employment in NZ by way of already working for the same company in England. He was Irish my Mother English. Me- half English, half Irish. My affiliation with Ireland (Dublin) and with England runs through my bloodline. However historically the Irish Women, Girls were taken as slaves by the English and shipped off to the America’s. Where they were sold on the Slave Market. The Black Afro American Slave was of more value that the Irish white slaves. In fact the Black Afro American Slaves were the master of the white Irish slaves. Children born out of the Black American African Slaves and Irish women, girl slaves were worth much more money than both the other prior slaves.

I mention this because I do not pursue revenge, or have any animosity towards my English bloodlines because of what they did to my ancestors in England. After all I have English and Irish blood, I cannot imagine going to war with myself, one part of my bloodline fighting the other part of my bloodline. That’s insane, self destructive. Yet this is happening in New Zealand with certain Iwi/Maori  radicals. This really is insanity.

 

WakeUpNZ

Researcher: Cassie

 

...

Other Blog Posts

OPENING PANDORA’S BOX.. GENE TECHNOLOGY ‘GENE EDITING’ IS STILL IMPRECISE CAN LEAD TO UNDESIRABLE DANGERS.

What is Gene Technology, you may well ask. This is a modern branch of Biotechnology that allows direct modification or the removal of genes, or the transfer of a gene from one species to another (Gene Technology Regulator Australian Govt) New Zealand Ministry Of Primary Industries call it ‘Fit For A Better World’ with economic potential. New breeding techniques, allowing gene editing of plants, animals that create specific changes to the DNA.

NZ Government MPI are in partnership with Nga Pouwhiri Taimatua (The Iwi/ Māori Primary Sector Forum) whom have introduced a plan to support Iwi/Māori Food & Fibre sector describing this as ‘Embracing Change For Prosperity’ (60 Pages PDF 1st December) Post Covid ‘Another of those so called ‘Build Back Better’ For a more sustainable economy, a partnership with Iwi/Maori Industry leading the way forwards to UN Agenda 2030 SDG’s (Global Goals)

The Iwi/Maori Partnership Roadmap ‘Fit For A Better world’ partnership opportunities bringing together actions, opportunities, accelerating transformation that they (Govt MPI and Iwi/Maori Primary Sector Forum) say we ‘the people’ need. This spans all goods, fibre sectors, agriculture, horticulture, fisheries, marine, forestry sectors etc., Includes reducing methane emissions – farming. Iwi redirected existing funding to kick start delivery of this roadmap in two areas. (1) using $11.6 million from the 1 Billion Trees fund (2) Bringing forward $84 million to upscale sustainable Food and Fibre Futures. Further funding will be required.

Already building plans on delivering the roadmap which includes seafood, horticulture and dairy (Described as in response to COVID19) ‘Fit For A Better World’ Action Plan – the partnership between Iwi/Māori Primary Group and MPI Government)

A partnership approach leading to $170 million committed funding over 4 years (2023 report) for climate action joint venture and almost $560 million invested through so called ‘sustainable Food & Fibre Fund). Which was actually launched in 2018, prior to COVID 19. . Fit For A Better World Wananga in Christchurch brought together 100 food & fibre leaders from businesses and science academics, also Iwi/Maori businesses, government & youth as they referred to the ‘collective owners of ‘Fit For A better World’ Partnership Iwi/Maori and MPI Govt. (The Food & Fibre Think Tank conducts, accelerates the development of the food and fibre sector for providing research, strategic insightsm advice to sector participants, industry leaders, Iwi/Maori and other agribusinesses.

One must question- what is the name of this Food & Fibre Think Tank?? Answer is ‘Te Puna Whakaaronui, which has an independent voice but is enabled to provokem inform sectors on technologies, capabilities, resources, regulations, systems for long term resilience and prosperity. There take is ‘The Need for A More Sustainable Global Food System’. Alternative Protein technologies, supplier in food ingredients, demands of global food source. Carbon Capture and biochemicals research into high income markets. Food transformation for lower emissions. Access to capital ‘2030 Is Not Far Away’

Ethical and Moral concern as to ‘how to govern’ Germline editing technologies in the Health Sector. Germline refers to Genetic Modification that can be inherited by an offspring. This raises many ethical questions. (Genetically designed (edited) children have been born in China. One may remember ‘Dolly’ the sheep that was produced by British Scientist (Human Cloning Research 2004) The genetic changes to the population can lead to unforeseen ecological impact. For instance ‘the combatting of Malaria using genes- there is no recall button once used. Intended benefits and unintended risks. The susceptibility to fraud and manipulation

Patent Protection, intellectual property rights and information that is stored behind these patents. (Transparency ? I think NOT). The World Health Org., (UIN) have held meetings, consultations with relevant stakeholders providing recommendations for a one global governance framework (Global Agenda 2030 SDGs) That focuses on International, Regional, National and Local levels. Standards which are described as ‘aspirational, forward looking

Gene Technology editing of genes the ability to manipulate transform properties of cells, the sequence of cells in seeds, plants, animals and even humans. Pushing the frontiers of Science. Gregor Mandel is the father of Genetic Technology in the 1850’s. It is said out of concern that the upside of Gene Technology is promising but we must not ignore the need to seriously consider the downside. The Productivity gaps in Agricultural, disadvantaging small farms, risks to health, contamination of crops, foods and the loss of biodiversity. The creating of opportunities for ‘Use’ and ‘Abuse’. The weighing of opportunistic benefits also mean there still remains serious risks, and these are an urgent challenge.

Let us be aware of UN Agenda 2030 includes two global development goals (SDGs) that references Genetic Technology. Sustainable Development (UN Dept of Economic & Social Affairs ‘DESA’) To enrich policy as they have a strong interest in the Economic analysis and the Policy Division. Big Pharma dominates the Genetic Therapy domain, Australia’s Initiative ‘Gene Technology Health Futures Mission- to enhance data, encouraging Public -Private Stakeholder Partnerships (Klaus Schwab’s baby Multistake-holderism- Govts partnering Corporations). Australian Initiative encouraging government to partner with philanthropists and businesses (corporations) Economic Fascism.

Parliaments first reading in the House 17th December 2024 ‘Gene Technology Bill’ introduced by Judith Collins, calling this a great day for Science. Agreement with Coalition Partners, Restrictive rules have been in place since the 1970’s as she says that she presents a safe enabling regulatory regime. The enabling of NZ’s Biotech ecosystem to deliver solutions to climate change, increasing productivity, advancing health treatments and supporting farmers which she calls an transformative path. Regulating predictability (of the unknowns). The approach will be safe, fair, logical and science based. Collins also states this does not mean we cannot have GE free, however does not mention GE contaminated pollution. She refers to genetically modified apples, fruit and produce.

Where is the public consultation, as this stands to benefit those with invested interests. Where is the published research? What about the unknowns, the uncertainties, unintended consequences, ethical breaches, inadequate information. The exclusion of expertise whom are concerned and are fully knowledgeable about Gene Editing, technologies (https://www.parliament.nz/…/HansDeb_20241217_20241217_32)

It was Te Puna whakaaronui that recommended conversation within Parliament on Gene Technology. The Office of the Prime Ministers Chief Science Advisor ‘The WELL-NZ Report of Genetic Modification this is a reference document produced by Te Puna Whakaaronui, the going Govt and Industry Food & Fibre Sector Think Tank on Gene Technology (Gene Editing) n modern genetic technologies and their regulation in NZ. n 2019 Maui Hudson and colleagues published a research article, Indigenous perspectives on gene editing in Aotearoa New Zealand, that examined how Māori viewed the potential impact of gene editing in the context of their world view.

In 2024 the Biological Heritage National Science Challenge reported on research titled “Genetic Technologies and Our Environment”. This examined the public and Māori perceptions of gene technologies used in the natural environment using deliberative processes. Fundamentally, the introduction of gene technology into the environmental management architecture to be less about the gene technology ‘ gene editing’ , and more about the social, economic and environmental factors.”( https://www.pmcsa.ac.nz/topics/gene-editing/)

In 2019 Minister Parker asked officials to advise him on ‘lower regulatory hurdles to be considered to enable medical used. 2021 Climate Change Commission provided the govt with advice on emissions budgets with submissions proposed for Genetic engineering as an approach to reduce emissions. There appears to be clear evidence that the Dark Side of Gene Technology has been totally ignored’

(ME- This sure makes me think about the COVID Shots-Economical FASCISM)

RESEARCHER: Cassie

WakeUpNZ NOW

...

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE DAM UGLY DARK SIDE OF GENE TECHNOLOGY.

(The Gene Technology Bill reached its 1st reading in Parliament 17th December 2024)

The Gene Technology Bill replaces the Hazardous Substance & New Organisms Act the first reading of this Bill took place on 17th December 2024. The has been much concern about the introduction of this new Bill. The Ministry Of Business, Innovation , Employment MBIE introduced the Bill to Parliament (The House). Which will remove the ‘precaution approach to potentially dangerous untested, unknown Gene Edited products . Some of which will be excluded from relations. Many farmers are concerned about the Gene Technology Bill. We should be highly concerned too.  For many reasons. With the Christmas Holidays, this will shorten, limit consultation on the Gene Therapy Technology Bill as it has now processed to the Health Select Committee. The closing of submissions being 17th February 2025. Because this is of very serious concern as to risks associated with Gene Technology. It appears the benefits have taken the lead over the risks associated with Gene Technology.

The Interchurch Bioethics Council have urged the Select Committee to extend the time lime for submission stating “there is too much at stake for the outcome to be in the hands of politicians or, and those with invested interests. MBIE (Govt) oversee the legislative process, Many gene edited products may be excluded from regulation labelling. Farmers are concerned that there will be no protection plan in place or an economic assessment. This could threaten Farmers livelihoods if ‘genetic pollution escapes through weather conditions such as winds, floods, storms, earth quakes. The question is “Will Insurance Company’s protect farmers. Cover damages, losses, costs)

CBAN has published constant failures in GE plant contamination of non-g e plants. For example ‘Fake Honey’ genetically engineered bacteria contamination of pure honey that’s sold to vegan markets ( Honey Consumers will they be suspicious of whether non gm honey has been contaminated? Benefits also include Risks. NZ is introducing a new Gene Technology Regulator within the EPA (Environmental Protection Authority to oversee safe gene technology). The Bill has introduced a two tier approach to risk management (with different regulatory requirements for each activity)

Some of the risks involved with the use of Gene Technology are:- Generically modified Food can cause allergic reactions. Long term health effects are unknown. GM crops can contaminate organic , non gm crops. There is an increase in the use of chemicals. Gene Therapy there is a risk of negative reactions in the immune system, a risk of targeting the wrong cells. Gene editing is imprecise, to cause undesirable changes to the gene cells. Earlier studies have found gene therapy can have serious effects – health risks eg Toxicity, Inflammation, Cancer. May cause excess immune reactivity to healthy cells that resemble the diseased  cells, causing damage to healthy cells

The MBIE have stated they are updating rules of Gene Technology Regulation to support NZ Scientists in using Gene Therapy, to advance Healthcare and climate change. Judith Collins has said that “The legislation that has banned using Gene Technology outside the Lab for almost 30 years. Now is the time to modernize NZ Laws to unlock the potential of science”. However Gene Technologi is Still Imprecise, can lead to inadvertent & undesirable change to the genome. There are still real concerns about long term safety of gene editing. (Concerns about the Unknown). There are moral and ethical boundaries to consider. Patient Safety. Food safety- security. The livelihoods of farmers. Unintended health consequences. Research on Gene Editing – the  Good, the Bad and the Dam Ugly. In the ‘Light Of Day ‘.. Will Judith Collins or any of the other political cronies point out, share with the Citizens of NZ the ‘Dark Side of Genetic Technology? (I think not)

Genetic Technologies creating opportunities for misuse and abuse.. (May 2019 Frontier Technology Quarterly (https://www.,un.org>publication) PLAYING WITH THE GENES ‘ THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY (United Nations)

WakeUpNZ NOW

Researcher: Cassie

...

GHOST FARMS ON ‘FONTERRA DISCHARGING NITROGEN HEAVY WATER ONTO GHOST FARMS IN NEW ZEALAND ‘AN IMPORTANT READ’

ARTICLE 13th FEBRUARY 2021 RNZ READS AS FOLLOWS:-

FONTERRA PURCHASES FARMS TO LEACH NITRATE HEAVY WATER THATS USED TO CLEAN THEIR FACTORY PLANT- VATS: Fonterra cleared the cows from 16 farms and is using the land to dispose of wastewater, which could be leaching a colourless, tasteless and odourless pollutant into private drinking water supplies. It was on his runs that Neville Ross first noticed cows were slowly disappearing from local farms. In 2017 most of the stock vanished from two farms. A year later they disappeared from a third Cambridge farm. “Some places you realise there’s no animals – at all – for like a year.”

NEVILLE THE POLICE OFFICER:- Neville’s not a farmer, he’s a cop and has been part of Waikato’s police force for 42 years. Despite being a detective sergeant, when the working dairy farms became ghost farms, it didn’t weigh on his mind. All three were owned by Fonterra. If it was a case of cattle-rustling or alien abduction, the multi-national dairy giant would have sounded the alarm. He didn’t know stock was vanishing from other Fonterra farms around New Zealand, or that one day he and his wife Denise may have lingering doubts over his health and whether it was connected to what goes on at the empty properties. You wouldn’t know it to look at him, but Neville’s on sick leave at the moment. Neville’s always been fit, Denise says. He’s competed in triathlons, half Ironmans and he used to bike the 26km between the Cambridge lifestyle block they bought nine years ago and his Hamilton job. He’s never smoked and isn’t a drinker. His healthy lifestyle and current condition seem at odds. “He’s always been incredibly healthy … we’re always wondering why.”

THERE IS NO STOCK ON THIS FARM PURCHASED BY FONTERRA: With a grin, Neville says he’s not sick, but that his brain doesn’t turn on sometimes. Occasionally, while discussing the empty farm down the road, words slither away from him and Denise fills in the gaps. The farm is Buxton Farm and aside from a lack of stock and a smart-looking Fonterra “Dairy is life” sign at the gate which, among other things, warns of wandering stock, it looks like any other farm in the area. There’s plenty of lush looking grass, fences and farm buildings. But it’s not really a farm any more, it’s a tip. Since 1994, Fonterra has been piping wastewater from the nearby Hautapu milk processing plant and dumping it here.

NITROGEN HEAVY WATER AND COW URINE: During peak production periods the Hautapu plant processes about 150 tanker loads of milk and uses between 6000 and 8000 cubic metres of fresh water daily. Some of the water remains fairly clean and is pumped into waterways but the water used to clean the factory’s tanks and pipes contains cleaning products. This water has to go somewhere. In 1968 it was irrigated on just one Fonterra-owned farm, but as milk production grew, and more water was used, more and more properties were irrigated, including Buxton Farm. According to Fonterra, when managed well, wastewater can help grow grass which is used to feed cows and “provides us with a good circular model for nutrient management”. But the reason cows have vanished from the farms is that their urine contains nitrogen. Factory wastewater also contains nitrogen from cleaning products, such as nitric acid used to clean the vats and pipes. Add the nitrogen from the wastewater to the nitrogen from cows’ urine and you get a higher load. What isn’t used by grass can start a slow seeping journey into ground water. Underfoot, and invisibly, this polluted water can move beyond a farm’s fences. Removing cows from the equation means more wastewater can be spread on the land.

A WASTE WATER TRATMENT PLANT ON THE PROPERTY: These sorts of farms, where stock is removed and the grass is cut and carted elsewhere as feed, are referred to as ‘cut and carry’ farms. Fonterra says 16 farms it has consents to spread wastewater on are predominately cow-free, cut and carry farms – or as it puts it – farms whose primary use is “nutrient management”. For a long time, neither Neville or Denise knew Buxton Farm was used to soak up wastewater from the local dairy plant. After all, it looks just like any other farm. It wasn’t until last year they finally discovered what Fonterra was doing at Buxton Farm, after the community fought Fonterra’s proposal to build a wastewater treatment plant on the property.

The prospect of an industrial plant with huge ponds in the rural setting didn’t go down well with the locals, who felt it might be better located in industrial-zoned land closer to the Hautapu factory. Fonterra has since withdrawn the proposal and is investigating other locations for the plant, but before the U-turn, locals organised community testing of bores close to the farm to see what condition their water was in. That was the first Neville and Denise realised there could be problems with their water. When they first moved onto the property in 2010 while Neville was building their house, they both drank bore water. When construction was complete, Denise switched to drinking rainwater but Neville didn’t; he thought the bore water tasted better.

Fonterra had been testing the bore water of some locals, although there had been an 18-month wait to have results sent to them. The company never offered to test Denise and Neville’s water because Fonterra thought the flow of ground water from Buxton Farm went north and the Ross’s farm lay to the west. So, it was 10 years before the couple got their first test results. “We got our tests back at that stage at 11.9, which was really high. I still had no idea about what that meant.”

HEAVY NITRATE IN DRINKING WATER:- You can’t see the nitrate-nitrogen. It’s colourless, odourless and tasteless and it can’t be boiled away – in fact boiling will only concentrate the levels. The amount allowed in drinking water in New Zealand is 11.3 milligrams per litre (mg/L). It’s a level suggested by the World Health Organisation to avoid ‘blue baby syndrome’, a fatal condition caused by consuming too much nitrate during pregnancy, or via bottle feeding. The nitrate reduces the ability of red blood cells to release oxygen to tissues. Putting it simply, it can suffocate a baby, turning them blue. There’s only been one fatal instance recorded in New Zealand but it’s a health concern taken seriously in parts of Canterbury. Midwives there advise people living in areas known to have high levels of nitrates to get their bore water tested and to use bottled water during pregnancy and for bottle feeding if results show a high level. However, another potential health risk has emerged. Some studies have shown a significant association between nitrates (at levels as low as 0.87mg/L) in drinking water and colorectal cancer.

HEAVY NITRATE IN WATER AND SERIOUS HEALTH RISKS:-although not as strong, shows a possible association between nitrate in drinking water with bladder and breast cancer, thyroid disease and birth defects. Denise’s shock Denise was in the local community hall, packed with neighbours concerned about Fonterra’s wastewater treatment plant proposal, when she first found out about nitrates and the association with cancer. “I was in shock … Neville – two years ago – was diagnosed with brain tumour cancer, which is terminal.” At 11.9 mg/L, their results were above New Zealand’s standard and well above the levels associated with colorectal cancer. “Just the thought that could be part of the reason why Neville’s sick, it really upset me.” He has glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive brain cancer and has been through chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Neville’s doing ok at the moment – he’s in remission – but earlier this year Denise described his condition as “pretty crook”.

GHOST FARMS IN FARMING NEIGHBOURHOODS: Unlike colorectal cancer, brain cancer hasn’t been linked with nitrates in drinking water, but that’s not enough to put Denise’s mind at rest. “If it’s not [the cause], well, that’s life and it happens. If it is that, that’s bad and we need to do something about it,” she says. Neville and Denise aren’t anti-dairy or anti-Fonterra. They both see the company as being an important part of New Zealand’s economy and say the company has been helpful since the problem with their water quality was discovered. However, after looking into what’s in the wastewater being dumped next door, Neville’s concluded it “is a bit untidy in regards to human beings” and wonders if there’s a better solution. Denise says there’s been deaths in the area due to cancer in recent times, and while there’s no suggestion they are due to the ghost farms, she can’t help but wonder. Neville worries about the rest of the neighbourhood too. “There are a number of young families which live in and around this area.” Fonterra has given Neville and Denise a filtration system to remove the nitrate from their water. In total, the company has supplied 38 water filter systems to properties near the Hautapu factory because of groundwater contamination.

FONTERRA’S NEW OPTION FOR DEALING WITH FACTORY’S WASTE WATER: Which didn’t involve spreading it on local farms, but it pulled the plug on it in October. The project would have seen its Hautapu wastewater managed by the municipal system. Minutes from a Waikato District Council meeting throw some light on the reason Fonterra bailed out. “Factors (including cost impact to Fonterra and uncertainty of cost, commercial arrangements and delivery timelines) led to Fonterra deciding to withdraw from the project…” Fonterra gave timelines as the reason. “We want to have a solution in place as soon as we’re able to and are targeting completion of our wastewater treatment plant by 2025, whereas the council plan had longer time frames.”

THE BIGGER PICTURE:- It’s not just Cambridge’s picturesque lifestyle blocks which have Fonterra-supplied water filters because of wastewater spreading. People in the dairy-intensive Canterbury have been given new filters too. But are there some who, like Denise and Neville, have no idea they’re living near a ghost farm where dairy processing companies such as Fonterra (the smaller dairy companies do the same) disposes of wastewater. Often, these farms are irrigated with wastewater for decades and hold resource consents to irrigate for decades more. Consents may have been publicly notified when they were first granted, but over the years new neighbours may have moved into the area.

REGULATIONS – COUNCIL GUIDES: There’s something else worth noting about some of these consents. The amount of nitrogen that can be spread in the wastewater is often far higher than the new freshwater rules will allow farmers to spread on grazed land as fertiliser (190kg per hectare per year of synthetic nitrogen). Unless the wastewater is more than 5 percent nitrogen it’s not considered fertiliser. Because the wastewater farms hold resource consents for disposal of waste products, they will be able to sidestep the new rule which comes into play in July and continue to spread as much as their consent permits. When asked if it planned to reduce the amount of wastewater spread to the 190kg of nitrogen per hectare per year farmers will be limited to using, Fonterra’s response was it would react to rule changes as required:

“In all our operations we work within the guidelines set by the councils. When changes are made, we adapt our operations to fit.” But the company does say it has major spending planned over the next decade, with $400 million earmarked for upgrades to wastewater plants at their Edgecumbe, Whareroa, Maungaturoto, Te Awamutu, Longburn, Reporoa, Kapuni, Clandeboye and Hautapu factories. Fonterra also says it already aims to reduce the amount of nitrogen in the water before it reaches farms by limiting the amount of milk residue in it and using dissolved air filtration or biological treatment plants to clean the wastewater.

MAXIMUM CONSENTED NITROGEN LOADING RATE BY DAIRY PLANT:- RED- Higher than 190kg per hectare per year.  Green- Lower than 190kg per hectare per year.  Unknown-  is not applicable..In some cases the differences between the new synthetic nitrogen cap for fertiliser and the amount of nitrogen the dairy companies are allowed to spread in wastewater are eye-watering. The current highest consented amount is in Canterbury. Fonterra’s Clandeboye plant is allowed to spread up to 600kg of nitrogen per hectare per year. It’s currently not spreading this much, but Environment Canterbury’s 2020 nitrate risk map links past wastewater irrigation with high levels of nitrate-nitrogen in the area. One survey describes a “contamination plume” and notes 53 wells, mostly near the Clandeboye dairy factory and Seadown fertiliser storage facility, exceed drinking water standards for nitrate-nitrogen. Fonterra has supplied two Canterbury homes with water systems because of nitrate in the ground water, and another house with a UV filter.

In the Waikato, Fonterra’s Hautapu plant has a resource consent to spread up to 500kg per hectare per year on Bruntwood farm and 400kg on Buxton and Bardowie farms. Maximum results from monitored bores show a reading of 17.80mg/L for Bruntwood farm, 18mg/L for Buxton farm and 26.8mg/L for a bore on Bardowie farm. In Reporoa, wastewater has been spread for decades and at one point up to 800kg of nitrate-nitrogen was allowed, this has dropped to 420kg. The highest average reading from the 2017/18 fiscal year from a bore in the area is 18.7mg/L.

RNZ’s efforts to gather resource consents and monitoring results from wastewater farms nationwide found some consents don’t require monitoring. For those that do, most show levels of concern in some, but not all the bores monitored for many of the farms where water is spread. Even if monitoring is a condition of resource consents, most don’t require a reduction in the amount of wastewater spread if the ground water is affected.

BUSINESS IN DEPTH: 13 Feb 2021 Fonterra discharging nitrogen-heavy water onto ‘ghost farms’..Fonterra cleared the cows from 16 farms and is using the land to dispose of wastewater, which could be leaching a colourless, tasteless and odourless pollutant into private drinking water supplies. It was on his runs that Neville Ross first noticed cows were slowly disappearing from local farms. In 2017 most of the stock vanished from two farms. A year later they disappeared from a third Cambridge farm. “Some places you realise there’s no animals – at all – for like a year.”

Neville’s not a farmer, he’s a cop and has been part of Waikato’s police force for 42 years. Despite being a detective sergeant, when the working dairy farms became ghost farms, it didn’t weigh on his mind. All three were owned by Fonterra. If it was a case of cattle-rustling or alien abduction, the multi-national dairy giant would have sounded the alarm. He didn’t know stock was vanishing from other Fonterra farms around New Zealand, or that one day he and his wife Denise may have lingering doubts over his health and whether it was connected to what goes on at the empty properties. You wouldn’t know it to look at him, but Neville’s on sick leave at the moment.

Neville’s always been fit, Denise says. He’s competed in triathlons, half Ironmans and he used to bike the 26km between the Cambridge lifestyle block they bought nine years ago and his Hamilton job. He’s never smoked and isn’t a drinker. His healthy lifestyle and current condition seem at odds. “He’s always been incredibly healthy … we’re always wondering why.” With a grin, Neville says he’s not sick, but that his brain doesn’t turn on sometimes. Occasionally, while discussing the empty farm down the road, words slither away from him and Denise fills in the gaps.

NEVILLE ROSS HAS BRAIN CANCER:- His wife, Denise, says she can’t help wondering if there is any link to their bore water. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly The farm is Buxton Farm and aside from a lack of stock and a smart-looking Fonterra “Dairy is life” sign at the gate which, among other things, warns of wandering stock, it looks like any other farm in the area. There’s plenty of lush looking grass, fences and farm buildings. But it’s not really a farm any more, it’s a tip. Since 1994, Fonterra has been piping wastewater from the nearby Hautapu milk processing plant and dumping it here.

During peak production periods the Hautapu plant processes about 150 tanker loads of milk and uses between 6000 and 8000 cubic metres of fresh water daily. Some of the water remains fairly clean and is pumped into waterways but the water used to clean the factory’s tanks and pipes contains cleaning products. This water has to go somewhere. In 1968 it was irrigated on just one Fonterra-owned farm, but as milk production grew, and more water was used, more and more properties were irrigated, including Buxton Farm. According to Fonterra, when managed well, wastewater can help grow grass which is used to feed cows and “provides us with a good circular model for nutrient management”.

But the reason cows have vanished from the farms is that their urine contains nitrogen. Factory wastewater also contains nitrogen from cleaning products, such as nitric acid used to clean the vats and pipes. Add the nitrogen from the wastewater to the nitrogen from cows’ urine and you get a higher load. What isn’t used by grass can start a slow seeping journey into ground water. Underfoot, and invisibly, this polluted water can move beyond a farm’s fences. Removing cows from the equation means more wastewater can be spread on the land.

CUT AND CARRY FARMS: These sorts of farms, where stock is removed and the grass is cut and carted elsewhere as feed, are referred to as ‘cut and carry’ farms. Fonterra says 16 farms it has consents to spread wastewater on are predominately cow-free, cut and carry farms – or as it puts it – farms whose primary use is “nutrient management”. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly. For a long time, neither Neville or Denise knew Buxton Farm was used to soak up wastewater from the local dairy plant. After all, it looks just like any other farm. It wasn’t until last year they finally discovered what Fonterra was doing at Buxton Farm, after the community fought Fonterra’s proposal to build a wastewater treatment plant on the property. The prospect of an industrial plant with huge ponds in the rural setting didn’t go down well with the locals, who felt it might be better located in industrial-zoned land closer to the Hautapu factory. Fonterra has since withdrawn the proposal and is investigating other locations for the plant, but before the U-turn, locals organised community testing of bores close to the farm to see what condition their water was in. That was the first Neville and Denise realised there could be problems with their water.

When they first moved onto the property in 2010 while Neville was building their house, they both drank bore water. When construction was complete, Denise switched to drinking rainwater but Neville didn’t; he thought the bore water tasted better. Fonterra had been testing the bore water of some locals, although there had been an 18-month wait to have results sent to them. The company never offered to test Denise and Neville’s water because Fonterra thought the flow of ground water from Buxton Farm went north and the Ross’s farm lay to the west. So, it was 10 years before the couple got their first test results. “We got our tests back at that stage at 11.9, which was really high. I still had no idea about what that meant.”

HEAVY NITRATE IN DRINKING WATER: You can’t see the nitrate-nitrogen. It’s colourless, odourless and tasteless and it can’t be boiled away – in fact boiling will only concentrate the levels. The amount allowed in drinking water in New Zealand is 11.3 milligrams per litre (mg/L). It’s a level suggested by the World Health Organisation to avoid ‘blue baby syndrome’, a fatal condition caused by consuming too much nitrate during pregnancy, or via bottle feeding. The nitrate reduces the ability of red blood cells to release oxygen to tissues. Putting it simply, it can suffocate a baby, turning them blue. There’s only been one fatal instance recorded in New Zealand but it’s a health concern taken seriously in parts of Canterbury. Midwives there advise people living in areas known to have high levels of nitrates to get their bore water tested and to use bottled water during pregnancy and for bottle feeding if results show a high level. However, another potential health risk has emerged. Some studies have shown a significant association between nitrates (at levels as low as 0.87mg/L) in drinking water and colorectal cancer. Other evidence, although not as strong, shows a possible association between nitrate in drinking water with bladder and breast cancer, thyroid disease and birth defects.

NVILLE’S WIFE IS IN SHOCK: .Denise was in the local community hall, packed with neighbours concerned about Fonterra’s wastewater treatment plant proposal, when she first found out about nitrates and the association with cancer. “I was in shock … Neville – two years ago – was diagnosed with brain tumour cancer, which is terminal.” At 11.9 mg/L, their results were above New Zealand’s standard and well above the levels associated with colorectal cancer. “Just the thought that could be part of the reason why Neville’s sick, it really upset me.” He has glioblastoma multiforme, an aggressive brain cancer and has been through chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Neville’s doing ok at the moment – he’s in remission – but earlier this year Denise described his condition as “pretty crook”.

Unlike colorectal cancer, brain cancer hasn’t been linked with nitrates in drinking water, but that’s not enough to put Denise’s mind at rest. “If it’s not [the cause], well, that’s life and it happens. If it is that, that’s bad and we need to do something about it,” she says. While Denise switched to rain water, Neville continued drinking bore water for years. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly …Neville and Denise aren’t anti-dairy or anti-Fonterra. They both see the company as being an important part of New Zealand’s economy and say the company has been helpful since the problem with their water quality was discovered. However, after looking into what’s in the wastewater being dumped next door, Neville’s concluded it “is a bit untidy in regards to human beings” and wonders if there’s a better solution.

FONTERRA GIVES TIMELINES: Denise says there’s been deaths in the area due to cancer in recent times, and while there’s no suggestion they are due to the ghost farms, she can’t help but wonder. Neville worries about the rest of the neighbourhood too. “There are a number of young families which live in and around this area.” Fonterra has given Neville and Denise a filtration system to remove the nitrate from their water. In total, the company has supplied 38 water filter systems to properties near the Hautapu factory because of groundwater contamination. Fonterra had a new option for dealing with the factory’s wastewater, which didn’t involve spreading it on local farms, but it pulled the plug on it in October. The project would have seen its Hautapu wastewater managed by the municipal system. Minutes from a Waikato District Council meeting throw some light on the reason Fonterra bailed out. “Factors (including cost impact to Fonterra and uncertainty of cost, commercial arrangements and delivery timelines) led to Fonterra deciding to withdraw from the project…”Fonterra gave timelines as the reason. “We want to have a solution in place as soon as we’re able to and are targeting completion of our wastewater treatment plant by 2025, whereas the council plan had longer time frames.”

THE BIGGER PICTURE: ..It’s not just Cambridge’s picturesque lifestyle blocks which have Fonterra-supplied water filters because of wastewater spreading. People in the dairy-intensive Canterbury have been given new filters too. But are there some who, like Denise and Neville, have no idea they’re living near a ghost farm where dairy processing companies such as Fonterra (the smaller dairy companies do the same) disposes of wastewater. Often, these farms are irrigated with wastewater for decades and hold resource consents to irrigate for decades more. Consents may have been publicly notified when they were first granted, but over the years new neighbours may have moved into the area.

There’s something else worth noting about some of these consents. The amount of nitrogen that can be spread in the wastewater is often far higher than the new freshwater rules will allow farmers to spread on grazed land as fertiliser (190kg per hectare per year of synthetic nitrogen). Unless the wastewater is more than 5 percent nitrogen it’s not considered fertiliser. Because the wastewater farms hold resource consents for disposal of waste products, they will be able to sidestep the new rule which comes into play in July and continue to spread as much as their consent permits.

GUIDELINES AND COUNCILS: When asked if it planned to reduce the amount of wastewater spread to the 190kg of nitrogen per hectare per year farmers will be limited to using, Fonterra’s response was it would react to rule changes as required: “In all our operations we work within the guidelines set by the councils. When changes are made, we adapt our operations to fit.” But the company does say it has major spending planned over the next decade, with $400 million earmarked for upgrades to wastewater plants at their Edgecumbe, Whareroa, Maungaturoto, Te Awamutu, Longburn, Reporoa, Kapuni, Clandeboye and Hautapu factories. Fonterra also says it already aims to reduce the amount of nitrogen in the water before it reaches farms by limiting the amount of milk residue in it and using dissolved air filtration or biological treatment plants to clean the wastewater.

In some cases the differences between the new synthetic nitrogen cap for fertiliser and the amount of nitrogen the dairy companies are allowed to spread in wastewater are eye-watering. The current highest consented amount is in Canterbury. Fonterra’s Clandeboye plant is allowed to spread up to 600kg of nitrogen per hectare per year. It’s currently not spreading this much, but Environment Canterbury’s 2020 nitrate risk map links past wastewater irrigation with high levels of nitrate-nitrogen in the area. One survey describes a “contamination plume” and notes 53 wells, mostly near the Clandeboye dairy factory and Seadown fertiliser storage facility, exceed drinking water standards for nitrate-nitrogen. Fonterra has supplied two Canterbury homes with water systems because of nitrate in the ground water, and another house with a UV filter

MONITORING IS A CONDITION OF RESOURCE CONSENT: In the Waikato, Fonterra’s Hautapu plant has a resource consent to spread up to 500kg per hectare per year on Bruntwood farm and 400kg on Buxton and Bardowie farms. Maximum results from monitored bores show a reading of 17.80mg/L for Bruntwood farm, 18mg/L for Buxton farm and 26.8mg/L for a bore on Bardowie farm. In Reporoa, wastewater has been spread for decades and at one point up to 800kg of nitrate-nitrogen was allowed, this has dropped to 420kg. The highest average reading from the 2017/18 fiscal year from a bore in the area is 18.7mg/L. RNZ’s efforts to gather resource consents and monitoring results from wastewater farms nationwide found some consents don’t require monitoring. For those that do, most show levels of concern in some, but not all the bores monitored for many of the farms where water is spread.Even if monitoring is a condition of resource consents, most don’t require a reduction in the amount of wastewater spread if the ground water is affected.

BEYOND THE FARM GATE:..Alison Dewes knows a bit about cows, dairy farming and water. She’s the fourth generation of her family to dairy farm, worked as a vet for several years and is an ecologist and staunch advocate for water quality. Currently she consults on sustainable farming practises.Alison Dewes says councils should be monitoring ground water quality and sharing the results publicly. She thinks regional councils have shown a “cumulative regulatory failure”. “Although councils might argue they’re not necessarily responsible for public health, they are because of the duties under the RMA [Resource Management Act] to protect life support capacity of the natural resources for future generations.” Dewes’ has been following the decline in New Zealand’s water quality.

IN NEW ZEALANDS PRISTINE ENVIRONMENT: Before cows, fertiliser and wastewater, the nitrate-nitrogen level in ground water would have been around 0.25mg/L, according to a paper published in 2012. Farming, an increasing population and industry quickly changed that. Stats NZ and the Ministry for the Environment’s most recent ground water quality report shows over a five-year period the median result from 75 percent of monitored sites exceeded 0.25mg/L across rural and urban landscapes. he practice of spreading dairy factory wastewater on farms has been around for as long as she remembers. It was the impact on animal health which first raised concerns for her. “As a veterinarian I would see it firsthand, where there has been continued application of the wastewater because the cows always had common metabolic problems. This included milk fever prior to calving, so you would often be on those farms around calving time and early lactation.” She’s also seen the impact of nitrogen in ecosystems and drinking water and even though wastewater farms are only one part of what’s increasing nitrate-nitrogen levels in ground water, Dewes feels it’s important to raise the issue.

The message – what happens on a wastewater farm doesn’t stay on a wastewater farm – is something she’s eager for the public to understand. “Activity inside a farm gate connects to shallow aquifers, into receiving headwaters, spring fed streams and rivers, and effect the common ground, which is our rivers, and our shared amenity, and also our drinking water sources. Until people can join those dots in their head, we’re not going to get change.” As well as not allowing wastewater to be spread on the type of soil she describes as “leaky”, there are three main areas where she thinks improvements could be made.

THE MONITORING OF GROUND WATER: Firstly, most of the monitoring of ground water quality, which is done as conditions of resource consents, is done by companies themselves – it should be done by the council. Secondly, sometimes the monitoring sites are chosen by companies and may not be in the best locations. Finally, there’s a lack of transparency. Monitoring results are usually supplied to the council, but not always readily available to the public unless specifically requested. People may not know the farm down the road from them has a ground water problem.

Environment Canterbury is open about the fact land use has impacted the quality of ground water and because nitrogen can take years to move through water problems won’t be disappearing anytime soon. The council’s website says in some cases “we can expect the situation to get worse before it gets better”. Community water supplies are regularly tested, but the responsibility for private bores lies with owners. When it comes to monitoring the effect of wastewater spreading on farms, it says its job is to monitor that monitoring is being done by the consent holder not do it itself.

ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY: Director of Science Dr Tim Davie says this ensures the cost of monitoring is covered by the consent holder, not ratepayers. Waikato Regional Council holds the same stance. Its job is to monitor monitoring. “Waikato Regional Council undertakes site inspections, audits compliance with conditions to ensure the data is reliable, and where necessary holds consent holders to account,” says Waikato Regional Council resource use acting director Brent Sinclair. Both councils publish data about nitrate-nitrogen concentrations through regional ground water quality monitoring programmes. This data does not necessarily include the results of consent monitoring. “The data Fonterra collects is to assess the impact of its operation and is available on request to anyone who is interested,” Sinclair says.

The new limit of 190kg per hectare of synthetic nitrogen is something which will “no doubt” be taken into consideration by independent commissioners when the currently expired resource consent for Bruntwood and Bardowie Farms is renewed, he says. Documentation lodged by Fonterra as part of the process suggests a new strategy will see a reduction of nitrate-nitrogen levels from 11mg/L to between 5 and 8mg/L.

BOTH COUNCILS ARE AWARE OF STUDIES LINKED TO NITRATE IN DRINKING WATER: With colorectal cancer and are supportive of further research but say they operate with guidelines which have been sent at a national level. When asked if it was concerned about cancer and nitrate, Fonterra says that the health and wellbeing of the New Zealand public is important to it. “We keep an eye on the science as it develops. We rely on experts in this field to set legislative limits that are best for the public and the environment and we work within these.” But Denise wants Fonterra to “do it right” when it comes to wastewater. “I understand business and that it has to be viable, but sometimes putting in that extra bit – and it may be a lot of extra bits – is actually a better idea when you’re in the neighbourhood. Just look after us. We do think Fonterra is incredibly important. We are a farming country. We do want them to stay and not to go, but just do it tastefully, and do it properly.”

*This article originally said Fonterra’s Bruntwood Farm breached its nitrogen loading limit two years in a row. The Waikato Regional Council has since informed RNZ it supplied incorrect information regarding this. The nitrogen loading limit was not in fact breached as the company’s consent allows it to exceed 500kg per hectare per year of nitrogen loading if the excess is offset by cut-and-carry crops. The story has been corrected.  https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/fonterra-discharging-nitrogen-heavy-water-on-to-ghost-farms/4PDWRXKJMBJNQFMR42QMKQJNZU/Fonterra discharging nitrogen-heavy water on to ‘ghost farms’

RNZ 9th February FONTERRA CLEARED THE COWS FROM 16 FARMERS – IS USING THE LAND TO DISPOSE OF WASTE WATER: Which could be leaching a colourless, tasteless and odourless pollutant into private drinking water supplies. It was on his runs that Neville Ross first noticed cows were slowly disappearing from local farms. In 2017 most of the stock vanished from two farms. A year later they disappeared from a third Cambridge farm Some places you realise there’s no animals – at all – for like a year.”

Neville’s not a farmer, he’s a cop and has been part of Waikato’s police force for 42 years. Despite being a detective sergeant, when the working dairy farms became ghost farms, it didn’t weigh on his mind. All three were owned by Fonterra. If it was a case of cattle-rustling or alien abduction, the multi-national dairy giant would have sounded the alarm. He didn’t know stock was vanishing from other Fonterra farms around New Zealand, or that one day he and his wife Denise may have lingering doubts over his health and whether it was connected to what goes on at the empty properties.

You wouldn’t know it to look at him, but Neville’s on sick leave at the moment. Neville’s always been fit, Denise says. He’s competed in triathlons, half Ironmans and he used to bike the 26km between the Cambridge lifestyle block they bought nine years ago and his Hamilton job. He’s never smoked and isn’t a drinker. His healthy lifestyle and current condition seem at odds. “He’s always been incredibly healthy … we’re always wondering why.” With a grin, Neville says he’s not sick, but that his brain doesn’t turn on sometimes. Occasionally, while discussing the empty farm down the road, words slither away from him and Denise fills in the gaps

https://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/dairy-news/dairy-general-news/ghost-farms-actually-used-to-grow-crops-using-factory-water

DAIRY NEWS 16th February 2021  Ghost farms’ actually used to grow crops using factory water..Written by  Staff Reporters..Fonterra says it owns 29 farms around its factories to irrigate with excess water from manufacturing plants. Fonterra says it is looking at the most responsible ways to take care of any excess water from manufacturing processes. The co-operative says it cares about the environment and the communities in which it operates. In a statement posted on its website, the co-op says it is always looking for ways to improve, and one area that’s always a focus for them is water. The co-op came under fire last week after media reports that a Cambridge couple Neville and Denise Ross discovered higher than acceptable levels of nitrates in their bore drinking water. The couple live near Fonterra’s Buxton Farm, which had been used to irrigate wastewater from the company’s Hautapu factory a few kilometres away.

FONTERRA OWNS 29 GHOST FARMS: Fonterra says it owns 29 farms for the primary purpose of nutrient management. Water coming from manufacturing plants is irrigated on these farms. The co-op says each manufacturing site has different requirements in relation to water treatment and meeting its own regional limits and environmental standards. “When managed well, we can use the treated water from our factories to help grow grass and other crops such as hemp.

“We can then harvest these crops for worthwhile uses such as making animal feed. This provides us with a nice circular model for nutrient management. “This is the model we have in place in Hautapu where we’ve been operating a ‘cut and carry’ farm for a couple of years.” The co-op rejects the term ‘ghost farm’ used by some media. “You may have heard these referred to as ‘ghost farms’, as there aren’t any cows on them – but that’s not a real term,” it says. “It’s actually that we’ve created an alternative use for this land, which enables us to grow crops, using water from our sites to provide the nutrients required for them to grow well.”

It says the treatment processes are designed to ensure the impacts on the environment are acceptable and remain within the limits set by regional councils. But Fonterra says it is looking at improving its operations to fit with the changing landscape. “As the land-use around our factories has changed over time and is starting to become more residential, it’s important we change our approach to nitrogen management too.

“We’re looking for ways to improve our operations to fit with the changing landscape. This is why we want to invest over the next 5 to 10 years to upgrade our waste water treatment facilities at our Hautapu, Edgecumbe, Whareroa, Maungaturoto, Te Awamutu, Longburn, Reporoa, Kapuni and Clandeboye sites. “In the meantime, in Hautapu we’re constantly monitoring levels. When we do become aware of cases that come close to the limits, we help by offering to install filters on residents’ water supplies. “Safe drinking water is a serious issue and it’s important to understand the science on this topic. We work closely with the regulators and science providers to ensure our wastewater operations meet the needs of the environment and the community around them

CITY DWELLERS SHOULD CERTAINLY BE MORE INTERESTED IN WHATS HAPPENING IN RURAL NEW ZEALAND..Especially the Farming Community- NO FARMERS – NO FOOD.

WakeUpNZ

RESEARCHER: Cassie

 

 

 

...

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT TRANSGENDER INTERVENTIONS ARE SAFE FOR CHILDREN ‘ THEY HARM CHILDREN’

There is not a single long-term study to demonstrate the safety or efficacy of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for transgender-believing youth. This means that youth transition is experimental, and therefore, parents cannot provide informed consent, nor can minors provide assent for these interventions. Moreover, the best long-term evidence we have among adults shows that medical intervention fails to reduce suicide.

Puberty blockers may cause mental illness

Puberty blockers may actually cause depression and other emotional disturbances related to suicide. In fact, the package insert for Lupron, the number one prescribed puberty blocker in America, lists “emotional instability” as a side effect and warns prescribers to “Monitor for development or worsening of psychiatric symptoms during treatment.”  Similarly, discussing an experimental trial of puberty blockers in the U.K., Oxford University Professor Michael Biggs wrote, “There was no statistically significant difference in psychosocial functioning between the group given blockers and the group given only psychological support. In addition, there is unpublished evidence that after a year on [puberty blockers] children reported greater self-harm, and the girls also experienced more behavioral and emotional problems and expressed greater dissatisfaction with their body—so puberty blockers exacerbated gender dysphoria.”

Puberty blockers may cause permanent physical harm

Temporary use of Lupron has also been associated with and may be the cause of many serious permanent side effects including osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures,  cognitive impairment and, when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility.

Cross-sex hormones (testosterone for women; estrogen for men) may disrupt mental health

Women who identify as men are given enough testosterone to raise their levels 10-40 times above the female reference range. Past studies have documented multiple psychiatric problems with similar high doses of anabolic steroids like testosterone such that 23% of subjects met DSM criteria for a major mood syndrome such as mania, hypomania, and major depression, and 3.4-12% developed psychotic symptoms. Estrogen also impacts mood in complex ways. Post menopausal women treated with estrogen often experience severe anxiety despite being placed on physiologic doses of the hormone. Men who identify as women are given supraphysiologic doses of estrogen; theoretically, this has the potential to worsen both depression and anxiety.

Other health risks are correlated with puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones

Temporary use of puberty blocker Lupron has also been associated with and may be the cause of many serious permanent side effects including osteoporosis, mood disorders, seizures, cognitive impairment and, when combined with cross-sex hormones, sterility. In addition to the harm from Lupron, cross-sex hormones put youth at an increased risk of heart attacks, stroke, diabetes, blood clots and cancers across their lifespan. Add to this the fact that physically healthy transgender-believing girls are being given double mastectomies at 13 and hysterectomies at 16, while their male counterparts are referred for surgical castration and penectomies at 16 and 17, respectively, and it becomes clear that affirming transition in children is about mutilating and sterilizing emotionally troubled youth.

Transgender interventions for children are experimental and dangerous

Many medical organizations around the world, including the Australian College of Physicians,  the Royal College of General Practitioners in the United Kingdom, and the Swedish National Council for Medical Ethics have characterized these interventions in children as experimental and dangerous. World renowned Swedish psychiatrist Dr. Christopher Gillberg has said that pediatric transition is “possibly one of the greatest scandals in medical history” and called for “an immediate moratorium on the use of puberty blocker drugs because of their unknown long-term effects.”

WakeUpNZ

RESEARCHER: Cassie

...