- PDF Version (285K) - Print Friendly - Help

Non-Commercial Wild Food in New Zealand

Submissions on the Draft Position Paper

NZFSA received 13 submissions on the Draft Position Paper on the review of non-commercial wild food in New Zealand. Four were from hunting groups, three from Public Health Units (PHUs), three from local and central government agencies, one from an industry group and two from individual hunters. We also received some feedback from the hunting community at the SIKA Competition and Trade Show held at Taupo in September 2005. Most supported the review; however, many raised issues that were outside of the scope of the review (see Exclusions, Section 2).

The fourteen proposals included in the Draft Position Paper have been grouped into the following five main categories:

• information gathering

• information sharing

• interagency collaboration

• programme funding

• proposals for Māori.

Submitters made the following comments on issues in these categories.

Information gathering

There was general support from the submissions for initiatives to address the absence of reliable consumption and illness data and it was considered, particularly by PHUs, that such initiatives should be given higher priority.

The proposal to include an additional question about individual New Zealanders consumption of wild food in the Ministry of Health’s 2007/08 Adult Nutrition Survey was seen as a good idea.

The Game and Forest Foundation recommended that research be undertaken to better understand the risks associated with privately harvested wild game animals, and it would be willing to assist in the design and implementation of such a study.

There was support for proposals to increase understanding about pesticide use patterns and residue profiles in wild game.

NZFSA has entered a Memorandum of Understanding with Landcare New Zealand. Poison information from this data will be a future source of information for monitoring the status of potential contaminants affecting wild food.

Information sharing

Submissions were generally supportive of initiatives to educate and inform the public on the dangers with wild food so they can make safe decisions about the wild food they collect and eat.

It was suggested that activities and information should be targeted to specific user groups, and that food safety messages developed should be simple, appropriate for the end user and easily accessible. Both the Game and Forest Foundation and the New Zealand Deerstalkers’ Association offered to assist with education and awareness programmes for hunters.

Information accessible for commercial operators on NZFSA’s website may be of assistance to recreational hunters. However, a view was expressed that web based systems alone do not suit the general recreational hunter and a communications system needs to be tailored to suit the hunting community. For example, information could be disseminated to recreational hunters when they apply for hunting permits. Rural school newsletters may also be a possible way to reach rural communities.

Feedback on possible useful topics for hunters included what they should look for in wild animals to enable them to recognise diseased animals before killing, how to check carcases for poisons, what offal to eat, and how to properly process foods to eliminate the disease risk.

Educational material related to safe shellfish and to other wild food harvesting could be made available to the general public. One PHU suggested that NZFSA could develop new wild food resources along the lines of past resources, e.g. the Hangi and Umu booklets.

Interagency collaboration

Some submissions commented on the importance of interagency collaboration for increasing understanding on risks associated with wild food. One submission considered collaboration between NZFSA, the Animal Health Board, DoC and regional councils to be essential and suggested that there was potential for establishing a “one stop shop” for information on risks (toxins and diseases) in particular areas.

There was support for further collaboration between local and central government to devise a strategy to address water quality issues for shellfish. This work should include consistency of standards regarding water quality management in terms of pollution discharges and harvest criteria.

Programme funding

The Draft Position Paper included a proposal to consider the continued expenditure on monitoring for non-commercial shellfish biotoxins compared to other areas of activity relating to wild food that NZFSA could usefully undertake. Feedback from hunters suggests that there are other areas that NZFSA could usefully monitor, including toxin levels in wild game animals, as well as in fish and riparian life.

The New Zealand Aquaculture Council Inc expressed concern about any reduction in effort and expenditure on recreational shellfish monitoring. One submission stated that in the event of widespread illness in recreational shellfish gatherers, there would be a significant adverse flow on effect on the reputation of the domestic and export commercial shellfish sectors, through bad “PR” by association. New Zealand’s reputation in the world tourism market as a clean and green country would also be tarnished to a degree.

Other criteria were suggested, in addition to cost effectiveness, for reviewing the non-commercial shellfish monitoring programme:

• consumption data

• gathering-location data

• real risk assessment

• overseas experience and knowledge

• ownership of commercial data.

The New Zealand Aquaculture Council considered that the commercial sector should be stakeholders in the review process.

Proposals for Māori

The Draft Position Paper proposed that the best way to minimise foodborne illness amongst Māori resulting from the consumption of wild food, is to empower Māori to address the food safety issues themselves. This would involve Māori participation in decision-making, monitoring and surveillance, research, education and evaluation.

The Draft Position Paper also suggested that a process is put in place so that whanau, hapu and iwi can identify their concerns with regard to wild food safety and then, in consultation with NZFSA (and other government agencies as appropriate), decide what can be done.

One submitter who commented in this area asked whether traditional knowledge is limited to Māori, and whether there was an opportunity for consideration of other peoples’ traditional methods to also be promoted.

Specific comments from the Māori Focus Group were

• A collaborative approach is essential. The partnership between the Crown and Māori, based on Treaty principles, provides the overarching framework for engagement. Māori should participate in decision-making, monitoring and surveillance, research, education and evaluation. Public Health Units, Local Authorities, and community health providers should be encouraged to develop strong working relationships with kaumätua, whanau, hapu, and iwi.

A collaborative approach would not only improve generic delivery and responsiveness, but could also allow kaupapa Māori initiatives to be incorporated into solutions and re-orient the sector (i.e. two world views coming together to deliver common outcomes). There is a danger that the concerns and views of Māori will otherwise become buried in the general concerns and lost in the process. The way forward is to work together, adopting the principles of partnership, participation and protection.

• Investigate the establishment of a national network/process whereby communities can identify their concerns with regard to wild food safety and then decide with NZFSA (and other government agencies) what can and needs to be done. NZFSA could lift its profile within Māori communities.

• Research -

o There is scope for commissioned research on traditional Māori food preparation, with emphasis on documentation and analysis of traditional methods to prevent process failures and to ensure continued safe food handling/production. Regaining tikanga/traditional knowledge perspectives is considered a high priority. Māori need to re-emphasise knowledge of traditional foods and food gathering practices and also to make sure there is information readily available on how to use these foods safely. Research specifically targeting these issues needs to be conducted by and with Māori, in collaboration with other agencies.

o There is a lack of research and science relevant for Māori when, for example, they rely on shellfish for kai (food) and don’t know what to do when warning signs go up. For many communities the priority is just to have kai on the table. By providing appropriate information and education about toxins and biotoxins in kai, the role of kaitiaki could be utilised to share risk management responsibility associated with wild food.

o The biotoxin monitoring programme does not look at holistic aspects of shellfish safety such as pathogen contamination arising from poor water quality. There is anecdotal evidence that some people are taking fish/shellfish from around sewerage and storm water outlets. It could be valuable if information on pollution was more readily available.