OUR DECLARATION  ~ STOP Trashing Our Planet = STOP!

A coalition of independent New Zealanders and groups working together for a beautiful and healthy planet in which to live, as free as possible of toxic chemicals, waste and other pollution.


We cannot continue to gamble with our children’s health and the future of all life on earth.


As a Coalition of Independent Groups and Individual New Zealanders we stand against any toxic or polluting substance or practice that cannot be shown to be absolutely necessary to the continued functioning of our complex society,

This should  significantly reduce exposures to chemicals and pollutants that are contributing to neurodevelopmental disorders in children.

As free and cognisant beings we claim the right to live our lives with the freedom to do and believe what makes our lives liveable and to pursue happiness in our own individual ways unless it harms others

The one hundred thousandth chemical was registered in June 2015.

These are substances that largely haven’t existed on earth before and the effects of which are largely unknown since testing is mostly done by the manufacturers – like having burglars’ guarding the crown jewels – and never any consideration of the synergistic, accumulative or compound effects which have been shown to be considerable – such as the influence of fluoride in the uptake of lead, which again has been shown to affect African-Americans and Hispanics far more than Caucasians for instance.

Why use toxic chemicals or poisons, or degrading polluting practices where there are better ways to achieve a goal that don’t put everyone at risk?

Substantial scientific evidence exists linking toxic environmental chemicals to neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder, attention deficits, hyperactivity, intellectual disability and learning disorders. People’s exposures to these chemicals are widespread and begin in utero. Infants and young children are especially at risk of harm because their bodies and brains are still developing, and chemicals can interfere with sensitive biological processes during critical developmental periods.


Only a minority of chemicals has been evaluated for neurotoxic effects in adults. Even fewer have been evaluated for potential effects on brain development in children (Grandjean and Landrign 2006, 2014).

Developmental neurotoxic chemicals that have been evaluated likely represent just the tip of the iceberg.
In March 2015 the WHO classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in weed killer formulations such as Roundup, as a probable human carcinogen in their IARC monograph.


“Women are exposed to hazardous chemicals not only differently than men, but also have a higher susceptibility to them” ~ and they are the first ‘environment’ that our children encounter!

In 2005, the American Red Cross took samples of foetal cord blood from 10 newborns and found a shocking 287 chemicals inside the samples, which included dioxins, phthalates, pesticides, Teflon byproducts, flame retardants and many others.
And that’s really just the tip of the iceberg.
A study published in the journal Neurotoxicology took samples of the first bowel movement of 426 infants.
- 84% contained mercury
- 27% contained lead
- 27% percent had DDT, a pesticide that was banned in the US for the last 25+ years
There’s no escaping this toxic burden.

Why do we need to act urgently now?
Our everyday exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals – in our food, cosmetics, electronic products, schools, hospitals and workplaces, to name a few, must stop in order to protect the health of current and future generations. Humans and wildlife are vulnerable to exposure to these chemicals every day, which are very likely to be contributing to the dramatic increases in many serious, life threatening diseases and health disorders.

Project TENDR 

On 1st July 2016 a group of health professionals and others issued a Consensus statement – Project TENDR – calling for reduction in the use of a number of chemicals linked to the neurological defects in children . . .  below are some of the extracts from their CONSENSUS

Further, toxicological studies and regulatory evaluation seldom address combined effects of chemical mixtures, despite evidence that all people are exposed to dozens of chemicals at any given time.

Need for a New Approach to Evaluating Evidence

Our failures to protect children from harm underscore the urgent need for a better approach to developing and assessing scientific evidence and using it to make decisions. We as a society should be able to take protective action when scientific evidence indicates a chemical is of concern, and not wait for unequivocal proof that a chemical is causing harm to our children.

Evidence of neurodevelopmental toxicity of any type—epidemiological or toxicological or mechanistic—by itself should constitute a signal suffcient to trigger prioritization and some level of action. Such an approach would enable policy makers and regulators to proactively test and identify chemicals that are emerging concerns for brain development and prevent widespread human exposures.

Regrettable Substitution

Under our current system, when a toxic chemical or category of chemicals is finally removed from the market, chemical manufacturers often substitute similar chemicals that may pose similar concerns or be virtually untested for toxicity. This practice can result in “regrettable substitution” whereby the cycle of exposures and adverse effects starts all over again.

The following list provides examples of this cycle:

When the federal government banned some uses of OP pesticides, manufacturers responded by expanding the use of neonicotinoid and pyrethroid pesticides. Evidence is emerging that these widely used classes of pesticides pose a threat to the developing brain (Kara et al. 2015; Richardson et al. 2015; Shelton et al. 2014).

When the U.S. Government reached a voluntary agreement with flame retardant manufacturers to stop making PBDEs, the manufacturers substituted other halogenated and organophosphate flame retardant chemicals. Many of these replacement flame retardants are similar in structure to other neurotoxic chemicals but have not undergone adequate assessment of their effects on developing brains.

When the federal government banned some phthalates in children’s products, the chemical industry responded by replacing the banned chemicals with structurally similar new phthalates. These replacements are now under investigation for disrupting the endocrine system.

Looking Forward

Our system for evaluating scientific evidence and making decisions about environmental chemicals is broken. We cannot continue to gamble with our children’s health. We call for action now to prevent exposures to chemicals and pollutants that can contribute to the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disabilities in America’s children.

We are confident that reducing exposures to chemicals that can interfere with healthy brain development will help to lower the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disabilities, and thus enable many more children to reach their full potential.


presented all of the above and more to Auckland Council on Thursday 7th July


The disappointing response by the Mayor, Len Brown, was to call for a review of the Weed Management Policy rather than direct Auckland Transport and all Council contractors to follow it when it states that the the use of agrichemicals be minimised.

Project TENDR went on to  observe that the economic costs associated with neurodevelopmentsl disorders are staggering.   On average it costs twice as much in the USA to educate a child who has learning or developmental disability as it costs for a child who does not.

A recent study in the European Union found that costs associated with lost IQ points and intellectual disability arising from two categories of chemicals—polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants (PBDEs) and organophosphate (OP) pesticides—are estimated at 155.44 billion euros ($169.43 billion dollars) annually (Bellanger et al. 2015).

A 2009 analysis in the United States found that for every $1 spent to reduce exposures to lead, a potent neurotoxicant, society would benefit by $17–$221 (Gould 2009).

 No doubt the cost – benefit ratio of reducing exposure to glyphosate and other toxic chemicals would be broadly in the same region.

Friends of Sherwood went on to say:   “So you have the opportunity today to make a start on the reduction in the prevalence of these hazards in our city by enacting your own Weed Management Policy, and restoring the budget for non-toxic weed control as required by it to ensure that the use of all toxic chemicals is minimised.

Spend no more of our rate money on these poisons please .


~ or FLUORIDE or 1080 or cholecalciferol or brodifacoum or plastic bags for that matter:

~ and let’s not forget microbeads, fracking, toxic mining, nuclear radiation and GE!