More shafting in the name of profit

[ellipsis]

....just had this sent my way....

There is a piece of legislation going through NZ parliament at the
moment called the Food Bill. There is not much information in the
media because the media aren't or can't talk about it. It will be
snuck through faster than a greasy pig while we are on holidays in
January. We need action now to get 50,000 signatures - already nearly
13,000 have signed - not enough and we potentially have less than TWO
WEEKS.

Some parts of this bill involve change that is good. But some parts
are completely insane/horrendous and have the potential to compromise
your health in the future, because they reduce the ability for small
food producers to produce and give away/sell seeds and food. And it
would be policed by Food Officers, not needing a warrant, not
government employees, & apparently having immunity from civil or
criminal prosecution! This is in the legislation!

What is different and particularly offensive about this legislation
is that
it comes under an international rule called 'Codex' or ''Codex
Alimentarius'.

If we go along with Codex NZ then CAN'T CHANGE the legislation in future.

This is what is really appalling about this. It is not Common Law, it is
Napoleonic Code. It hasn't happened before with food and is a quiet
part of Codex that most people don't realise. We would actually have
to get out of the W.H.O. to change this legislation if we didn't like
it -
which is just not a thing governments do. We would be stuck.
So we need to take time on this legislation, not fast track it through
at Christmas time.

What's really shocking about this is that these rules are developed to
say we need 'food safety'. (Because we all know home grown veggies
are worse for us than mass produced stuff?!?) But what they really
intend is to get rid of little producers, small growers and keep the
growing of food in the hands of the big companies. Codex wasn't
designed by governments and independent think tanks. It was developed
by mega corporations - pharmacy, agribusiness, chemical. These laws
were NOT initially drafted by the NZ government, but by lawyers
employed by big international corporates.

We need to stop this legislation as otherwise it will be sneaked
through while people are on holidays in January (which is what

governments always do when legislation is controversial).

Main problems with Food Bill 160-2:
1. Home & small growers who grow small amounts of food and sell
locally NEED to be exempt - they are not.
2. Seeds for cultivation and food seedlings NEED TO NOT BE within
the definition 'food' under the Bill. (This is huge - imagine you not
being able to produce seed and give it away to your neighbours).

Seeds will be 'explicitly controlled substances' (like drugs) -
seriously. Why?
3. Under the Food Bill, Police acting as Food Safety Officers can
raid premises without a warrant, using all equipment they deem
necessary - including guns (Clause 265 -1) (What is the precedent for
this?
Why
is this necessary?)
4. Members of the private sector can also be Food Safety
Officers, as at Clause 243. E.g.. Monsanto employees can raid premises -
including marae - backed up by armed police. (This has never happened
before
or needed to happen).
5. AND Food Safety Officers have immunity from criminal and civil
prosecution. What is the precedent for this?



Go here to sign:


http://www.petitiononline.co.nz/petition/oppose-t he-new-zealand-government-food-bill-160-2/1301
http://www.petitiononline.co.nz/petition/oppos e-the-new-zealand-government-food-bill-160-2/1301%0b


If this link or those below don't work, cut and paste them into your
browser.

[98tls]

Sorry mate but the simple fact is the majority of people fucking everything up for the rest of us re Paua/crayfish are Maori so the more raids on Maraes etc the better,armed or not i couldnt give a shit,looking for veges or not i couldnt care less.I will glady give up a few liberties if it means a level playing field for all.

[Laava]

Plus e-petitions carry ZERO credibility.

[ellipsis]

....I didnt see anything about kai-moana mentioned...thats fisheries stuff....

[98tls]

....I didnt see anything about kai-moana mentioned...thats fisheries stuff....

Thats a typical answer.

[ellipsis]

...typical answer to what?....I can see this as just another way to stop people who grow and subsidise their incomes by selling vegetables, fruit, preserves etc being shafted by the big concerns...much like local authorities banning the use of macro carpa in cladding situations in some areas...mainly due to lobbying of the authorities by the big Carter Holt Harvey etc concerns, because it was cutting ever so slightly into their profit margins...

...if there is anything in it at all....

[onearmedbandit]

I do wonder how many more police the gubbermint intends to employ, or the surveillance techniques they tend to employ to catch me giving some garden seeds to my neighbours. Maybe garden 'tinnie' houses will pop up? Dairies will love the increased tinfoil sales.

[mashman]

More shafting in the name of profit

Linkies non worko (had to remove the space in "oppose-t he" and "oppos e-the")


I will glady give up a few liberties if it means a level playing field for all.

We already have a level playing field... so you're giving up your liberties, and mine, and everyone elses for nothing.

[SMOKEU]

We already have a level playing field... so you're giving up your liberties, and mine, and everyone elses for nothing.

http://moderateleft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/failedtroll.jpg

[boostin]

Anyone actually read the bill?

I just had a quick look at it and I can't see seeds coming under the definition of food.

[Edbear]

Anyone actually read the bill?

I just had a quick look at it and I can't see seeds coming under the definition of food.

Very few have read it and most of the opponents I've come across are citing inaccurate propaganda. I also strongly recommend reading it for yourselves before jumping to conclusions.

[mashman]

trollin, trollin, trollin down the river

I fail to see why we don't have a level playing field? They've legislated for it thus far and I'm having trouble seeing what this bill is actually trying to achieve.

[SMOKEU]

I fail to see why we don't have a level playing field? They've legislated for it thus far and I'm having trouble seeing what this bill is actually trying to achieve.

The Maoris will cry that it's their right to grow crops, and cheeky whitey shouldn't have the same rights.

[JustNick]

The Maoris will cry that it's their right to grow crops, and cheeky whitey shouldn't have the same rights.

Hmmm, I have very big doubts that you would have any clues as to what Maori might say.

[Scuba_Steve]

I'm having trouble seeing what this bill is actually trying to achieve.

If it's the one I'm thinking of I can only see it screwing over farmers markets, individual/independent stalls/shops etc in favor of large corporates/supermarkets etc
Seems to be coming from much the same place as that fucking retarded idea couple years back to force sausage sizzles/fundraisers to have health & safety food training certs

[slofox]

If gummint really thinks it can stop me sharing produce or seeds with my friends, family and neighbours, I can only wish them lotsa luck because I sure as hell will do what I fucking well want with stuff I grow.

[MSTRS]

Well, it won't be the govt that stops you. Their minions, with guns, though...

Really - how many people have got sick and/or died from eating a pot of jam or a cucumber bought at the Farmer's Market (or church stall) ??

I can see their point - and it's pointless. Just one more well-intentioned step on the road to Hell.

[mashman]

The Maoris will cry that it's their right to grow crops, and cheeky whitey shouldn't have the same rights.

bwaaaaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaa. It is their right to grow crops... we should be renting off of them.


If it's the one I'm thinking of I can only see it screwing over farmers markets, individual/independent stalls/shops etc in favor of large corporates/supermarkets etc
Seems to be coming from much the same place as that fucking retarded idea couple years back to force sausage sizzles/fundraisers to have health & safety food training certs

So nothing new then, just a legalised step further forwards to their goal. The cynic in me would think that the purpose of such legislation would be to allow blame to be assigned when it comes down to suing someone... but that would mean we'd need the "right" to sue. OOOOOOOR would think that they're trying to get GE/GM rammed in through the back door. I'll leave the conspiracy theorist in me out of it :).

[Brian d marge]

If gummint really thinks it can stop me sharing produce or seeds with my friends, family and neighbours, I can only wish them lotsa luck because I sure as hell will do what I fucking well want with stuff I grow.

Do something about it now rather than nothing now and cry later when some jumped up Butler gives u a twenty dollars ticket
I've read it and it isn't all that bad, just completely unnecessary!!!!
we don't need all this legislation .... just don't need it

Stephen

[slofox]

Do something about it now rather than nothing now and cry later when some jumped up Butler gives u a twenty dollars ticket
I've read it and it isn't all that bad, just completely unnecessary!!!!
we don't need all this legislation .... just don't need it

Stephen

"Do something about it now rather than nothing now" Already have.

And yes, it is unnecessary.

[Virago]

Hysterical nonsense.

Even Green MP Sue Kedgley has said that there is no malevolent intent behind the bill.

[davereid]

Hysterical nonsense.

There does appear to be some hysteria.

But I have read the bill very carefully.

Whether intentional or not, the bills current wording most certainly covers seeds, and it most certainly captures Slowfox swapping his plums for a bottle of the neighbors home-brew.

If these things are not intended to be caught in the net, it should be redrafted so it is clear that they are not caught.

I'm always worried when politicians tell us the bill does not allow something, when clearly it does.

I remember Maurice Williamson assuring us that the photo driver licence would not become an ID card as its use was restricted to Land Transport. That worked out well.
http://nzprivacy.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/a-brief-history-of-igovt/


Additionally, this Bill gives government officials quite extensive power of search and seizure.

When you sit it next to the NAIT National Animal Tracking Bill, it appears that Government has given itself a very firm hold of food production, even by people producing small amounts of food. Once again, NAIT gives officials the sorts of powers we used to reserve for foot and mouth emergencies. Except they have them all the time.

[scissorhands]

Wait till hunting and fishing becomes difficult/banned and 'all meat must be purchased from....'

This is aimed at farmers markets specifically, freaken socialist hippies gathering every week, avoiding tax while on sickness benefits, must be stopped

[Drunken Monkey]

Indeed. Kerfuffle over nothing. In fact, even the current Food Act (1981) has specific wording around barter and trade between private individuals, and this has never stopped people doing what people do, nor was that ever the intent.

Straight from Foodsafety:
Barter and swapping food

8. What are the current rules around bartering or swapping food?

The Food Act 1981 currently includes barter in the definition of sale. This definition has not prevented this activity from freely taking place between individual members of the community, that is, those that are not in business.

Under the current Act it is the responsibility of the person bartering or swapping food to ensure it is safe to eat. Many of the existing legal requirements will continue to apply under the Food Bill.

Families, neighbors and communities bartering and swapping food are not required to register under the Food Act 1981 and this will not change under the Food Bill.

9. Does the Food Bill stop families, neighbours and communities bartering or swapping food?

No. It is an age old kiwi tradition for people to grow food for themselves and swap their excess with friends or neighbours. The Food Bill will not prevent this tradition from continuing. People will still be able to swap some lettuces or eggs with a friend or neighbour for some fresh caught fish, for example.

Information on the safe preparation of food, provided as "food handler guidance" tips and advice will be made available from the MAF website free of charge or via territorial authorities throughout the country.

10. Could bartering be excluded from the Food Bill?

If bartering was excluded, it is possible that some commercial food operations might try to avoid their regulatory responsibilities to trade in safe and suitable food by setting up a bartering system to replace other forms of trading. Many of the existing legal requirements for food intended for barter or sale to be handled and prepared in a safe way will continue to apply.



The section on Seeds is being attended to. It was raised when the draft bill went for public consultation in 2010, which seems like due process to me:

Food seeds

7. Were propagation food seeds unintentionally captured by the Food Bill and what happens when such examples are found?

Yes. Propagation food seeds were unintentionally captured by the Food Bill. When this was brought to the attention of the Minister for Food Safety, the Minister requested MAF to develop amendments to the definition of food to ensure propagation food seeds would not be captured by the Food Bill. It is the Ministers' intention to introduce an amended definition by Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) when the Bill is again considered by Parliament. Once tabled in the House the SOP will be available to the public on the Parliamentary website.

Once the new Food Act is in place, when activities are identified as being unintentionally captured the Chief Executive of MAF will have the power to exempt certain activities from all or any requirements of the Act.



Full FAQ here: http://www.foodsafety.govt.nz/policy-law/reform-nz-food-regulations/food-bill/questions-answers.htm

Of course, the conspiracy theorists will just cry foul anyway, no doubt.

[ducatilover]

I invite armed cocks to come try get any food I grow, I'll just be terrorised by the scary armed me, plead post traumatic stress and live on ACC for the rest of my life :niceone:
Fuck them all.

[Scuba_Steve]

Indeed. Kerfuffle over nothing. In fact, even the current Food Act (1981) has specific wording around barter and trade between private individuals, and this has never stopped people doing what people do, nor was that ever the intent.


Then someone tell me, what is the intent? what "problem" is it addressing? Why is it being brought in if "it's all the same" anyways?

[FJRider]

....I didnt see anything about kai-moana mentioned...thats fisheries stuff....

If you believe everything you read ... you had better start checking the facts first. Otherwise you may embarrass yourself quite soon ...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1201/S00010/food-bill-to-make-food-safer-not-restrict-small-traders.htm

[Hitcher]

FFS.

Read this. http://bit.ly/tOSNst

There's a bunch of other information online that clearly spells out the intent of the Food Bill. Once you've read it you'll quickly notice that most of the people whingeing about this proposed legislation have really no idea what they're talking about.

If you've still got any concerns, then make a submission.

[FJRider]

Interesting reading ...

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/human-rights/bill-of-rights/food-bill

[Pussy]

FFS.

Read this. http://bit.ly/tOSNst

There's a bunch of other information online that clearly spells out the intent of the Food Bill. Once you've read it you'll quickly notice that most of the people whingeing about this proposed legislation have really no idea what they're talking about.

If you've still got any concerns, then make a submission.

Look, Hitcher... clearly you have absolutely NO IDEA that the sky is falling!
It's an injustice!!!!



Yeah right! :)

[FJRider]

If gummint really thinks it can stop me sharing produce or seeds with my friends, family and neighbours, I can only wish them lotsa luck because I sure as hell will do what I fucking well want with stuff I grow.

I doubt it is "grown food" producers that are their target ... more likely "cooked produce" prepared in places not designed/intended/licenced for commercial (ie: intended for sale) food production.

[ellipsis]

If you believe everything you read ... you had better start checking the facts first. Otherwise you may embarrass yourself quite soon ...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1201/S00010/food-bill-to-make-food-safer-not-restrict-small-traders.htm

....sharing some shit that comes my way on KB...how do you know that I give two fucks about it at all...embarass myself ?...fuck off twat...who the fuck are you...

[Drunken Monkey]

Then someone tell me, what is the intent? what "problem" is it addressing? Why is it being brought in if "it's all the same" anyways?

Well if you read the proposal, you would see the new act will cover many other things that are problems. Duh.

[TrentNz]

just another thing for the maoris to complain about :facepalm:

[Brian d marge]

Im drinking the beer that I grow ,

Stephen

[Winston001]

FFS.

Read this. http://bit.ly/tOSNst

There's a bunch of other information online that clearly spells out the intent of the Food Bill. Once you've read it you'll quickly notice that most of the people whingeing about this proposed legislation have really no idea what they're talking about.

If you've still got any concerns, then make a submission.

Agreed.

I detest the Facebook etc hysterical cries about the Government/CIA/Bankers/Big Business yadda yadda apparently doing something really really bad to us little people. Given the ease with which we can all find information to check out such scares, why is it most folk do not?? Instead they simply pass it on as gospel truth. I despair. :shit:

[mashman]

Agreed.

I detest the Facebook etc hysterical cries about the Government/CIA/Bankers/Big Business yadda yadda apparently doing something really really bad to us little people. Given the ease with which we can all find information to check out such scares, why is it most folk do not?? Instead they simply pass it on as gospel truth. I despair. :shit:

Perhaps they have read about the things that Government/CIA/Bankers/Big Business have done and see no reason that given a particular set of circumstances any act that Government/CIA/Bankers/Big Business are being accused of is completely plausible. It heartens me that people like this exist, obviously I'm one to a point, because these people don't just swallow the shit that they've been "fed" because there's no proof.

In this case the issues highlighted have been acknowledged by the govt, ergo not a conspiracy, and are going to be addressed, or so they say (conspiracy). If it weren't for your conspiracy theorists etc... legislation with "holes" in it would have been passed unquestioned.

Which begs the question: How can such smart smart well paid people, groups and groups of them too, not have found the "holes" that some joe has found in their legislation? Where they there by design? There is evidence that they could be, because the "holes" were there, so there's no conspiracy.

So despair away... I'm glad that they're there to highlight potential issues.

[davereid]

It seems really simple to me.

If you don't intend the legislation to cover seeds, then write it so that it doesn't cover seeds.
If you don't intend to cover people swapping the hunters bag for veges, then write it so that it doesn't cover them.

This law (still) prohibits both.

Assurances that is it not intended too, or that it will be changed are a sign that submissions are being looked at seriously.

But in 10 years time, the young graduate at the Food Safety Authority charged with enforcing the law, will be reading the legislation, and not considering Kate Wilkinsons "we didnt mean to catch the sausage sizzle" hand-wringing.

[boostin]

It seems really simple to me.

If you don't intend the legislation to cover seeds, then write it so that it doesn't cover seeds.
If you don't intend to cover people swapping the hunters bag for veges, then write it so that it doesn't cover them.

This law (still) prohibits both.

Assurances that is it not intended too, or that it will be changed are a sign that submissions are being looked at seriously.

But in 10 years time, the young graduate at the Food Safety Authority charged with enforcing the law, will be reading the legislation, and not considering Kate Wilkinsons "we didnt mean to catch the sausage sizzle" hand-wringing.

Can you explain to me how the definition of food includes seeds? I just can't seem to read it that way.

[Grasshopperus]

As the original poster mentioned, this is all about laying the ground work for the Monsanto corporation setting up shop in NZ. They're going to wreck an evil on the agricultural sector of NZ like you can't imagine.




For centuries—millennia—farmers have saved seeds from season to season: they planted in the spring, harvested in the fall, then reclaimed and cleaned the seeds over the winter for re-planting the next spring. Monsanto has turned this ancient practice on its head.

Monsanto developed G.M. seeds that would resist its own herbicide, Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops. Monsanto then patented the seeds.

Farmers who buy Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising not to save the seed produced after each harvest for re-planting, or to sell the seed to other farmers. This means that farmers must buy new seed every year. Those increased sales, coupled with ballooning sales of its Roundup weed killer, have been a bonanza for Monsanto.


Full quote here http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

You can search online for the hundreds of stories of small farmers being harassed and litigated against by Monsanto's legion of lawyers and henchmen. John Key is slowly turning NZ into America-junior; recently with American media companies writing our Skynet 3-strikes-and-you're-off-the-internet law, and now this.

Fuck 'em right in the ear

[Scuba_Steve]

Can you explain to me how the definition of food includes seeds? I just can't seem to read it that way.

from the bill itself

The following provides a summary of food sectors that are subject to food control plans under this schedule:
...
(0) processors of nuts or seeds.

Processors of nuts or seeds
General description
This food sector covers food businesses that process or handle nuts or seeds for consumption. Processing and handling in this context includes taking steps in relation to nuts or seeds such as—
coating:
roasting:
salting:
mixing with other foods commonly combined with nuts or seeds, such as raisins:
forming into nut or seed bars.

Examples
Examples include but are not limited to food businesses that process and handle—
salted peanuts:
pumpkin, sesame, or sunflower seed products:
roasted or ground coffee beans.

What is excluded
This food sector excludes—
food businesses that grow and harvest and undertake only minimal processing of nuts or seeds (included in the producers of horticultural food sector and subject to national programme level 1):
food businesses that prepare or manufacture nut or seed confectionery, for example, scorched almonds (included in the manufacturers of confectionery sector and subject to national programme level 2):
food businesses that source nuts in a processed state for the purpose of coating the nuts (for example, with chocolate) for confectionery purposes (included in the manufacturers of confectionery sector and subject to national programme level 2):
producers of sprouted seeds (included in the producers of horticultural food sector and subject to national programme level 1).

And the whole Bill since I don't think anyone's actually posted it yet (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0160/latest/whole.html#dlm2995811)

[Smifffy]

My biggest problem with all of this is this: Why do we need all of these new laws? I'd be happier if the fuckers just got on and enforced the laws that we've had for decades, like not beating kids, not stealing other people's gear, driving while pissed etc. Instead these wanks all sit around debating on the rights and wrongs of my pensioner next door neighbour selling me a couple of cabbages, or whether or not there should be a law about how much water should be allowed out of your shower nozzle.

We need less government interference in our lives, not more.

[boostin]

from the bill itself

The following provides a summary of food sectors that are subject to food control plans under this schedule:
...
(0) processors of nuts or seeds.

Processors of nuts or seeds
General description
This food sector covers food businesses that process or handle nuts or seeds for consumption.

It seems clear to me that this refers to seeds that are going to be eaten? So that would exclude seeds for planting.

[oneofsix]

It seems clear to me that this refers to seeds that are going to be eaten? So that would exclude seeds for planting.

how do you tell if a seed is for eating or planting? A pumpkin seed is a pumpkin seed and unless it has been roasted it could be eaten or planted.

[boostin]

how do you tell if a seed is for eating or planting? A pumpkin seed is a pumpkin seed and unless it has been roasted it could be eaten or planted.

Look at the intended use of the seed?

[Scuba_Steve]

My biggest problem with all of this is this: Why do we need all of these new laws? I'd be happier if the fuckers just got on and enforced the laws that we've had for decades, like not beating kids, not stealing other people's gear, driving while pissed etc. Instead these wanks all sit around debating on the rights and wrongs of my pensioner next door neighbour selling me a couple of cabbages, or whether or not there should be a law about how much water should be allowed out of your shower nozzle.

We need less government interference in our lives, not more.

Aside from that this bill is supposedly about "food safety" why don't they just address current concerns instead.
One that spring to mind is red colouring, if offers no nutritional advantage, can be replaced with another product, is potentially harmful, is banned at some level in Australia, Euro, & even US. Yet our "food safety" people refuse to ban it here.
Why won't they ban it you ask? "not enough research done about it", why don't they research it? "no money"
So they can't afford to research it so that never getting done, it's easily replaceable with a safe alternative, it offers nothing in the way of nutritional value it is simply a colour, it's potentially harmful & even our neighbour country whom we are supposed to "share" our food health with has banned it. So why is it not banned here??? "not enough research"... But hey this Bill will make food safe :facepalm:

[mashman]

Full quote here http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805

Great find... and we wonder why there are conspiracy theorists.

[Scuba_Steve]

Another thing this bill still stomps on is home-made jams, preservatives, honeys, pickles, relishes etc

[avgas]

Heh. Its funny how everyone is jumping up and down about Monsanto coming here where the likes of Fonterra, Fletchers, CHH, Orica/ICI......have been doing shit like this in NZ (with govt approval no less) for decades.

[mashman]

My biggest problem with all of this is this: Why do we need all of these new laws? I'd be happier if the fuckers just got on and enforced the laws that we've had for decades, like not beating kids, not stealing other people's gear, driving while pissed etc. Instead these wanks all sit around debating on the rights and wrongs of my pensioner next door neighbour selling me a couple of cabbages, or whether or not there should be a law about how much water should be allowed out of your shower nozzle.

We need less government interference in our lives, not more.

It's for your own good STFU.

I'd argue at this point in time that we need more government, just applied differently and looking after our interests and not the economic ones. The alternative is Big Agri, Big Pharma, Big Dave, Big Construction, Big Dave, Big Law! Oh the progress we've made. Tis all about the money honey.

[mashman]

It seems clear to me that this refers to seeds that are going to be eaten? So that would exclude seeds for planting.

If you plant a seed the becomes food, the surely that seed is a food producer, which would mean that it is subject to political harrassment.

[avgas]

Also those of who whom think Monsanto are 100% evil.....http://hbr.org/product/monsanto-and-the-global-water-treatment-industry/an/99M040-PDF-ENG
Turns out they make pretty good money on sustainable products, so much so its the companies focus. I mean think about it, if you doing something that will perpetually make you good money, why fuck it up?

Where as the NZ/Maori Fisheries have been caught doing the opposite.

But its SO EASY TO BLAME THE CORPORATES for the worlds problems isn't it?

[mashman]

Also those of who whom think Monsanto are 100% evil.....http://hbr.org/product/monsanto-and-the-global-water-treatment-industry/an/99M040-PDF-ENG
Turns out they make pretty good money on sustainable products, so much so its the companies focus. I mean think about it, if you doing something that will perpetually make you good money, why fuck it up?

Where as the NZ/Maori Fisheries have been caught doing the opposite.

But its SO EASY TO BLAME THE CORPORATES for the worlds problems isn't it?

S'ok if they're only 5% evil then?

[Winston001]

I have no time for conspiracy theories but I do subscribe to the well-intentioned cockup theory. It is very common. What seems like a good idea proves to be awful in practise. Some say the dog registration chipping law is an example.

On this occasion there are fair questions to be asked about the Food Safety Bill and we should do so.

Parliamentary draftsmen try to construct new laws in accordance with Select Committee instructions and those of the government. However they can't think of everything and MPs themselves have no drafting skills so clumsy mistakes do occur. That's why a Bill goes through three readings over months/years before the final version is agreed.

[mashman]

I have no time for conspiracy theories but I do subscribe to the well-intentioned cockup theory. It is very common. What seems like a good idea proves to be awful in practise. Some say the dog registration chipping law is an example.

On this occasion there are fair questions to be asked about the Food Safety Bill and we should do so.

Parliamentary draftsmen try to construct new laws in accordance with Select Committee instructions and those of the government. However they can't think of everything and MPs themselves have no drafting skills so clumsy mistakes do occur. That's why a Bill goes through three readings over months/years before the final version is agreed.

I know it's not THAT easy to put together. But most food comes from a seed. I woulda thought someone would have thought of that. Doesn't exactly fill me full of confidence that they missed that.

[davereid]

I know it's not THAT easy to put together. But most food comes from a seed. I woulda thought someone would have thought of that. Doesn't exactly fill me full of confidence that they missed that.

The Bill explicitly says it does not apply to cosmetics.

It would be merely an extra line to say it does not apply to seeds that will be planted not eaten.

Endless assurances that seeds will not be covered are meaningless unless they are included in the legislation.

The solution is blinding simple. Repeated failure to implement the solution is certainly ammunition for those who think the bill IS intended to cover seeds.

[mashman]

The Bill explicitly says it does not apply to cosmetics.

It would be merely an extra line to say it does not apply to seeds that will be planted not eaten.

Endless assurances that seeds will not be covered are meaningless unless they are included in the legislation.

The solution is blinding simple. Repeated failure to implement the solution is certainly ammunition for those who think the bill IS intended to cover seeds.

True. Does not apply to dormant seeds. Next :rofl:

[Winston001]

Got a bag of sprouting potatoes here which I was thinking of throwing in the ground. So...are they food for eating or seeds?

[Pussy]

Got a bag of sprouting potatoes here which I was thinking of throwing in the ground. So...are they food for eating or seeds?

Make sure you plant them with Gladwrap around them. That way they won't get dirt in their eyes while they're rooting....

[Smifffy]

http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2011/05/11/canadians-fined-5200-for-growing-veggies-in-basement/

In the Mission district of British Columbia, a controlled substances bylaw has led to fines for dozens of residents who were growing food and flowers.

Scary stuff.

[FJRider]

Another thing this bill still stomps on is home-made jams, preservatives, honeys, pickles, relishes etc

True it does ... but only that put up for sale ... For personal, or family/friends consumption, there is no issue ...

[Smifffy]

True it does ... but only that put up for sale ... For personal, or family/friends consumption, there is no issue ...

Thin edge of the wedge. Why does it need to be regulated? What is the harm to society of the current system? Has there been a dramatic upsurge in people requiring radical emergency, or long term ongoing health care from the consumption of goods bought from cottage vendors?

As recently as this week we have seen that NZ authoritahs do not have, or do not use discretion. Even the cyclist's lobby group have said that Becker guy was a fall guy.

This will just be more unnecessary bureaucracy that will ensnare ordinary citizens, and will just be a financial burden to the rest of us.

Really, what will this legislation address? In plain english in as few sentences as possible, rather than the party line.


The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is inefficiency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty.
Eugene McCarthy, Time magazine, Feb. 12, 1979

[Scuba_Steve]

True it does ... but only that put up for sale ... For personal, or family/friends consumption, there is no issue ...

think you should recheck what "sale" means under this law

[FJRider]

Thin edge of the wedge. Why does it need to be regulated?


In the "interests of public safety" ...

Aside from the fact that public makets, have sold produce that put people in hospital .... and at this stage (with what I have read) ... ANY action taken initially against the "market" type produce is by way of "information leaflets" given to them at the time. (AND put on a register ... so they are "on record" as having recieved the information)

[FJRider]

think you should recheck what "sale" means under this law

I'm no lawyer ... but I assume "or reward" ...