More shafting in the name of profit

**FJRider** · 15th January 2012, 14:26

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 15th January 2012, 16:16

Originally Posted by FJRider

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/PA120...ll-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** · 15th January 2012, 21:56

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

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** · 15th January 2012, 22:03

just another thing for the maoris to complain about

**Brian d marge** · 15th January 2012, 23:09

Im drinking the beer that I grow ,

Stephen

**Winston001** · 16th January 2012, 00:38

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

**mashman** · 16th January 2012, 07:39

Originally Posted by Winston001

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.

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** · 17th January 2012, 06:47

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** · 17th January 2012, 07:04

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**Grasshopperus** · 17th January 2012, 08:43

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/f...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** · 17th January 2012, 09:34

Originally Posted by boostin

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

**Smifffy** · 17th January 2012, 10:13

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** · 17th January 2012, 10:22

Originally Posted by Scuba_Steve

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.