I was shocked to learn from a friend on the weekend that a new Food Bill is being brought in here in New Zealand. The new bill will make it a privilege and not a right to grow food.
I find two aspects of this bill alarming. The first is the scope and impact the new bill has, and secondly that it has all happened so quietly. There has been VERY little media coverage, on a bill which promises to jeopardise the future food security of the country.
I read that the bill is being brought in because of the WTO, which of course has the US FDA behind it, and of course that is influenced by big business (Monsanto and other players). It looks like this NZ food bill will pave the way to reduce the plant diversity and small owner operations in New Zealand, for example by way of controlling the legality of seed saving and trading/barter/giving away; all will be potentially illegal. The best website to read about the problems with the new bill is http://nzfoodsecurity.org (I have no connection with this website)
Here are some snippets:
- It turns a human right (to grow food and share it) into a government-authorised privilege that can be summarily revoked.
- It makes it illegal to distribute “food” without authorisation, and it defines “food” in such a way that it includes nutrients, seeds, natural medicines, essential minerals and drinks (including water).
- By controlling seeds, the bill takes the power to grow food away from the public and puts it in the hands of seed companies. That power may be abused.
- Growing food for distribution must be authorised, even for “cottage industries”, and such authorisation can be denied.
- 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).
- Members of the private sector can also be Food Safety Officers, as at Clause 243. So Monsanto employees can raid premises – including marae – backed up by armed police.
- The Bill gives Food Safety Officers immunity from criminal and civil prosecution.
- The Government has created this bill to keep in line with its World Trade Organisation obligations under an international scheme called Codex Alimentarius (“Food Book”). So it has to pass this bill in one form or another.
- The bill would undermine the efforts of many people to become more self-sufficient within their local communities.
- Seed banks and seed-sharing networks could be shut down if they could not obtain authorisation. Loss of seed variety would make it more difficult to grow one’s own food.
- Home-grown food and some or all seed could not be bartered on a scale or frequency necessary to feed people in communities where commercially available food has become unaffordable or unavailable (for example due to economic collapse).
- Restrictions on the trade of food and seed would quickly lead to the permanent loss of heirloom strains, as well as a general lowering of plant diversity in agriculture.
- Organic producers of heirloom foods could lose market share to big-money agribusiness outfits, leading to an increase in the consumption of nutrient-poor and GE foods.
…
The key factor is seeds. In many cases they specifically are food, of course. Grain seed, seed potatoes, rice, maize, quinoa, many staples etc etc – as the bill stands all these will explicitly be controlled substances, with similar penalties for possession as drugs.
This being so, the unenforceability of prohibiting people from growing food for local distribution becomes a moot point. No good seeds means no good food (if any food at all) to distribute.
One of the few newspaper articles that I’ve seen, highlighting some of the problems with the bill. This from the Timaru Herald newspaper
URL http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/new…
Some snippets:
The woman behind the Oamaru community gardens is concerned a bill going through Parliament could jeopardise the project.
Gardens co-ordinator Annie Beattie said the Food Bill, which passed its first reading on July 22, was more commercially driven than about food safety. “It’s all about big companies wanting sole rights to seeds because they don’t produce seeds and you have to buy them again each year. They are contaminated seeds. “I have to say I am furious about these bullying tactics.”
She has signed an online petition opposing the bill. “This to me is a dictatorship and certainly not a democratic society. “I think its time for people to open their eyes be responsible and stand up for their rights. “I would go to jail if I had to and will be defending the right to have community gardens and share our food and our knowledge of the importance of good, safe, real food.”
I found the website for the gardens: http://www.marketground.co.nz/waitakicom… and waicomgardens at hotmail.com for E-Mail.
I have been a member of this site for over a year, and this is my first post. I did not think it would come to this in little old New Zealand, literally at the ends of the earth. Very serious stuff indeed.
Here is the bill:
Recommendation
The Primary Production Committee has examined the Food Bill and recommends that it be passed with the amendments shown.
Introduction
This bill would on commencement replace the Food Act 1981 and over time the Food Hygiene Regulations 1974 and the Food (Safety) Regulations 2002. It would also make consequential amendments to the Animal Products Act 1999 and the Wine Act 2003. It seeks to provide an efficient, risk-based regulatory regime that places a primary duty on persons trading in food to ensure that what is sold is safe and suitable.
This commentary focuses on the main amendments we recommend and does not address minor technical amendments.
Relationship with other Acts
We recommend amending clause 5 by dividing it into two clauses, clause 5 and clause 5A. Clause 5 would retain the explanation of the application of the bill. Clause 5A would clarify and provide certainty about the relationship between the bill and the Animal Products Act 1999 and the Wine Act 2003. We also recommend adding a subclause to clause 5A stating that if there is any conflict, duplication or inconsistency between a power or other form of authority conferred under the bill and those in the Animal Products Act or Wine Act in relation to an animal product or wine, then the powers or authorities conferred in the latter Acts would prevail.
Meaning of food business
We recommend that subclause 9(b)(iii) be deleted. In this subclause as introduced the definition of “food business” would capture people who do not trade in food, but are directly or peripherally involved in facilitating the trade of food, such as organisers of food markets or events.
Meaning of safety and suitability
We recommend that clause 11(5) be amended to clarify the definition of suitability as it relates to the “condition” of food. The proposed amendment would replace subclause (5) to make it clear that food is unsuitable if it is decomposed or rotten, contaminated or tainted, contains foreign objects, or is offensive in some other way. To avoid challenge to a food’s suitability on the basis of offensiveness in circumstances where the food is entirely lawful in terms of its composition (for example a vegetarian finding gelatine in a confectionery item “offensive”
) we recommend the inclusion of new subclause (5A), to make it clear that a moral, religious, or ethical aversion to a particular food or ingredient would not make the food unsuitable for the purposes of the bill.
We note that in circumstances where the composition of a food is misrepresented (for example, if a café meal were described as vegan but was found by the vegan purchaser to contain animal product, or a product were incorrectly labelled as vegetarian), recourse would be available through the bill’s provisions for “truth in labelling”
and through other statutes, such as the Fair Trading Act 1986.
Winemaking operations
We recommend inserting new clause 24A, which is currently clause 43, and amending it to widen the scope of the risk management tool under which winemakers can apply to have their operations included. The amendment would acknowledge that some activities that winemakers undertake will be subject to national programmes rather than food control plans. The amendment would also clarify that such operators would be required to meet Wine Act standards in relation to their winemaking activities.
Food control plans
We recommend inserting new clause 35A to specify the purposes for which regulations about food control plans could be made. Clause 35A would replace clause 347(1).
This clause would also include specific regulation-making powers, which would clarify the scope of potential regulations in respect of such matters as verification intensity and frequency, and training and competency requirements.
For the sake of clarity, we recommend replacing clauses 36–40 and replacing them with clauses covering the following matters: a chief executive’s power to amend a template food control plan; the circumstances in which a food operator may amend a template food control plan (and the process to be followed in doing so); a chief executive’s ability to register a food control plan template amended by a food operator; a food operator’s ability to amend a food control plan developed by a third party; and a food operator’s ability to amend a food control plan not based on an official template.
We recommend deleting clause 42. It was intended to provide for a person who carries out secondary processing of animal product to incorporate these activities into a registered food control plan in certain circumstances. However, this option is already available under the bill and clause 42 does not provide anything additional.
We recommend amending clause 45(1)(f) to make it clear when a food control plan would have to be verified, by adding the words “after commencement of the operations to which the registered food control plan relates”
.
Regulations about national programmes
We recommend amending clause 73(1)(l) to allow national programme regulations to be more specific on the training and competency requirements for persons who are required to operate under those regulations. The amended wording would allow the regulations to require such people to undergo appropriate training, or to demonstrate competency, regarding the safety and suitability of food, food production, and food processing and handling, and to provide training for staff as appropriate.
We also recommend that clause 73(1)(c) be amended to allow regulations to prescribe the intensity of verification. This affects the cost of verification, and we consider it appropriate that this aspect of verification also be regulated.
Horticulture New Zealand and various other submitters were concerned about the potential for duplication and increased compliance costs resulting to their own certification programmes, and that the requirements of the bill could be onerous for their members. We have sought to address this matter and will monitor this closely.
Food handler guidance
A number of submitters were concerned that some of the provisions in the bill were too bureaucratic and costly. Small operators and charitable organisations were particularly concerned about this matter.
We recommend amending clause 92(2) by removing “community-based fund-raising events”
, and adding two new subclauses to specify that food handler guidance applies to persons or organisations trading in food for a charitable purpose, and persons or groups trading in food for personal development. This would align this clause with proposed amendments to clauses 94 and 94A.
Charitable purpose
We recommend amending clause 94 to clarify the definition of trading in food for charitable purpose, by replacing “community-based fund-raising activities”
with “charitable purpose”
. The section would apply to a person or persons or organisation trading in food for a “charitable purpose”
. Charitable purpose is defined in clause 94(4) of the bill. Such persons or organisations trading in food for a charitable purpose would therefore be exempt from the requirement to operate under a food control plan or national programme. The food operator would still have to operate under any food handler guidance that applies to the trade in food concerned. We also recommend requiring that the trade in food for a charitable purpose either occur not more than 20 times in one calendar year or, if it is more frequent, that it be ancillary or incidental to the main activity taking place at that location.
Schedule 3 of the bill further details the specific food sectors and food-selling activities subject to food handler guidance. We recommend a number of amendments to the schedule to make it clear who and what is covered by Schedule 3.
We recommend amending part 1(f) of Schedule 3 by deleting “infrequent”
and adding “organisations, and societies (internal)”
. This would cover members of a club, organisation, or society selling food to other members where the trade in food was not the purpose of the event or gathering. Along with amended clause 94 this would allow, for example, a church or religious congregation selling food to its members to be subject only to food handler guidance.
We recommend inserting new part 1(fa) into Schedule 3, “Food service sector: clubs, organisations, and societies (external)”
. This would cover members of a club, organisation, or society selling food to members and guests where the trade in food was not the purpose of the event or gathering. This is intended to cover events such as a sausage sizzle at a sports match.
We also recommend that part 1(c) of Schedule 3 be amended to include the sector description “fishing vessel operators who supply food for crew”
. By virtue of supplying food to crew (which is part of a remuneration package), a vessel operator would fall within the meaning of a food business and thus be captured by this bill. While the hazards associated with such food provision warrant some form of control, we felt the low risk involved and the impracticality of verifying such operations means that the best solution would be to make such activities subject to food handler guidance.
Personal development
We recommend inserting new clause 94A to provide for exemption from operating under a food control plan or national programme in circumstances where food is sold for a specified fund-raising purpose which would fall outside the scope of clause 94. The purpose must be to provide financial support required by the person selling the food, or a named other person (or group of persons), to achieve a specific purpose or goal. The trade in food would be on a non-commercial scale and on an infrequent basis, that is, no more than 20 times in one calendar year. The person or group would still be required to operate under any food handler guidance that applied to the trade in food concerned.
Small scale businesses
We recommend amending clause 95 by inserting new subclause 95(5) to provide an example of a person to whom the chief executive might grant an exemption from the requirement to operate under a registered food control plan or national programme. This example concerns someone who produces in his or her own home any food for sale, and sells the food to a consumer only, and does not employ or engage anyone else to assist in the production or sale of the food, and does not otherwise sell or distribute the food.
The treatment of very small-scale food businesses has emerged as a matter of particular interest in our consideration of the bill. Very small-scale food traders, or “cottage industries”
are not distinguished in the bill. It would be difficult to quantify “small-scale”
in terms of profit, quantity of product, or number of people involved in the operation, and it is also difficult to define a “cottage”
food industry. Doing so could have the effect of inappropriately including or excluding particular food-trading activities. Therefore we do not recommend a generic “cottage industry”
provision, and propose instead that any exemption from the requirement to operate under a food control plan or national programme regulations could be made on a case-by-case basis through the exercise of the chief executive’s exemption power under this clause.
Delegation to territorial authorities
We recommend amending clause 96 by adding subclause 96(7) and 96(8). The chief executive should be able to delegate functions, duties, or powers to territorial authorities. However, delegation of the chief executive’s power to grant an exemption from the requirement to operate under a food control plan or national programme would be limited. Subclause 96(8) would require a territorial authority acting under delegation to grant, amend, or revoke an exemption under clause 95 in accordance with the special consultative procedure specified in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.
Exclusivity of verification functions and activities granted to territorial authorities
We recommend inserting new clause 127A to preclude the chief executive from recognising anyone other than a territorial authority as a verifier for businesses that operate under a template or model food control plan issued under clause 32, and operate exclusively within the district of a single territorial authority, and sell food directly to consumers.
The bill as introduced does not include express provision for territorial authorities to be exclusive verifiers of any food sector. Clause 126 provides that any person or body can apply for recognition as a verifier and can be recognised as such, provided the chief executive is satisfied they are a fit and proper person. It was originally expected that territorial authority verification exclusivity would be given effect through transitional regulations made under clause 397 of the bill; however this is no longer considered appropriate because territorial authority exclusivity may not be a transitional or temporary arrangement. It would have to be determined by the outcome of a review as per new clause 127B.
However, we consider it important that the chief executive’s power to monitor the performance of territorial authorities and the Minister’s powers of review persist during the exclusivity period.
Review of operation
We recommend inserting new clause 127B to provide for a review of the operation of the new clause 127A as soon as practicable after the expiry of the legislation’s introductory period as set out in clause 375.
We consider that the advantages of territorial authorities being granted verification exclusivity outweigh the disadvantages. However, new clause 127B would ensure the arrangement was reviewed by the chief executive as soon as practicable after the expiry of the legislation’s introductory period. This review could determine whether the arrangement could still be justified once the new regime was fully implemented.
Power to issue improvement notice
We recommend inserting new clauses 267A and 267B, to give a food safety officer the authority to issue an improvement notice, and provide a right of review for a person to whom an improvement notice has been issued. The chief executive would also be allowed to initiate a review of a food safety officer’s decision to issue an improvement notice.
We felt an improvement notice regime would be a useful addition to the enforcement tools available to encourage compliance with the requirements of the bill. An improvement notice would require corrective actions to be undertaken. This could be used to provide an opportunity to correct any non-compliance, instead of an infringement notice being issued or proceedings being commenced.
Green Party minority view
The Green Party is concerned that the bill deals with the issue of food safety inconsistently and even arbitrarily.
We are concerned about the narrow definition of food safety in the bill, which allows hazards to remain in food provided they can be managed, eliminated, or minimised. We think the definition is way too wide.
The Green Party is particularly concerned at the definition of food safety, given the narrow focus by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority on managing food safety risks of microbial contamination, and the way it consistently ignores contamination by pesticides and other chemicals such as Bisphenol A, and heavy metals.
Finally, we are pleased that this bill will require importers to be registered in New Zealand and that importers will have a duty to be able to trace imported foods back to their source. We would like to see this ability to trace foods back to their source, used as the basis for mandatory country of origin labelling, and full traceability in the food supply, as is being introduced in other countries.
Appendix
Committee process
The Food Bill was referred to the committee on 22 July 2010. The closing date for submissions was 2 September 2010. We received and considered 66 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We heard 26 submissions.
We received advice from the Food Safety branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (formerly the New Zealand Food Safety Authority.) The Regulations Review Committee reported to the committee on the powers contained in clauses 21, 178, 180, 346, 367 and 403.
Committee membership
Shane Ardern (Chairperson)
Hon Jim Anderton
Brendon Burns
Dr Ashraf Choudhary
Craig Foss
Sandra Goudie
Colin King
Hon Damien O’Connor
Sue Kedgley was a non-voting member for this item of business.
-Martin
You are so gullible Camomatic. Its not just about NZ but the whole world. Apathy is what brought you sodium fluoride, one of the most toxic human substances to be foisted on man. Mass medication is truly evil, and now they want to add lithium to your water. Have you ever looked into whats in vaccines. Inject it if you like mercury and formaldehyde. Won’t it be nice when you are asked to pay for the air that you breathe. Clean air will be come a commodity for capitalists.
Inspite of all these problems the world is changing for the better, and in the near future this beautiful earth will be a place where angels will want to descent to and play. In the mean time, do not assume everything is going to be alright. Be vigilant!!!
You guys need to settle down. These articles are written to scaremonger, and it’s working. Just do a bit of your own research and read the bill. Comments such as “using guns” etc are emotive sentences used to get you worried. But If you look at the bill you will see that the following statement – “a food safety officer may use at a place any equipment the officer has taken into the place if the officer reasonably believes that its use is necessary” has existed in the bill since 1981. This is the closest it gets to guns people. Nothing in the latest amendment to the bill mentions anything more. Can’t say I’ve seen too many armed raids happen in the last 30 years! And, as an aside, Sue Kedgley of the Green Party helped develop the amendment, do you really think she is out to take away your rights? I repeat, settle down…
Camomatic, you will never convince people like Roman that the world isn’t being run by some sort of New World Secret Order, they wan’t to believe it. And they will talk black and blue that it’s us with our eyes closed – blah de blah watched too much Zeitgeist (which by the way, none of their prophecies came true). If people would actually take a little time and read source documents and not beleive secondhand information then we wouldn’t be in this stupid debate. I’m sick of the conspiracy theorists who think everyting in this world is a plot against us – and push it on us like religion (which most of them abhor anyhow).
Blue Dragon, your quoted text is from a bill that is 30 years old. I’m not really sure where you are going with it?
The use of the word ‘guns’ is not scare mongering. The same bill has already been passed in the US and they are already conducting armed raids on small farms and small food businesses
Aaron another misinformed apathetic twit. Suck up some more sodium fluoride Aaron cos its done exactly to you that its meant to, dumb you down.
Aaron,
Quote “It’s just helping to prevent what happened to that poor girl in Thailand who died after eating from a street stall” You’re pathetic. You are soooo missing the point. You’re intelligence freaks me out.
When Health Freedom dot org: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=322 an organization run by Dr. Rima Laibow and retired Maj. General Stubblebein first published their information on Codex, people laughed. There is not so much laughter now. The WTO is a private organization, not a governmental one, and the same goes for Codex. Codex was founded by the former CEO of the chemical/pharmaceutical company that supplied all needs of the Nazis, including the Death Camp gas Zyklon B, IG Farben. After his prison term for crimes against humanity he went to an old friend in the WTO with the idea of Codex and using food as a weapon in the old Nazi eugenics program. People think Codex is a consumer protection agency; it is NOT!
Per Dr. Laibow (she and General Stubblebein attend the Codex meetings, including the one in which Codex decided to use the dosage standards for poisons applied to dosages for nutrients; more in a moment), Codex’s own website can be read to say that once it has control of the food supply of the world, the first of three billion expected deaths as a result of those standards will be from “simple starvation.” The next two will be from many different diseases of malnutrition such as cancer, scurvy, and many, many others.
The standard for determining safe levels of toxins says that a dose that produces ANY measurable effect on the human body is too high a dose. Applied to food and food supplements, this includes the effect of health. This is how Codex determines the largest allowable dose of nutrients.Of course people just refuse to believe that something like this could be out in the open like that, but is IS. America’s fake food safety law and now New Zealand’s May NOT say these things outright, but it’s already happening in the U.S. anyway – it’s how you interpret different clauses in the bill! Check this out: http://nzfoodsecurity.org/ In another incident, a small family-operated organic farm essentially having a family picnic was forced to destroy all of its food! It’s insane, it’s horrifying, and it’s really happening! People had damned well better wake up and start fighting this! If you think you can’t legally be forced to starve to death, think again!
Ian
S 510 Food Safety bill is the USA version. It was written by an ex employee of Monsanto. See Heritage Foundation. The second largest shareholder of Monsanto is George Soros. The Phillanthrocrat who calls himself Christlike.
It will raise considerable money by fining farmers who contravene draconian farming regulations. Such as where they plant, where they graze their animals,this combined with Agenda 21/Network Cities/Sustainable Cities will bring serfdom back to the world. This global net work of local govt. regards humans like Theodore Roosevelt as the human herd, to be vaccinated culled and bred by global elites like George Soros who funds euthanasia, legalising drugs and human trafficking. Local Govt. (there is a push in Australia to put local govt. under Federal law and the Constitution)will provide the human right to housing, food health and drugs for personal use.
An example of this S 510 bill is a two year stake out by the FDA of the Amish and their so called unhygenic dairy production and distribution through local markets. In Australia the Murray Darling food bowl is about to regulated out of existence. See Barnaby Joyce Press Release.
Kathy – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0160/latest/DLM3435700.html?search=ts_bill_food+bill_resel&p=1&sr=1
@Camomatic
I too believe one should inform oneself. Have you read the bill? Have you read the contract that comes with your credit card? These and many other documents only lawyers can understand. Sorry, but I need somebody else to explain this to me in plain English.
Next, what are the definitions for ‘sell’ & ‘commercial’? Does this affect the person at the weekly farmers market? You also don’t mention seeds, a very big issue when talking about Monsanto and their ilk.
To be a believable voice in between all the scaremongering & worries, please clarify your position & legal expertise in this area. For every point that you claim in your post, please provide the relevant passages from the bill.
at least the corgis will still be able to retire to landed gentry vineyards
First US now NZ next here in Australia, and justified by responses claiming that the new legislation poses no harm, that it’s us who are alarmist fear mongers. If the food bill won’t actually affect the average home gardener then any aspect of the legislation that even hints at opportunity for potential abuse or imposition of the proposed law in this way should be immediately removed.
Check out Alex jones at prisonplanet.com and infowars.com if you haven’t, he has all the gough you need on this sorta stuff. Important news on not just this food bill in the US but other worthy stories that need to be read, heard and seen. I urge you to take pride in humanity and do the right thing, y’all. Your planet needs you! Your people need you! Stand up!
George Orwell must be rolling in his grave. Big Brother is getting way out of hand and he must be put to REST. To many chiefs and not enough Indians as they say. I am tired of these sons of bitches telling me what to do.
For all of you rattling the cage doors and drumming this up, let me ask – will you let someone take away your right to grow food in your back yard? I tell you now, anyone that attempts to take away my right to grow and consume fresh organic food will be met by firm resistance. This is something I would consider worth laying my life down for, and I imagine that I am not the only one. At present, we are seeing governments being overthrown by protests and riots in the middle east on an almost monthly basis and that is exactly what the NZ government will experience if they try to enforce any such draconian control on us. The big concern I have is that small local growers will have their lively-hoods destroyed by this legislation, and on that basis I object to the amendment of the act and have added my name to the petition.
We live in a very unique time/reality..bloggers and bickerers all need to find solutions so your inherent rights are not violated , the new world order is real and happening and has been in play probably longer than some of you have been alive..there is just as much good as bad going on, but it’s up to us to make a choice, were do u stand, what do u support, some of us realize the need to change and live in a world were we honor and support all diversity and the others don’t..make your choice and start living it, we probably will never know the real truth behind all the crazy stuff going on, just know your own truth, step put of the box you have put yourself in and start speaking up for yourself and others..the Internet is a great resource for information and networking, check out the new movie Thrive and be part of the Thrive Movement….
[...] From Martin on Investment Watch Blog. Thanks to Jacinta for the heads up: Photo from the New Zealand blog Sunshine + Design. Click to go there. [...]
I have been a gardener for 3o years…I grow everything in my back yard. I live in Washington State and the people here all do it,,,We are a very Hippie State and we take pride in growing fresh safe food for our families ands sometimes we take it to market…Never has anyone ever said I couldn’t !! I collect my seeds and I share with neighbors…I do know one thing I would fight for my rights if someone did !!!
The devil’s apostles are wrecking havoc to this world! Yah, they’ll turn everything into business…everything that was free before are now becoming commodities to be paid…these people must be burned alive!
Roman you sound pretty much like all the wanna-be eco-warriors who attack everything and everyone who doesn’t agree with them. I support Aaron – Roman should take the time to become a little literate and actually read AND UNDERSTAND what the bill is actually saying.
Oh yes…. PLEASE read all you can about conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.There’s plenty available. Be informed and stop wasting time on alarmist bullshit.
I am a little concerned at the look of this bill. Im not sure if I read it properly but does it say I will be prosecuted for having my veggie garden out the back?
It is happening in the US, it is happening in Europe, seeds are engineered to last only one season, and vaults are being created around the world to protect original seeds in case of destruction and for the sake of the big corporations. There is no conspiracy, this is just the way the “world order” is being built day by day…
Support producers of 100% Non-Hybrid, Non-GMO seeds.
Search for Heirloom seeds suppliers. Grow your own keep the seeds.
Don’t buy supper-market fruit and veg if they are grown from hybrid seeds
Starve the BEAST it will be the best way to bring these anti-life corporations down. Don’t consume / use any of their products and tell them why.
They are united and driven by greed and control. We must unite and be driven by the love of life and freedom.
Grew my own tomatoes (Gardeners Delight and Latah) for the first time this year from heirloom seeds – absolutely delicious.
Peace and Love from the UK
[...] Related Article: New food bill in New Zealand takes away human right to grow food [...]
[...] New food bill in New Zealand takes away human right to grow food (Investment Watch article) [...]
Watch FOOD INC. No No No to this bill!!!!!!!
Hello there, just became alert to your weblog via Google, and found that it’s really informative. I am gonna be careful for brussels. I will appreciate should you continue this in future. Many other people will likely be benefited from your writing. Cheers!
Just passed something similar here in the US. People have been arrested for selling whole milk, health food stores have been raided, it’s ridiculous. Didn’t know the WTO was involved in this. Thanks for the heads up!
[...] Forrás: Investment Watch [...]
[...] Forrás: Investment Watch [...]
The solution is..
Learn to say NO, its that simple
You need a drivers licence to operate your automobile, NO
You need to pay taxes, NO
You can’t have a firearm without a licence, NO
You must enroll for voting(accept this system), NO
You must pay this speeding fine, NO
You must “register” your child’s birth, NO
Stop talking about the problems and make a decision ( A choice made and no other option considered possible) to put into action the necessary process to fix the problem. That’s a real decision.
Peace and love
d-R-y-W-a-T-e-R
Hello There. I discovered your weblog using msn. This is an extremely neatly written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and return to learn more of your helpful information. Thank you for the post. I?ll certainly return.
Dear NZ citizens,
I wish you courage, power and wisdom to stop this shameful act of Monsanto + FDA + WTO. What Monsanto has been doing in the past 80 years is something that can be called crime agains humanity and Monsanto and FDA personnel responsible should face the International Criminal Court in Hague. I am very deeply saddened by this. Up to this point I believed that the key for the future are the small self-independent communities. I forgot to calculate that these communities can be simply banned because self-independence is something utterly undesirable by the rulers of consumer society and powerful companies like Monsanto
Peter from Hungary
[...] READ MORE [...]
the occupation will change all of this, join us we are legion
Hi there this article is great but you need to host your site on a faster server. Try htt://0hna.com $0 Hosting No Ads. There much faster and Free.
[...] New food bill in New Zealand takes away human right to grow food I was shocked to learn from a friend on the weekend that a new Food Bill is being brought in here in New Zealand. The new bill will make it a privilege and not a right to grow food. I find two aspect… [...]
i think this is pathetic your there away something thats been with us since the start of time pretty much and its bullshit and not fair who are they to say what we can grow and what we can’t or even make things to sustain our living needs like what are you thinking when the riot happens ill be there
think this is pathetic your taking away something thats been with us since the start of time pretty much and its bullshit and not fair who are they to say what we can grow and what we can’t or even make things to sustain our living needs like what are you thinking when the riot happens ill be there farming and harvesting is essential to us and a tradition and a skill that must be carried so forth to the next generation and what happens to the poor that do rely on saving there money and rely on there crop out the back you people make me sick there just not my people im there’s and your part of us is-well and your gonna do this to us and be ok bout it?/ common this is nz we do this stuff for living you moron sooo pretty much what your saying your gonna control other peoples resources and the everything that’s keeping them alive
and there assets pretty much not fair rude pitiful.mark my words for those who created this and thinks that this is OK i hope when you die you will be judged by god and i hope he throws you to the deepest boules of hell .your not human like us we care
[...] NZ Food Security (via New food bill in New Zealand takes away human right to grow food ) Just saw this now, it seems this is in the making for months now. As I read this, they want to [...]
Sawasdee,
please show me the exact passages in the bill,
from which you conclude that the goverment/industry “takes away human right to grow food”.
thank you for your time and knowledge
(reading AND understanding law texts is a very timeconsuming realm)
greetings
swiss
so what are we going to do about this bill New Zealanders,are we going to roll over again like sheep or are we going to stand up for our rights and the rights of our chrildren to have and grow GE free foods