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 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 (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


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:… and waicomgardens at 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:


The Primary Production Committee has examined the Food Bill and recommends that it be passed with the amendments shown.


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.


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.




Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • Maria

    I have been distibuting this info on facebook and to various NZ fb groups without so much as a comment..omg, we live in a nation of sleeping sheeple…how do we get word out before these zionist facsist’s take away our grandchildrens right to be self sufficient!???

  • Darryl Rhodes

    Have you read the bill yourself?

  • Paul

    I would like to hear more about this Maria or anyone. Its in a Kiwis bloodline to be able to be self sufficient

  • Neil

    Very sad stuff, especially when faced with the prospect of our agriculture being slowly bought up by offshore interests. It’s not foreigner fear, nationalistic pride or the thought of profits going offshore. China has made it clear that it’s interests in the purchases of farms is to ensure food supply FOR CHINA. In thirty years time we could be starving in towns that back onto agricultural districts that are growing shiploads of food.

  • Debs

    Contact the TV shows such as Close Up and Campbell Live. I received feedback from Close Up saying they are investigating the story now.

  • home food grower

    The Green Party have investigated this and the broad application of the bill. It is widely accepted by both the Green Party and the Minister for the bill that the intention of the bill is not to affect these things and amendments insuring this will thus be implemented. It is starting to be more recognised that that site is a large source of misinformation and fear mongering rather than informed and well researched information. I am against any restrictions on our food rights but people really need to not just believe the first thing they read, this applies to both the mainstream media AND alternative sources such as blogs. For more info:

  • Annette B

    This bill should at the very least exempt home growers and community projects. Any law that requires amendment to protect our right to grow and share our food should rightly be viewed with suspicion.

    “Home food grower”, it seems to me you are either naive or not quite what you claim to be.

  • John

    This is disturbing. It’s a basic human right to grow food on your own land, whether for pleasure, to feed your own family or to share. New Zealand is one step closer to becoming a dystopian society.

  • Michelle

    thanks for making this public I have had same issue with no one taking issue anyone here and Martin too I would love to contact you aS IN Dunedin, Auckland , and Wellington we have a guy coming here to speak on this very thing in Novemeber 11th , 12th and 13th and we would love to have great numbers and we want to use this to get media acknowledgement and this person will speak with Media if You like more info please let me know the cost is $20.00 but out of this comes his cost of flights to come from UK and then accomodation and flights to each NZ destination but we are few people of very limited income and have no way to afford andveritsing so it is word of mouth . I appraoched one media a wee while back and they said no to idea as thye said to me there is no way there would be enough of a story to warrant a story gap on their show, so if we can make it a big thing with great turn outs I was thinking we can leak it too media and make it a national and if not global event for media but please let me know and also if You like to come to hear gentleman talk let me know and then i can post more details . thanks heaps Martin and all here for making this an issue instead of just amongst a scattered few on facebook etc and all getting deaf ears who aren’t worried but this is a global take over linked with CODEX Alimentarius and Monsanto and in USA now armed police are invading organic growers and shutting them down and monsanto is gaining over all control and same too pharmaceutical linked Codex and soon You won’t be able to even get natural therapy has already been passed in Europe and we are next if we don’t fight but Martin and all here if You want to join us please let us knos as that is my dream anyway to use this Gentleman who 3 of us have got to come here outlaying the money because we care and want NZ to stand up and with his help make it a media issue .thanks so much this has truly made my night .thank YOu lets join and fight and I happen to know that MANA Party are truly against this . thank goodness .we need more of peopel like this in power !!! to stand for our rights!!! much thanks again .kindest regards Michelle and please know I speak this from my heart and do never want to offend anyone at all. I just want us to have our Health Freedom and it is things like =Farmers markets and just us people who will have to have a government licence to share our own food as a lady Mother in the US was jailed for growing organic produce in her own garden and even for reason of not being able to afford to buy food.Power to our Health Freedom

  • abcdef
  • Michelle

    HI we have Ian Crane coming to Dunedin on the “13th November 2011 Sunday evening 6.45om at the University Archway lecture theatre…to discuss this and the global implications of this he is also in Auckland 11th NOvember Friday 2011 and Wellington 12th SAturday 2011 all starting at the time of 6.45pm and you can view the venues and all info at and we will be having a petition there we really want this to make it to mainstream media so all NZers can make an informed decision come election time as who we vote in will make the decision for us there are 3 things the food bill , the natural medicines bill and the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. thank You take care and may food and health freedom be ours

  • Michelle

    Martin how do we if we are able to get in contact with Yourself? please? thank you

  • Brendan

    I would not worry too much – New Zealanders will do whatever they like in spite of what their stupid govt says. Yes Kiwi’s can be a bit apathetic, but it is partly because we have so little regard for the govt that we’ll do whatever we are accustomed to doing whatever stupid law is passed. We’re a proud and opinionated bunch, and any govt stupid enough to pass such a law will be voted out at the next election – in this case, that’s just around the corner :) Goodbye National Party.

  • Kathleen

    I am from the USA & it’s true beware of Monsanto & the other Big Food Industries…it is happening here & our Government is moving quickly to a Tyranny…it is sad but the US is not the US it used to be because we have a Progressive Socialist in power right now- Good luck & stick to your guns!! I love New Zealand and regret that intervention from my Country is threatening your way of life…. We have an election coming in less than a year and I plan to do whatever I can to vote this idiot we have in Washington DC now out!! Take care Kiwi’s!! :)

  • Gwen

    Hi there,

    The email address provided in this post for waicomgardens is not a valid email address. Does anyone know where the online petition against this bill is?

  • Karen

    Any govt that brings this in and thinks they can get the police or army to back them up is commiting political suicide. We should be asking our candidates and demand that they answer our concerns in this. We need to know which parties support this tyranny and opposition to our basic human rights.

  • Caadfael

    This is just SO WRONG in every way, another piece of muddle-headed crap imported from a country where people are having to live in storm drains FFS!
    The super-corporations and bankstabbers have much to answer for!


  • Jack

    Maria, quite frankly you are an idiot. Zionist Fascists? WOW, that is such a misguided label its hard to even know where to begin. Perhaps you should go and learn the meaning of those terms before you start throwing them around trying to act knowledgeable.

  • Marc one

    I wonder if the journalist “martin” read the bill before writing this?

    He should, and you al should before getting up in arms…especially the part that says..”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”

    That means, we can share our tomoatoes with our neighbours.

    Kool Blog bro.

  • Roman

    You people who think its not going to happen had better wake up fast, because this is part of global domination for ALL countries. If you think you are safe than you are in for a big shock. Google “codex Alimentarius” and you”ll get the big picture. There are already a number of European countries where these draconian laws are partially in place. Very scary…

  • Anonymous

    We can only hope that the reason kiwis are quiet about this is that the very notion of some governing body trying to stop them from having a vege garden is so absurd, that they feel confident that anyone attempting to interfere,to that extent, with what we do in our homes will be met with a big laughing fuck you and a leather boot smack in the mouth escort of my fuckin’ property… you white shirted briefcase toting fuckball …!!

  • Lee

    Does anyone know where this on lie petition is. I am very keen to sign it!

  • brett linney

    Time for a change in govt!!!!

  • Dan

    Very very sad..

    I have just read the bill and what shocks me most is it makes it illegal to distribute water. For example collecting rain water and giving it to the farm next door will be against the law!

    Think back to the Christchurch earthquake. Did anyone distribute water to their friends or family?

    Why would we even want to consider this bill.. Its adds NO value to New Zealanders..

    The big rich corporations who want this in should bugger off!

    What can we do to stop this?

  • Jay

    What some fail to realise that even with amendments this is a backdoor, baby-steps way of restricting our rights to grow our own food and supply water outside of ‘official’ sources… there is no need for this bill.. thats the real point here.. whats the basis for thsi bill in the first place? some will say its public safety BUT there are no cases of poisoning or danger worth mentioning that would necessitate this bill.. its a corporate scam pushed on politicians and its BUllshite!!
    There is NO justification for this bill in the first place so why even debate it or try and amend it.. the greens are too much placating instead of demanding a stop to it. This is about greed and control plain and simple.. dont buy into it!

  • Aaron

    If you are worried about what you have read from this (and other) websites, just read the amendment to the bill itself. It will put your mind at ease. The government is not taking away your right to grow or share any of your food or seeds. You can even sell it at the local markets if you are raising money for charity. However, if you intend on selling your products, then you have to provide a food control plan or apply for exemption. This is no different from what a restaurant or larger food supplier already has to do. It ensures that you are selling a safe healthy product. I repeat, the government IS NOT taking away your God given right to grow or share your food. It’s just helping to prevent what happened to that poor girl in Thailand who died after eating from a street stall. Oh, and by the way, Jay, NZ has one of the highest rates of food poisening in the developed world…..

  • Jo

    I Totally agree with Anonymous 100%

  • Kendra

    This is a link to the online petition for everyone who has been asking for it:

    Get on and sign it and tell all your friends to as well! They have tried to keep this quiet for a reason…spread the word as far as you can.

  • pissed off

    Yes Brett time for a change of government, and Aaron, you can get food poisoning from with in your own house, this bill scares the hell out of me cause it is like the T.W.O is trying to take control of the worlds food, with so many starving people in the world they think it is right to destroy food cause the state did not give them permission to grow it?, who the hell are they to tell us, what veggies we can grow or not, god gave man kind seeds for all of man kind not for company’s to own.

  • pissed off

    oops sorry W.T.O

  • Kendra

    “Food control equals people control — and population control. Is this beginning to sound like world government and one-world order? Could this be the real goal behind Codex Alimentarius?”

    and this is a link with information about Codex Alimentarius….very very scary stuff….


    Just a few snippets from the article:

    What can we expect under Codex? To give you an idea, here are some important points:

    Dietary supplements could not be sold for preventive (prophylactic) or therapeutic use.

    Potencies would be limited to extremely low dosages. Only the drug companies and the big phytopharmaceutical companies would have the right to produce and sell the higher potency products (at inflated prices).

    Prescriptions would be required for anything above the extremely low doses allowed (such as 35 mg. on niacin).

    Common foods such as garlic and peppermint would be classified as drugs or a third category (neither food nor drugs) that only big pharmaceutical companies could regulate and sell. Any food with any therapeutic effect can be considered a drug, even benign everyday substances like water.

    Codex regulations for dietary supplements would become binding (escape clauses would be eliminated).

    All new dietary supplements would be banned unless they go through Codex testing and approval.

    Genetically altered food would be sold worldwide without labeling.

    “If Codex Alimentarius has its way, then herbs, vitamins, minerals, homeopathic remedies, amino acids and other natural remedies you have taken for granted most of your life will be gone. The name of the game for Codex Alimentarius is to shift all remedies into the prescription category so they can be controlled exclusively by the medical monopoly and its bosses, the major pharmaceutical firms.

    “This will create a world without borders ruled by a virtual dictatorship of the world’s most powerful central banks and multinational companies. This world is an absolute certainty if we all sit on our hands and do nothing.”

    “This is the future the FDA and FTC are striving to bring us via Codex harmonization. Is this a future we are going to willingly accept or prevent?”

    We are being brought into “harmonization” with international standards via this food bill…it might seem like a stupid bill to a lot of NZers but it really could be the beginning of a very scary future for us all…

    Please please please sign the petition, do all you can to prevent it going through…Do not vote National!!…Stand up for New Zealand and it’s people…

  • Archie1954

    This kind of interference with the natural rythym of the world is dangerous beyond belief. From the first agrarian societies of 10,000 years ago, civilization has supported individual farmers. Now all of a sudden only the giant and wealthy corporations will have the right to grow food and anyone who can’t afford to pay them for it will simply starve. I find it extremely difficult to consider this kind of situation beneficial to the population at large.

  • Elle

    Why even have a bill in the first place? Is food unsafe in New Zealand?

    More and more bills, legislation, food examiners, bureaucracy. Who and what are behind it all? Corporations and entities that want more profits? Elimination of competition? Control of all food?

  • richardo

    im not worried because what new zealander is going to put up with this american crap.anyone who trys and tells kiwis what to do with ther vegie garden are in for a carrot up the you know what.thankfully true kiwis have a brain of ther own and dont need to be dictated to what they do with there food.some new zealand polition is in bed with rothchild i wonder who it is thats selling us down the zion controled s#it hole!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Sad Bill

    This is not right, first of all this a small economy does not have much resourses of its own and then the right to grow your own food is also taken away. this bill should be cancelled.

    We need right to breathe and grow our own food without and legal constrains

    We do not support this bill and want it to be cancelled

  • Louise

    I find it hard to believe that we are even discussing this.

  • Jonathan Rodgers

    We are screwed when most of the people in the country have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. The mere fact that our government is even allowing this bill to be presented for consideration is shocking at the least and disgusting and perverse at the in the extreme . Why are the greens not jumping up and down over this is beyond me and beaggers belief. And this is why I hate all politicians with a passion. why is it they seem only interested in protecting the interests of big bizzo all the while giving us, the people the big old finger.

  • Richard

    I cannot accept the GREENS assurances that the amendments to this bill will make it alright.

  • Tatiana Covington

    It’s actually just a piece of paper with some writing on it. Burn it.


    The World trade organisation puts enormous pressure on countries to comply to there regulations. Major major money will be made selling seeds internationally. I have heard claims that WTO are doing this to benefit undeveloped countries, but so far I have seen seeds that have been sold to poorer growers in countries and there crops are lasting one season but are not properly re seeding for the following season, so they are forced to re buy the seeds for next season. These seeds have been engineered this way. So guess who gets rich off the back of the poor and everybody else. They claim its for food hygiene etc…..Who gets sick from veges and fruit and seeds in NZ, if you wash them? Its just designed as political red tape to stop people from making money selling food, medicinal remedies and seeds. The website below can possibly help with opting out of this act on an individual level.

  • Lawrence

    If this government gets voted out what exactly do we replace it with? Nats out Labour in is like curing syphilis only to contract gonorrhea.

    I suppose we could try real democracy but it’s a bit unlikely to happen at short notice. Always popular with an opposition, less so with government.

    I suppose natural food does not have enough addictive properties (over-abundance of sugar)in it to make people buy more and more and more … of the same product – the essential bit. Therefore the supply of quality food must be regulated! We are not allowed to survive unless we pay some food company (worse than drug dealers) and the Grab, Snatch and Take (GST) arbiters (government) a tribute to their consideration and sacrifice they make on our behalf.

    Down with Don Key!

    I suppose there is some irony in that we are the only country to celebrate Guy Fawkes’ Day – not done in Australia I do not think? Time for a bit of real life – history repeating etc.

  • Blue Dragon

    The World Is Getting Harder, Faster, Quicker, Whilst We Spend our time Trying Out our Newest Game on our PCs, our very Basic Rights To fresh Home Grown Foodstuffs is being Undermined by Shadowy personages backed up by big dollars, soon the only place you will be able to share resources and food when you cant afford the dollar price for the real world food in your hard worked for pay-check will be on line, between your face book buddies Playing the newest game you can find think about it for a moment and then help me do something about it, Yours faithfully The Blue Dragon of the South Island New Zealand

  • Camomatic

    I’d suggest everyone actually read the bill before they panic as this blog & the article its based are not even remotely accurate. Its a classic case of scare mongering by conspiracy theorists & rent-a-protestors. You can download a copy & educate yourself rather than read paranoid rants like this

    The act applies to commercial producers only i.e you must be SELLING food on a COMMERCIAL scale.

    It does not give rights for food officers to use firearms

    Private sector inspectors must be goverment approved & most certainly are NOT immune from prosecution

    You can barter food as much as you like as long as you do not do it on a commercial scale

    You do NOT need authrorisation to grow, distribute, barter, trade or sell food on a non commercial scale

    Police CANNOT act as food inspectors however if required they can escort licenced food inspectors

    What the bill does is ensure that if you sell food commercially it must be fit for human consumption

  • Blue Dragon

    really check this bit of the act out then quote from the act Meaning of sale
    (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, sale, in relation to food,—
    (a) means selling food for processing and handling or for human consumption; and
    (b) includes—
    (i) reselling food for processing and handling or for human consumption; and
    (ii) offering food or attempting to sell food, or receiving or having food in possession for sale, or exposing food for sale, or sending or delivering food for sale, or causing or permitting food to be sold, offered, or exposed for sale; and
    (iii) bartering food; and
    (iv) selling, or offering to sell, any thing of which any food forms a part; and
    (v) supplying food, together with any accommodation, service, or entertainment, as part of an inclusive charge; and
    (vi) supplying food in exchange for payment or in relation to which payment is to be made in a shop, hotel, restaurant, at a stall, in or on a craft or vehicle, or any other place; and
    (vii) for the purpose of advertisement or to promote any trade or business, offering food as a prize or reward to the public, whether on payment of money or not, or giving away food; and
    (viii) exporting food; and
    (ix) every other method of disposition of food for valuable consideration.
    (2) The sale, offer, or exposure for sale of any food is to be treated, unless the contrary is proved, as a sale, an offer, or an exposure for sale of the food for human consumption.
    (3) The sale of any food for the purpose of being mixed with any other food is to be treated, unless the contrary is proved, as a sale if the bulk or product produced by the mixing, or any part of the bulk or product, is intended to be sold.
    (4) The supply of food by or on behalf of the Crown that is funded directly by the Crown for the purpose (whether in whole or in part), or that is funded by any other means, is to be treated as a sale of the food, unless an enactment provides otherwise

  • Roman

    whoa, we’d better hope that GOD hears about this and saves our souls cause some of the contributors like camomatic have their heads up their arse. Apathy is not going to cut it here.

  • Camomatic

    Read the thing Roman, the bill simply does not give food officers the powers stated in these articles.

    The closest claim in this article to the actual bill is the claim regarding Police officers acting as food safety officers. A police officer may execute a search warrant in relation to a food safety case & cease material associated with the case

  • Kathy

    I’m looking for a link to the actual bill before making comments.

  • Tom Zychowski

    Where is the link to the bill so I could read it?

    I love it, who benefits I wonder.

  • Prophit

    The US Senate Bill 509 does the same thing. This is going on in all first world countries. Africa land is being purchased by the Saudi’s and other Arab states to grow food for their countries and sell the excess, and South America is to become the bread basket for the states. That is why Bush Jr bought 100,000 acres of land in South America with Rev Moon buying 700,000 acres of land right next door and 500 heavily armed Marines are now stationed on their land. What does that tell you? SAME WITH WATER FOLKS, and if you rebel against the pedophiles running all these countries they will withhold your food and water. Better wake up, and kick out the bankers and their bought politicians like we are trying to do. All of us better wake up.

  • val reeves

    WTF ????