Here is Lisa Er’s letter to Food and Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson.
You may like to write something similar to her at
kate.wilkinson@parliament.govt.nz
Dear Hon Kate Wilkinson,
I am writing with concerns about the Food Bill 160-2 (2010)
Firstly I will explain my interest.
I am Lisa who founded Lisa’s Hummus.
I managed to use no preservatives in the product when I owned and ran the business, because I had an extremely hygienic factory. In fact I worked very very closely with MAF and later AgriQuality in order to achieve that.
Many people opposing the food legislation do not understand food hygiene issues and so I want you to know that I am writing from an understanding of where you are coming from.
There are still issues with this bill however.
The cost of compliance with this legislation could put small businesses, including small organic farms, out of business and would probably have killed Lisa’s at the start up level. (If National wants to get beneficiaries back to work, killing small business is not a good idea!)
Sue Kedgely told me that she had suggested some changes to the bill that would make it less controversial, but it appears at this stage you have not implemented them.
Why?
I have an idea as to your dilemma.
It appears to me that the legislation may well have been written by MAF with assistance from CODEX or some WTO representatives.
This is to ensure world HARMonisation of food laws to assist trade.
What is abundantly clear is that I, and many other New Zealanders, object to such interference by overseas interests that know nothing about a our Kiwi ‘do it yourself back yard’ culture.
There is concern raised about the influence of the Monsanto Corporation who is aggressively taking over the right to sell seeds worldwide. Are you surprised then that people here are concerned?
Monsanto also has a large number of shares in Blackwater (now called Xe Services) which is the largest mercenary army in the world.
(I will be contacting you in the future about the need for New Zealand to have a moratorium on genetically modification, which is failing world wide.)
When legislation is made, we can’t just rely on common sense. If gaps are left in the legislation that allow for inappropriate behaviour by both government and nongovernmental departments then they absolutely should be closed.
You say in your press release:
The Bill’s opponents are whipping up fears that small traders such as community gardens, food co-ops, heritage seed banks, farmers markets, bake sales and roadside fruit and vegetable stalls will be caught up in costly red tape. “That is simply not true. This Bill won’t in any way affect people’s right to grow food and to then exchange, sell or trade it.
You can very simply fix the public’s interpretation of this. Write the exemptions into the bill! Then people will no longer have concerns.
Here is a list of concerns, written by an acquaintance, that I would like addressed. Are they true or not?
- The bill 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
– 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.
– The bill will push up mainstream food prices by subjecting producers to red tape and registration costs. Food prices are already rising due to increased energy costs and commodity speculation, while effective disposable incomes are falling.
– Growing food for distribution must be authorised, even for “cottage industries”.
– 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.
– There are problems with Codex also. Codex will place severe restrictions on the content of vitamins, minerals and therapeutic compounds in food, drinks and supplements etc.
– The Food Bill means that non-Codex-complying producers can be shut down easily – thus it paves the way for the legal enforcement of Codex food regulations. Producers will be denied registration (which is discretionary) if they do not keep to Codex food production rules.
What are the implications for Food Security in NZ?
– 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.
To ensure that no holes or possibilities of misinterpretation are left in the bill, I would like to suggest that you open the bill for submissions to be heard again. This would ensure that the public are heard.
Trade agreements such as the TPPA are highly detrimental to this country’s sovereignty and I think you will find that an increasing number of aware New Zealanders want to move away from globalisation and more towards self governance. This will be all the more essential as oil becomes more expensive and less available and world economic instability increases – so please ensure that our food legislation allows food movement in this country, from Playcentre cake stalls to ensuring we can preserve and exchange our heritage seeds.
Yours Sincerely
Lisa Er,
—————————
See Campbell Live’s item on the Food Bill.
We wonder why Kate Wilkinson finds jam a food hygiene threat when sugar preserves fruit!
See HERE
—————————
Watch HERE for a general overview of the Food Bill
BUT there are some questions that we have still not heard addressed:
Below is a letter to Auckland’s Herald newspaper and so far the media has not addressed this issue:
Food Bill Enforcement
Letters to the Editor NZ Herald 12 Jan 2012
It is of concern that neither a Herald editorial nor any political responses have mentioned the iniquitous sections relating to enforcement in the Food Bill.
Section 274 provides that an officer may enter a place without a search warrant. Next, (even with out a warrant) they may use any force that is ‘reasonable’.
This is a very elastic term. It would seem that if the police were involved, they could be armed.
Section 295 states that a person assisting a constable or a food safety officer executing a warrant ‘is protected from civil and criminal liability that a person does or omits to do’. So they can do what they want with impunity and immunity?
Those protected from civil and criminal liability include the chief executive of the ministry, all employees and agents of the ministry, or members, employees or agents of a territorial authority, and most startlingly, employees or agents of a ‘recognized agency’, which it seems, includes any private firm.
Is this the sort of legislation that we want or need?
A P Holman. Northcote. QSO; BA; Dip. LGA; Dip. Tchg – Ex councillor for Northcote, Auckland
Thank you AP Holman.
