DANYA LEVY
Warrantless searches of houses and marae for food and seeds, even with guns, are coming to New Zealand soon thanks to the Food Bill unless you do something, says the petition on the social-networking website Facebook.
The campaign by the New Zealand Food Bill Action Group aims to collect 50,000 signatures and is just 10,000 short.
It claims the Food Bill, which is poised to return to Parliament after being considered by the primary production select committee, will take away New Zealanders' rights to grow food when and how they please, and remove access to natural medicine and non-genetically modified seeds and vegetables.
“It must be stopped,” says the group.
Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson says it's a scaremongering campaign.
“It's not particularly useful, but it's an opportunity for us to get the right message across. There is a lot of misinformation.”
The National-led Government has been trying to counter that by providing information to its electorate MPs who are fielding questions from concerned voters.
It won't be the end of farmers' markets, she assures. Those selling fruit and vegetables directly to consumers don't have to be registered and will not incur any costs, but will be “directed” to a food handler pamphlet. Those holding sausage sizzles, community functions and other fundraising events will also need a pamphlet.
But those selling bread and jam at the markets will need a level 2 certificate under a proposed classification system and will have to be registered annually and undergo kitchens inspections every few years.
The Government argues because it's currently illegal to sell goods to the public that are made in a home kitchen, the bill “legitimises this Kiwi tradition” and ensures the food being made is safe.
Ms Wilkinson admits the bill has inadvertently captured seeds for propagation by classifying all seeds as food. “We have said we will change that.”
However, NZ First says other products could also be inadvertently captured. Depending on how you read the bill, that could even include water, its primary production spokesman Richard Prosser says.
“That would never stand the test, but it needs to have greater clarification around it.”
NZ First is also concerned about the powers food safety inspectors will be given and who those inspectors will be.
“At the moment, we are looking at any person, who could be Joe Blow off the street, effectively being given the powers of a sworn police officer.
“If you are going to have people searching premises and breaking in, it is much better if they are trained and aware of the legal ramifications.”
The minister says inspectors will have no additional powers than they do now and will be open to prosecution should they act unlawfully.
“We don't have provisions for arming them and they still have to act in good faith and reasonably.”
Mr Prosser says a great deal of ambiguity remains around some of the legislation's provisions.
However, Ms Wilkinson says that's the nature of the 366-page bill: it's flexible so it doesn't have to be amended if something is inadvertently captured.
“That is the balance we have tried to get. You can't have certainty and flexibility.”
Former Green MP and long-time food safety advocate Sue Kedgley says the bill targets the wrong issues.
“If the Government was serious about trying to reduce food poisoning in New Zealand, they would be ignoring the local growers and focusing on imported food, slaughter houses and cleaning up factory farms,” she says.
Food poisoning rates in New Zealand are very high, with campylobacter levels some of the highest in the world.
“But they tend to come from chicken and custard squares. They are not coming from fresh fruit and vegetables.”
While most countries randomly test 5 to 10 per cent of imported produce, New Zealand tests only 0.25 per cent, she says.
“We import food from countries with very poor food-safety systems, if any.”
Organic New Zealand editor Philippa Jamieson says her magazine is about to publish a story saying while the bill may reduce micro-organisms, such as listeria, it will not reduce long-term food-related illnesses, because it will not cut the salt, sugar, fat, additives and colourings in food.
She also says annual registration is a concern for small producers. “It may be more bureaucratic or expensive and put some small producers off. I don't know if it will put someone out of business, but it might be another hurdle.”
The Greens have been calling for an exemption for small growers, something the Government has dismissed.
Small-scale producers – such as those producing food at home, selling directly to consumers or not employing anyone else – will be able to apply to the Agriculture and Forestry Ministry for an exemption from the classification system and its associated registration and inspection costs.
The ministry will monitor the types of exemption requests and if there is enough of the same type, it can exempt a whole sector.
However, Ms Kedgley questions that decision from a Government which advocates getting rid of red tape and unnecessary regulation.
She agrees it will deter people from starting or continuing small-scale businesses and suggests it will lead to a “black market in fruit and vegetables”.
“I know people who sell some of their surplus produce at various times of the year to local vegetable shops.
“They are all saying either they are going to completely stop doing it because they don't want to be caught up in this whole thing and have their properties audited and do these national programmes, or they are just going to sell it illegally.”
Labour's food safety spokesman, Damien O'Connor, says the Greens want to “have their cake and eat it too”.
“If we are going to give widespread exemptions and trust people, we are going to be putting ourselves at risk if some scoundrel comes in and abuses the system.”
He agrees there is a lot of misinformation about the bill. “It's important the Government get out and clarify that for people, before it pushes this bill through.”
Those selling food for charity less than 20 times a year will not have to register or incur costs, but Mr O'Connor says people have been raising questions with him about the exchange of food.
“Someone asked about pot-luck dinners. If they have one a week, does that mean they are going to be subject to the regulation?”
ONLINE, some of the concern about the Food Bill is based on fear over the reach of the Codex Alimentarius, the food standards and guidelines for food trade created by the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations.
New Zealand has been a member since FAO was formed in 1963 and there are 185 member nations.
Freelance journalist Guy Ralls, who is an experienced organic farmer, wants the entire Food Bill scrapped, saying it “takes away the right to grow food and changes it into a privilege”.
He says the FAO is lobbied by and supported by multi-national corporations in the bio-technology, agribusiness and pharmaceutical industries.
He claims the Codex is pushing the Food Bill.
“The way that Codex food guidelines will be enforced in this country if the Food Bill is passed is through the regulations which are applied to registered food businesses.
“The Food Bill is New Zealand's implementation of the Codex Alimentarius.”
Other countries are also being forced to implement the Codex, which is why food legislation is also being passed in the United States, India and throughout Europe, he says.
However, a spokesman for Ms Wilkinson says under the Codex, countries retain their sovereign right to decide how food safety and consumer health is regulated domestically.
The Food Bill is nothing to do with the Codex or multi-national companies such as Monsanto trying to get more genetically modified food into New Zealand, he says.
Work on the bill began in 2003, when the then Labour government decided it was time to review the 1981 Food Act.
The following year, the domestic food review was launched, which involved two years of consultation. In 2007, officials began to draft the bill, which wasn't ready to be introduced to Parliament until 2010, showing the complex nature of the legislation.
THE Greens want the bill to introduce a country-of-origin labelling system, which the party has been seeking for years.
However, that has been ruled out by Ms Wilkinson, who says it is a consumer choice issue, not one of food safety.
The Greens' primary production spokesman, Steffan Browning, says that is disappointing.
“She's just taking the Food Safety Authority's line, which is quite unfortunate. She is becoming a bit of a `yes minister'.”
Country-of-origin labelling is a food safety issue, because consumers have a right to avoid produce from countries which use certain pesticides and insecticides, and have events such as the nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima plant in Japan, he maintains.
“We have that around sugars and fats and other things on product labels.
“Why shouldn't we be able to make further choice around food safety through country-of-origin labelling?”
New Zealand's major trading partners, the United States and Australia, have country-of-origin labelling.
Consecutive governments have maintained such labelling is a barrier to trade and point to the export of minced beef to the US for hamburger meat, which they claim could be harmed because American consumers prefer locally produced goods.
However, Mr Browning says there is something wrong with New Zealand's trade if it has to be “so sneaky”.
The Greens are also concerned genetic modification has been removed from the bill and warn it will be a “sticking point”.
“We do see genetic modification as a relatively young technology that is showing up to have negative health effects.
“Research that is done independently is increasingly finding some concerning changes to the nature of the crop that is produced.”
While there are labelling laws for genetically modified produce, Mr Browning says they are not enforced or even monitored.
The Food Bill introduces a level of intrusion into New Zealand's food supply, he says.
“Some people say this bill is about setting us up for the Trans Pacific Partnership (free trade agreement).
“The Greens are likely to be calling for ring-fencing of our domestic food supply so that our provisions around food are still sovereign to New Zealand.”
Labour and the Greens are waiting to see what changes are made to the bill when it comes back to Parliament before deciding whether they will support it further.
The Greens and NZ First want the bill sent back to the select committee for further consideration – but that has been ruled out by the minister. The Maori Party, UnitedFuture and ACT are yet to decide whether they will back the bill.
NZ First will oppose the bill in its present form and Hone Harawira says he will oppose it.
That means the Government could find itself two votes short of the 61-vote majority it needs to make the bill law unless it can ease the concerns of political parties and the public.
THE FOOD BILL
WHO IT APPLIES TO:
Those selling or trading food for commercial purposes.
Food such as bread and jam made in a home kitchen and sold to the public ( illegal under current law).
Commercial growers who supply supermarkets.
Small growers who sell most of their stock direct to customers but occasionally sell or trade excess stock to shops or restaurants.
Businesses making higher-risk foods such as meat or dairy products (who are required to have food safety plans in place under current law).
Businesses selling jams, pickles and breads.
WHO IT DOESN'T APPLY TO:
Food grown at home for family consumption.
Food given away.
Food swapped for other food with friends.
Cakes, jams or other foods sold for charity up to 20 times a year.
– © Fairfax NZ News
Continued here:
Will bill make food safer or be a form of control?