by Sue Kedgley
So many people have contacted us with their concerns about the Food Bill that I requested a further meeting with officials to discuss these concerns (officials have already agreed to amend the bill to make it clear it will not apply to seed saving, in response to a request from me.)
I concluded from my briefing with officials that the Food Bill has ended up inadvertently capturing things like home gardening, bartering and seed exchange, which should never have been covered in the bill in the first place, because of its broad coverage and definitions (eg its definition of sale includes bartering).
Officials argue that the Director General will be able to exempt entire categories of groups, such as those engaged in bartering or selling direct to consumers at Farmers Markets from coverage of the bill, and this is their intention.
The problem is that these exemptions will be at the Director General’s discretion, and so there is no certainty that they will happen.
So, I have proposed to officials that a much better approach is to amend the bill now so that it automatically exempts all home growers , people selling directly to consumers, people involved in bartering or food exchange etc.
Officials are considering my request.
Even more problematic is the way the Food Bill cracks down on those selling small amounts of produce to a retailer, such as twenty lettuces to the local vegetable shop.
I have therefore proposed that home growers who sell small amounts of produce locally also be exempt from the bill . This exemption should be extended to small certified organic growers, as they already have to follow organic standards and get audited, so they hardly need a further layer of regulation, bureaucracy and costs.
We will be pushing hard for these amendments and will likely vote against the Food Bill if it continues to progress through Parliament in its current form.
More posts on the Food Bill
The Food Bill, not as sweet as first appeared – Steffan Browning, 18 January 2012
Mojo And Steffan lead Green response to Food Bill – Mojo Mathers, 21 December 2011
Published in Featured | Health & Wellbeing by Sue Kedgley on Tue, September 13th, 2011
Tags: Bartering, Food Bill, food safety, organics
More posts by Sue Kedgley | more about Sue Kedgley
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Like or Dislike:
11 
2 (+9)
Like or Dislike:
17 
1 (+16)
You don’t seem to see how this bill will affect self-sufficiency and good food nutrition within local communities. Within all the loops and hoops you’re just coming to grips with lies a net to ensnare the business of trading and growing organics locally – first by red tape, with the loss of concerted, networked, organic growing projects. And ultimately by nature through the loss of heritage seed lines.
The glass is half full of mass-produced food now, as it were, and half full of organics, with the latter growing relative to the other (as is its correlative seed stock). The bill will reverse the growth of organics and its correlative seed stock massively – to the point where it, and its seed stock, may reach the opposite of a tipping point – a collapsing point.
This bill is about collapsing the organic portion of food consumed, and the seed stock that correlates to it. And replacing it with GE / hybrid seed food with lower nutritional value that’s dependent on chemical fertilisers or initiators – everything that the Greens and the Soil Association claim to stand against.
So this bill is policy for a business model of agriculture that’s hitching a ride on the regenerative / degenerative process, and making sure organics / locally grown / heirloom foods are on the degenerative side. While commercial foodstuffs and especially seedstock are on the regenerative side. It’s a tilting of the table, and a reversal of all the progress that has been made in the last decade towards healthy food.
Now look, I’m going to call you on this – you’re either in over your head, Sue, or you’re in on IT.
I know this, one way or other, because I’ve seen way too much obfuscation on this blog to take the Green response to the bill seriously.
You should be crying “murder!” (of seed lines). Instead there’s a kind of finickety shuffling and nitpicking about the wording of the bill, plus a bit of chestbeating. You should be crying blue murder! There are people on the net ready to have a riot over this… and they’re actually hitting the streets in a few days, I understand. Maybe you should join them. “Poll” their opinion… which is Pissed Off.
Your logo for the green party basically indicates the nature of the issue – Growth. Do you want to grow the organic proportion of foodstuffs in the general market, or the non-organic? Because this bill grows the non-organic portion at every turn, and will keep growing it, until the organic simply falls over. Look, and you’ll see it. Look for Codex, and you’ll see that too. Or do you already?
All the best.
Like or Dislike:
32 
2 (+30)
Like or Dislike:
26 
1 (+25)
Like or Dislike:
17 
3 (+14)
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
“Guy, I wonder where you have been for the last decade as this has been incrementely coming along.”
>> I was waiting, perhaps, for the right moment to break the story about the Food Bill in your magazine, Organic NZ. Which I am very glad to have done. BTW everything in that piece was true, except the MAF comments added by the editor. Anyway people have only recently come to see Parliament as injurious to their interests through the financial crisis etc, and with our PM being a banker and all. And viable solutions to the problems parliament has thrown up have only recently entered the public consciousness. So perhaps that is why I kept quiet until now!
“until you help build a very strong Green contingent in the legislative chambers or get involved with the organisations actually using limited resources to try and influence government agencies in the position they take at Codex themselves, then I think you could be a little less accusitory.”
>> I have no confidence in the legislative chambers at all – greens present or not – given its behaviour of late and the parliamentary oath of its members, which pledges their allegiance to the Queen (now a registered US corporation) and not to the people, the country, or the Tiriti. In fact I will be putting two lines through any voting paper that falls into my hands and writing “No Confidence” on it.
>> as for getting involved… this blog wouldn’t exist if I’d not broken the story in your mag. thanks for publishing it, btw. Also I’m hereby waiving the $50 fee agreed for the piece, you can let the editor know!
>> I’ll admit I’ve been a bit hard on Sue. But then she has been hard on the people of NZ, telling them they should have “submitted” (never a good thing to do) to the Select Committee of which she was a member their concerns about a bill they knew nothing about. It was simply deflecting responsibility, and not good show.
“I do not know of any other MP than Sue Kedgley who has taken a stance over these issues, as I have in Soil & Health.”
>> Well, quite. Nor do I. So this bill is going to be passed by parliament pretty much as is. Which will require the bill’s provisions for the Governor-General to overrule part or all of it to be used. He’s only going to do that on the order of a higher authority – ie the queen (unlikely) or the highest authority in the land, the orders of the rangatira of the respective hapu of the country. It’s all heading that way, and this is a good thing, because NZ is a sinking ship. Bankrupt.
“Give us the numbers.”
>> Make the food bill an election issue, and sing it loud, and heaps of people would vote green, I am sure. You’ll probably get elected, Steffan, and good on you. My point is that parliament, while being able to influence public opinion (being a stage show) is not really effectual at influencing policy beneficial to the people – simply because its members do not know what they are voting, and are knowingly or not working for interests other than the people.
I’m not saying this is a bad thing at all, though, because it can only get people to stand up for their rights, when the current reality is that they are slaves to the financial system (fractional reserve banking, whereby all funds and debts are generated by their signatures), and anyway give up all rights they do have when they get someone to represent them in parliament. (Who then goes and swears an oath to a registered US company, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand).
It’s time for those who are going to stand up for their rights to do so. And they know that if they’re not well fed they’re not going to be able to stand strong, or for long. This issue of food is the final line in the sand. People have a choice to remain de facto slaves with no rights – and most will – or to do something. It’s as much about their blood lines as seed lines. Evolution!
One last thing – if you want to use the food bill in your election campaign, you should also campaign to have the parliamentary oath amended to honour te tiriti – so that those kaitiaki recognised as having full authority in taonga guardianship issues, ie protection of seed lines, under the waitangi tribunal wai 262 treaty claim are able to exercise that authority and overrule parliament, which is working against the retention of those taonga, as you well know. They would be able to overrule parliament with parliament’s consent – an upper house of the rangatira of the hapu of the districts (rohe) of this country. Thus the problem witht his bill, and other legislation, can be fixed at a level higher than that at which it was created.
Cheers, Steffan. And sorry for being a bit rough on you, Sue. I do wish you all the best in the election, for for what that is worth.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
“Guy, I wonder where you have been for the last decade as this has been incrementely coming along.”
>> I was waiting, perhaps, for the right moment to break the story about the Food Bill in your magazine, Organic NZ. Which I am very glad to have done. BTW everything in that piece was true, except the MAF comments added by the editor. Anyway people have only recently come to see Parliament as injurious to their interests through the financial crisis etc, and with our PM being a banker and all. And viable solutions to the problems parliament has thrown up have only recently entered the public consciousness. So perhaps that is why I kept quiet until now!
“until you help build a very strong Green contingent in the legislative chambers or get involved with the organisations actually using limited resources to try and influence government agencies in the position they take at Codex themselves, then I think you could be a little less accusitory.”
>> I have no confidence in the legislative chambers at all – greens present or not – given its behaviour of late and the parliamentary oath of its members, which pledges their allegiance to the Queen (now a registered US corporation) and not to the people, the country, or the Tiriti. In fact I will be putting two lines through any voting paper that falls into my hands and writing “No Confidence” on it.
>> as for getting involved… this blog wouldn’t exist if I’d not broken the story in your mag. thanks for publishing it, btw. Also I’m hereby waiving the $50 fee agreed for the piece, you can let the editor know!
>> I’ll admit I’ve been a bit hard on Sue. But then she has been hard on the people of NZ, telling them they should have “submitted” (never a good thing to do) to the Select Committee of which she was a member their concerns about a bill they knew nothing about. It was simply deflecting responsibility, and not good show.
“I do not know of any other MP than Sue Kedgley who has taken a stance over these issues, as I have in Soil & Health.”
>> Well, quite. Nor do I. So this bill is going to be passed by parliament pretty much as is. Which will require the bill’s provisions for the Governor-General to overrule part or all of it to be used. He’s only going to do that on the order of a higher authority – ie the queen (unlikely) or the highest authority in the land, the orders of the rangatira of the respective hapu of the country. It’s all heading that way, and this is a good thing, because NZ is a sinking ship. Bankrupt.
“Give us the numbers.”
>> Make the food bill an election issue, and sing it loud, and heaps of people would vote green, I am sure. You’ll probably get elected, Steffan, and good on you. My point is that parliament, while being able to influence public opinion (being a stage show) is not really effectual at influencing policy beneficial to the people – simply because its members do not know what they are voting, and are knowingly or not working for interests other than the people.
I’m not saying this is a bad thing at all, though, because it can only get people to stand up for their rights, when the current reality is that they are slaves to the financial system (fractional reserve banking, whereby all funds and debts are generated by their signatures), and anyway give up all rights they do have when they get someone to represent them in parliament. (Who then goes and swears an oath to a registered US company, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand).
It’s time for those who are going to stand up for their rights to do so. And they know that if they’re not well fed they’re not going to be able to stand strong, or for long. This issue of food is the final line in the sand. People have a choice to remain de facto slaves with no rights – and most will – or to do something. It’s as much about their blood lines as seed lines. Evolution!
One last thing – if you want to use the food bill in your election campaign, you should also campaign to have the parliamentary oath amended to honour te tiriti – so that those kaitiaki recognised as having full authority in taonga guardianship issues, ie protection of seed lines, under the waitangi tribunal wai 262 treaty claim are able to exercise that authority and overrule parliament, which is working against the retention of those taonga, as you well know. They would be able to overrule parliament with parliament’s consent – an upper house of the rangatira of the hapu of the districts (rohe) of this country. Thus the problem witht his bill, and other legislation, can be fixed at a level higher than that at which it was created.
Cheers, Steffan. And sorry for being a bit rough on you, Sue. I do wish you all the best in the election, for what that is worth.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Control oil and you control the nations; control food and you control the people.
Like or Dislike:
30 
0 (+30)
The best option in my opinion is to drop the whole bill. The legalise in this bill makes it impossible for the average person to read. If we don’t stand firm against all of this there will be slipped in laws and rules which can change our rights to feed ourselves, families and communities.
Like or Dislike:
17 
0 (+17)
Anyway here is a petition against it:- http://www.petitionline.co.nz/oppose-the-new-zealand-government-food-bill-160-2/1301
If it was passed how would they enforce it? Put shock troups onto every farmers market?
Like or Dislike:
14 
0 (+14)
Like or Dislike:
16 
0 (+16)
Like or Dislike:
11 
0 (+11)
The only reference to GM was removed, so no using GM as point to complain about.
Organics and small grower? Are you (Sue and the various posters) proposing that an organic or small grower doesn’t need to ensure that what they sell is safe? If I grow my twenty lettaces and use the family secret of loading them up with arsinic the proposed act shouldn’t apply? Regardless of size, the individual or organisation that produces the food should be held ultimately responsible for its safety.
Seed Swaps? I support seed swaps. Personally I think Monsanto are a leading cause of food poverty and use heavy handed tactics to force farmers to grow their GM crops. But the bill never considers the sale or swap of seed for planting – only if they were for consumtion or processing for consumption of byproducts. If it goes in your mouth it must be safe, in the ground not covered by FOOD legislation until the resulting plant is to be eaten.
Read the bill, then complain – there’s plenty there to make you cringe.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
i see what they did there. this is not about food safety this is about tightening a corporate monopoly.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0 (+7)
>> They didn’t however consider very much of the bill at all, especially the restrictions on seed sharing, and especially section 94a, which makes it illegal for an unregistered group of persons to grow and share food more than 20 times a year, arguably AMONG THEMSELVES.
Section 94a could thus make intentional communities illegal if the “persons” there were growing food, each allocated to their own tasks, and trying to live independently of the collapsing western system. (see ref # 2). No surprise there.
What perhaps is a surprise is that the Select Committee inserted clause 94a, and Sue Kedgley was on that committee (see ref # 3).
So, Sue, was it your intention to make intentional communities growing and sharing food among themselves, like Tui Community, Golden Bay, Riverside, Motueka, and Wilderland, Coromandel, all subject to international, corporativist food regulation or face closure? How about three people sharing a piece of land, and each growing their own crops and bartering them between themselves?
Now, these are all essentially human activities. If people hadn’t done these things in the past – grown food as a group and shared it among themselves – we wouldn’t be alive today.
It all sounds rather stunning, of course, that communities of people living in the same way as our ancestors did should be regulated thus or face imprisonment, fines, and the resulting loss of their land.
How do we reconcile fundamental non-sequitur in our minds?! The following may help.
What is being talked about by Jeff Orr above, and in the Bill of Rights Act, and in the Food Bill, are ACTS of legislation that relate to PERSONS.
At this point, with everything being rather confusing, we should ask a fundamental question or two. First, what is a “person”? (As in “Do you have any organic vegetables about your person, sir?”).
“Person” comes from the Latin “Persona”, which means Mask. It’s come to mean something more like a “human being” in normal usage. But the legal meaning remains closer to the Latin meaning.
Next, what is an “Act”? As it relates to a “persona”, ie a mask, it is a piece of THEATRE.
What are “Dramatis Personae”? They are ACTORS in THEATRE, as shown on the play’s “PROGRAMME”.
What is the legal definition of a “HUMAN BEING”? According to Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, 1930: “human being See MONSTER [and] monster A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land.” (see ref # 4).
One should also note that “human” derives from Latin “humus” meaning earth, so “human” can be seen as “of the earth”. Which is relevant if the legal definers consider themselves “of the stars”, as they rightly are. Not good for the unrealised ones tho
To conclude, what is being played out here – by which I mean in Parliament, and in legislation, and by their choice in many people’s lives, is Pure Theatre. It is time people realised this (and thus realised themselves)… and took off their masks and exited the stage, handing in their mask to the costume department as they go.
They should do this because the play in question is a dud, and if they keep playing, they’re gonna be dead. Unlike the play’s directors, who no doubt all have shares in the Svalbard seed repository and its clones, to be cracked open no doubt when 80% of the world’s population has been wiped out by geoengineered famine (financial and non-GE seedline collapse). Is that why Svalbard (see ref # 5 ) was set up? Google it if you have Time.
Am I just play-acting now?! Being Dramatic? Haha! Good luck!
Ref # 1 : http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/human-rights/bill-of-rights/food-bill
Ref # 2 : http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0160/latest/DLM3435512.html?search=ts_bill_food+bill_resel&p=1#DLM3435512
Ref # 3 : http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2010/0160/latest/DLM3435700.html?search=ts_bill_food+bill_resel&p=1&sr=1
Ref # 4 : http://www.evolver.net/group/sovereign_ontology/discussion/human_being_according_ballentines_law_dictionary
Ref # 5 : http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/lmd/campain/svalbard-global-seed-vault/news/svalbard-global-seed-vault-awarded-the-n.html?id=583746 . Loving the capless pyramid shot
Like or Dislike:
7 
0 (+7)
I am completely ashamed to be calling myself a New Zealander at this time.
HOW DARE YOU, AND ALL OTHERS WHO SUPPORT THIS TRIPE INTERFERE WITH THE BASIC FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS OF KIWI’S!!!!!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
9 
0 (+9)
Where can we object to this bill apart from petitions online?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
At that place will be hereditary chiefs of hapu from all around the country who still hold and can exercise their tino rangatiratanga, or true authority, as defined in their contracts with the Crown – ie the Declaration and the binding-in-law version of the Treaty, the indignenous text known as Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Hapu rangatira can use this authority to regulate the trading activities of commercial interests such as parliament, which is the policy-making arm of the Crown, the Crown now being a registered US corporation operating in commerce.
Hapu rangatira can do this by issuing Orders to Queen, their contractual partner by succession, by issuing those Orders to her representative in NZ, the Governor-General. And they will do it for their kai, if nothing else!
This is why the Food Bill has multiple references to the Governor-General in it, in order to give local hapu their remedy to breaches that would otherwise arise in their contracts with the Crown (te Tiriti principally), such as the bill infringing on their customary right to practice kaitiakitanga (guardianship of taonga such as seed lines) and tikanga (traditional practices such as growing and sharing food).
Parliament / the Crown is a runaway train heading for bankruptcy via the global fractional reserve banking system. It is set to default on its interest-bearing, unpayable loans so that its international creditors can clean up on the securities for its loans, as is happening in Greece – the country’s natural resources and the people’s labour going to the creditors, who leant out valueless paper money in a sort of big confidence trick.
Also NZ, as everywhere else, is heading towards being a place where food and healthcare is controlled by multinational agribusiness, pharmaceutical, biotech and energy interests.
Parliament offers no solutions to these problems. In fact it “seems” complicit in creating them. Although it also offers the solution, the remedy, as is clear in the Food Bill.
The Governor-General has right of veto to part or all of the bill at any time. And he is bound by contract to act under the direction of those who hold full authority in this land – which is not parliament. Parliament has delegated kawanatanga rights only, which can be regulated by the full authority of the rangatira of the hapu. So hapu rangatira can veto the bill using the Governor-General as their instrument to do so.
As the hapu rangatira are gathering in Waitangi in a month’s time, I suggest you take your concerns to them. If you have any questions, I suggest you email nzfoodsecurity@gmail.com – I’m sure they can help
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
http://www.petitiononline.co.nz/petition/oppose-the-new-zealand-government-food-bill-160-2/1301
Sharing food is a basic human right.
The Food Bill 160-2 will seriously impede initiatives like community gardens, food co-ops, heritage seed banks, farmers markets, bake sales, and roadside fruit & vegetable stalls.
Sign this petition to show that you oppose Food Bill 160-2
A link to the actual bill here – http://bit.ly/ol7zgJ
More information here – http://nzfoodsecurity.org/
Currently approaching 7000 signatories… sign it now! Tell your friends! Oppose the Food Bill!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
This Food bill needs to exempt home growers, and farmers markets.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I have made a youtube video – Oppose the New Zealand Government Food Bill 160-2 NOW! – see it here http://youtu.be/xFlSdoJofWY or click on my name. Please link to this vid and feel free to embedd in web pages. All links to the petition are listed below the vid in the description box. I will be at Waitangi on October 27-29 with camera to make a follow up video. The treaty is our best weapon here with this bill. Get your local marae involved is my advice. What will happen now with Sue Kedgley resigning??
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
This is informal empire building at the behest of mega-wealth. The weaponisation of food as a means for securing the resources and obeisance of whole populations began with the postwar Marshall Plan (US), moved over to Indochina during the Vietnam years (US), and we are just the latest targets.
The idea that food is being used for these purposes may be new to most, but many people will be aware of an equivalent use of debt in the Third World by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF, the World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are sister organisations operating as tools for a globalising agenda.
Not convinced then watch (6min): The End of Farming
The ‘inadvertent’ inclusions found in our Food Bill, such as seed-saving, etc. are try-ons – important at some level, but insignificant compared to the bigger process. Our children and grandchildren are going to lose even more if we don’t deal with this thing properly – I’m talking about the endless contriving of these international organisations (IOs), whittling away at every right – in perpetuity – all in the name of security and exporting. And, we SO believe that exporting can fix our economy! Well, the table is tilted folks, the game is rigged against it.
So why is the WTO so important? This question needs more scrutiny than it is usually afforded. The WTO is the corporate/elite’s judge/policeman which enforces so-called ‘Free Trade’; supervising tariffs, subsidies and export/import barriers. Its rulings usually favour the US, it upholds the US$ as the global reserve currency, and exacts penalties upon national and citizen sovereignty elsewhere … such as, member states must import AT LEAST 5% of their nation’s food – diseased, contaminated, or otherwise. Hence the need to define Food Safety to their standards, first.
The long-term ramifications are huge. We are now facing the exact same struggle as is going on all around the world, involving 100s of millions of poor families, either hidden from us by the media or conventionalised as; 1. the struggle against poverty, or 2. the struggle for democracy.
Fortunately there are alternatives, still.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Ross can you give us that link to The End of Farming please? I have searched but cant find it…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Angela – sorry should have checked it before posting: http://blip.tv/visionontv/the-end-of-farming-in-the-fertile-crescent-2127130
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Thanks, Sue, for your vigilance and all the good work you do…
You will be sorely missed in Parliament but, I feel, not absent from the growing awakening that it is time to reign in government and replace it with a governance that serves the people and the planet.
Love Ya,
Dr Tony Minervino, D.C.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Ever the lead from the USA…the home of armoured SWAT teams closing down sellers of the superior raw milk.the home of vaccine Gardisil being administered to adolescents-void of parental authorization-itself linked to cancer formation..the home of Monsanto? the home of Bill Gates Fdtn for depopulating third world countries-by vaccine?Anyone considered-no bees for pollination as bees dont appreciate GE seeds!Perhaps the UN should be moved to Aussie!
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
I’m sorry Sue, but to believe that this is inadvertent, is far to naive thinking for someone in politics.
You really think the US spent all that money on very expensive lawyers to draw these up, just to get it wrong?
I don’t think so.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0 (+7)
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
DO NOT LET THIS BILL PASS.
Riot in the streets and burn parliament if you must.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Author: Magnus the Destroyer
Comment:
This bill is a bad seed and needs to be dug up and thrown into the burn pile.
DO NOT LET THIS BILL PASS.
Riot in the streets and burn parliament if you must.
See all comments on this post here:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/09/13/food-bill-update-from-sue-kedgley/#comments
Why?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Who are these mysterious “officials” who are considering the Food Bill? How can the views of home food growers, sharers, sellers be made known to them?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
YOU ARE ALL OVERREACTING A LITTLE.
By all means exempt small growers, seed swaps etc. I support the efforts by Sue Kedgley to have the rather over-inclusiveness of this bill remedied, and save plenty of people a lot of unnecessary red tape. But what is so terrifying about this thing? I got a chain letter about this bill that made it sound like the Apocalypse, and that it would give Monsanto, specifically Monsanto, the power to pistol-whip me every time I ate something without paying them money. I have read the bill, as I mentioned, and I have especially scrutinized the clauses linked by the various shrill voices pleading me to panic, and I just can’t find all this evil that’s supposed to be lurking in them. Legal jargon is not particularly obscure to me, frankly; I’m puzzled that you all find it so difficult to read. I guess I’ll blame television.
What disturbs me is that, whatever shadowy plans may be brewing in this demon bill, some of those opposing it are telling or unknowingly perpetuating outright lies. I can’t find anything in the bill even relating to seed stock. As one blessedly sensible person above pointed out, it only mentions “seeds” in an edible context, like, say, sesame seeds in a trail mix bar or what-have-you. Yet we’re told, with increasing stridency, that the dreaded food Gestapo can soon seize your seeds, of *course* so you’ll have to buy Monsanto’s GM ones.
Speaking of which, the video of “armed police raiding a health food store”, which all this alarmism seems to hinge, on is the most egregiously sloppy piece of misleading video editing I’ve seen in all my years of studying low-grade conspiracy propaganda. We’re shown a sign for a health food store, then cut! – a clip of officers searching a room. With boxes in it. Irrefutable proof! Here’s a tip, video whiz-kids – next time you try to tell your audience that this is security camera footage they’re watching, try using footage that isn’t obviously wobbling from a guy holding the camera. Unless all security cameras are customarily held in place by a human operator, who is required to remain stationary up in the rafters at all times.
If you have any responses to offer that actually address the claims I’ve made, please, I’d love to hear them. I’ve been a lefty all my life and it would honestly come more naturally to me to assume that the government are being dastardly in any given matter of contention, but some of you are making the government look rather sane by comparison.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1 (+7)
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/25/percy-schmeiser-farmer-who-beat-monsanto.aspx?e_cid=20111225_SNL_Art_1
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Greens, don’t use into feather your own nest. This is just too big for pary politics.
Christ, how did the bill get written and past the first reading without you guys getting some media coverages out it.
Time to kick this bill and wilkinson out of parliament.
Do it now.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
We cannot let private corporates have a trading right on veges that have been on earth since day one!
The day the supermarjet will offer to buy some copyrighted fresh potatoes by Basf or some copyrighted sweet fresh tomatoes by Bayer in example, it will be a very sad day and I ll have to blame the Greens if that happens in NZ !!
This is what this bill is about and we need to do more to stop it from happening …
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
rs developing this train of thought, Sue are you going to look into the growing of cannabis in Ethiopia on behalf of the drug companies in Canada, they and their green houses are hail and hearty in Ethiopia under the guise of Pallitive Care shame on you all, all for the sake of free trade and the USA! you would sell your soul! In Ethiopia food is paramount, there they don’t have a lot of it! do they? and one way to control the masses is through the need for FOOD that is why Egypt rioted how to they de-stabalise a country- it the Food Bill a new strategy?! Don’t bring the people of NZ to third world status. No to the Food Bill and all it anomalies get rid of it we don’t want it, it is immoral and ammoral!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Thomas rather than focussing on the detail of the wording and poor video quality, ask yourself; why do we in NZ need this bill in the first place. Who is it helping and what will it morph into?
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. We do not need more unnecessary legislation
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
One danger from this bill which the small seed folk have not mentioned, is the danger to NZ small and family food businesses.
The people and influence behind this bill are the corporations and industry “leaders”. In this context a “leader” is a lobbist with money and market share to protect for their company’s profit.
To whit it reduces the ability for dairy farmers to form collectives or to oppose sanctions imposed by Fonterra or other factory cartels. What the public dont realise is that Fonterra has set itself up as a defacto extension of Government, and the Government intended to use them as such, from the first days of signing off Fonterra as an effective Monopoly (giving them the monopoly in return for them policing their suppliers).
Farmers have always had the option of “going private” or starting a new collective. Thus bypassing Fonterras rules (they have a “suppliers contract”, a farmer must agree to all provisions including giving Fonterra the unilateral right to change any rules without notification or agreement, or else they won’t collect the product).
A similar effect is going on with the meat process industries, but in this case the barons of the factories have been to busy squabbling amongst themselves to let a power structure get established.
It gets sold to the public as a “green initiative” (eg farmers being told to fence waterways, the media run the hype because they get their cut in stirring up trouble. Most farmers like nice farms! They want working systems – government and industry dont!!!! They want the power created by having poor people (tenant farmers) and ignorant mobs (feed only information for their purpose).
this will be sold to the public as Food Safety and better quality. But in reality that wont be what happens at the checkout or trade point.
It means that the government and industry have more power to force independent farmers to accept their conditions and their pay/tax laws, and that those dependent on industry, factory/office labour are stuck there. It is why Industry “Leaders” backed a certain German politician – to keep people broke and powerless and dependent on factory & government. It hides its face in (Nationally based) Socialism and government promises, you have be warned.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Small correction.
Fonterra is a collective owned by over 10500 NZL farmers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fonterra
Any and all farmers can opt out as you say, but to try and paint Fonterra as an evil corporate is plainly wrong.
It is a collective doing the bidding of their 10500+ owners.
Bit like MUNZ as an organisation doing the bidding of their union members.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Gerrit.
Buy some seeds and get a friggin brain cell plant!!!!
As one of the supplier farmers and having to front up with 55,000 shares at $4.52 a share, I bloody know what Fonterra is.
The one big thing we have difficulties with is that Fonterra, internally, is a company that does what it’s directors and powermongers want.
Or do you think TAF (or the public shareholding idea that was reject on near violent terms) are farmer or shareholder initiatives???
It’s better than a foreign or private (non-collective) owned company but we are having serious _and_continual_ powerplays with Government and Industry cronies trying to threat the shareholders as employees – and I use “employees” in the worst possible light. Villeins or serfs would be more accurate.
And the “Opt out” is a line of bull … as is being tightened by this food Bill.
I used to work also in the building industry. We had a “wee problem” with leaking homes…. you might have heard of it?? Were those homes built by cowboys and rogues? NO. Were they inspected? yes. Did the inspectors do every step as legally enforced by Statute? yes. Did they take shortcuts or bribes? no. Did the builders comply with standards and directives as laid out by law? yes…or they wouldn’t have got signoff by the inspectors because that was the job of the inspectors to ensure builders had followed law and instruction.
So why leaky homes? Because those in Power and those in Building Industry who control the big organisations wanted control over the industry. They dumped the proper apprentice and training system, impliment instruction systems that weren’t effective; changed the system rules to meet with the desires of those managers and executives in the Building Industry (Hardies etc) and to go with the Legal and Political Philosophies of those sitting in power. They put in a system to satisfy political ideology and we got leaky buildings. Concrete is “wet”, it transfers moisture, barriers prevent moisture – combine the two you get damp – every old apprentice out of his time knew this. But the law was changed to suit those in Industry and Politics. The same is happening on the Food Bill.
The law is being change to suit the corporate interests, not for the benefit of the country, the shareholders, the customers, or the community.
And Gerrit – yeah unions. Like when my Local Bodies Union Rep sold me out. I was dismissed illegally, without warnings. When I went to fight it, The Union officer said follow the lead of my company rep to protect my job – the first words out of that reps mouth “carl wants to resign”. BS!! And then I had to take the Union to court before I was allowed to take the company to court!! Fortunately I contacted the Secretary of my Union (who just happened to answer the phone as he was supposed to on leave) and so he followed up on it…. resulting in the firing of the Union Officer, and embarrassment to the company for using a company-man as a hatchet man. Turns out they’d been forcing people out and only giving them their final&holiday pay on condition of signing non-disclosure and non-contact agreements – highly illegal but since most people didn’t have resources to fight it and were sick of the company they got away with it. In turn, the union saw things didn’t get stirred up and got some vocal support from the company.
So Gerrit, now you find me some examples of Fonterra doing what their farmer collective is telling them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Carl
Nah.
If you say that the collective is in charge of its members rather then the reverse, why should I find examples?
The point was that any collective does not operate for the benefit of society and the “people”, they operate soley for the benefit of the members.
Hence the milk in schools programme – makes the members “look” good in the eyes of society. Not done for the benefit of society. Just brownie point scoring for the members.
Trouble is collectivism is held up as a socialist model to aspire to.
Well as either Fonterra or MUNZ can show it may be a good model, or it may not.
That sort of comment puts you on the same level as Jackal (the entity previously known as Todd). Chill pills are good medicine (as is a single malt scotch).
I’m actually (had you asked what my position was or are too busy ranting?) againt the bill in ALL its form.
And think the Greens are wrong in asking for excemptions for small operators.
The bill should be shown the door.
But I’m sure that many small holders and SME’s they will simply ignore the bill anyway.
Retaining and treating this years seeds for next years crop is so easy that a nationwide underground network will keep us in seeds forever.
Cant stamp out cannabis what chance tomatoes?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Gerrit. I don’t really give a toss about your position. I care about your spread of dangerous misinformation.
Far more dangerous than a self-defeating food bill.
The greens constantly think to Small, and have their heads buried in silly minutae. Like the ridiculous electric car plan they had….where do they think we were going to get batteries every 3 to 5 years, and what on earth were we supposed to do with the old ones! The whole country would have ended up dependent on short term full fleet replacement at the whim of a few big companies!!
This food bill will go the way of a few others that are starting to happen. It will just be ignored. Police resources will get further strained, court times and waiting lists will get longer. Crackdowns will happen, people will close ranks against outsiders, while others will sell out their kin for any advantage, but all advantage will be worthless because the government keeps needed to up it’s tax harvests to pay for more government expenditure. We are about were Italy was 6 years ago (when the yellow kiwi fruit guys were entering that market). That government taxed its private economy until it failed while all the time feeling culturally superior while doing so. Now look at them.
But to refer to milk in schools program. Your comment… Perfectly sums up why I think they are wasting *my* money, although because they are getting grants they are wasting other people’s money too. The majority of people are so far gone in their petty selfishness that any act of altruism or compassion will simply be seen in negative light, prejudices and your own selfish agendas so solidly rooted that they are projected on others. To many, George washingtons rescue of the dog is the only thing that makes sense to them. Everything must be self interest, rich people or anyone else must be doing things for self enrichment and power because that’s the only reason they themselves would act. Any compassionate act or altruistic true community centric initiative in their minds must have a self interest hidden at its heart, and associate with this is a disgust of people acting honourably opening in mutual self interest (capitalist, without the taint of reed corruption, which is a power/control addiction when occurring in socialism)
My reply to that is simple. Rot in your own stench.
Yes the milk thing is blatant promotion. It is also, unfortunately necessary until these people learn to work and feed themselves and those in their responsibility. Although why *I* am expected to pay for it…… But to my reply to you… Fonterra is owned by farmers, and that. Gives us a little power and constraint to force profits and focus back to our land and our communities, and because the farmers have businesses and a bit of robustness in finance, we can resist some of the stupidity from company and political machine tons. But they don’t like that. It is only recently in the last years of ferrier and Hayden that we got them to stop treating us as their employees, and our farms as part of their empire. Even now they try to enforce boilerplate systems on us, tell us how we are to maintain and check our equipment, not just that it is monitored to a set food level, that is reasonable quality control of purchased product. But they send us out a dairy book, which we must use, and record the cleaning and inspection details, the daily movements of animals, weather and event information. They are now looking at telling us that certain staff must get outside motorbike qualifications….not asking, telling us! That is not a collective or customer arrangement, it the action of a franchise owner or law maker. Especially considering the only option is compliance or fines, or dump the whole business and arrange milk pickup for another company…but it’s an effective monopoly, so what other milk collection??
Bt hey if your country wants that …. I’ll go back on the sickness benefit and you buggers can pay for myers and my kids for the rest of my days…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Carl,
Oh dear, Spreader of misinformation!! Wow, I must a be subversive.
Care to explain in (in precise sentences and paragraphs) what information?
Assumes that in the post industrialisation era there will be a NZL central government and continuing welfare as you know it. May well not be the case in which scenario you and your kids will be part of 4.2 billion that dont make the cut (and quite why the NZL tax payer would support a department store in Australia is an interesting conundrum).
Seeing as collectism, as a form of self government, does not make your sausage sizzle, pray tell what preferred method of self determination of people is best?
Yep still up there with Jackal (the entity previously known as Todd the failed plumber) in hyperventilated drivel. Is that the best?
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Gerrit
Fonterra is an evil corporate entity… here’s why:
Fonterra/Sanlu killed an unknown number of Chinese babies and made another half a million sick with tainted milk powder. There is evidence that senior members of Fonterra’s management knew about the tainted melamine infant formula long before the scandal broke. Fonterra was never held to account for their part in the heinous crime.
Fonterra imports palm kernel expeller (PKE), which ensures the destruction of rainforests and can contaminate raw milk with aflatoxins.
With Fonterra being a driving force behind 90% of our lowland waterways being too polluted to swim in because of farm runoff and farmer’s on average paying less tax than a couple of old-age pensioners, I think we can categorically say that Fonterra is an evil corporate… a little bit of free milk for kids does not absolve them of their crimes.
There are more example’s of Fonterra’s evil corporate status, which plainly shows that your claims of its reverence are wrong!
Such a broad claim old fruit. Collectivism in itself is not specific to socialism and can also be used in reference to capitalism. Collectivism within economical processes is about sharing productive property that is beneficial to all society.
The problem is that the Food Bill attacks both people’s individualism/self reliance and therefore any benefit to societies collectivism. Such things as a right to produce your own food should be protected under law, not impinged by corporate influenced government legislation.
Although the bill doesn’t specifically say that people cannot have gardens, it does give excessive powers to corporates (with a vested interest to gain market share at the publics expense) to control such things as seed stocks.
You medicate yourself with alcohol… who would have thunk it?
Actually the claim is that I’m a failed horse-trainer… perhaps you should double-check the pathetic propaganda coming from Odgers and Slater before you regurgitate it.
Carl
I wouldn’t be so sure about that… especially when you consider one of the driving forces behind the government’s proposed law changes.
Boilerplate systems… do you mean similar clauses in your contracts? The thing you seem to be ignoring is that without rules to define how farms are run, cowboys will always ruin things, not least public perception of farmers. We only need to see a few stories about starving and abused animals and our highly polluted waterways to get the (correct) impression that farmers aren’t adhering to proper practice.
Unfortunately farm bike accidents disproportionately account for many motorbike deaths in New Zealand. In my opinion, ensuring farmer’s gain the proper knowledge/qualifications of how to operate a farm bike properly is a most worthwhile endeavour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
HOW DARE THE GOVERNMENT TAKE OUR PERSONAL FREEDOMS AWAY
THIS USED TO BE A FREE AND PROUD COUNTRY!!!
DON’T LET THEM PUSH YOU AROUND!!
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Jackal. You are being seriously clueless.
Sanlu was run at the local level by Chinese management and that was typically closed door to foreigners, even investors. When Fonterra found out there was something was wrong they took it immediately to the Sanlu heads, who said it wasn’t relevant and local measurements were more important, so they took it to the Chinese government who don’t like “embarrassment” in any form, and were told to not tell anyone. Thus Fonterra fought the Sanlu executives and the Chinese government to force change. Fonterra for all its action _does_not_ allow tampering with it’s product, it’s paranoid to the level of anal retention about that!
And the farmers/Fonterra parted with hundreds of millions in fines for being an investor and bringing such embarrassment to the people and for not providing the people with quality foodsupply. Even through they had nopt part in the process or control, and only 4 children died, an insignificant number compared to those that die from other causes in China.
PKE is carefully monitored. The NZ supply is carefully checked to make sure it is from existing plantations, and the Palm Kernel from which it is made is a process by-product. The PKE that we get is the by-product of the process which uses that by-product. Without feeding it to cattle it would be considered waste material and put in landfill. I think reclaiming the rejected part of a reclaiming cycle, hardly constitutes “evil”. However, that someone else is selling you misinformation about the process would be evil, or at least dishonest.
Fonterra and the farm runoff?
Fonterra owns about a dozen farms which they lease out and use for land disposal of waste. They are very careful and very responsive with how they handle that waste management. Somehow I doubt that creates 90% of lowland waterway pollution (12 farms throughout NZ).
As for the farmers on average paying less tax than couple of old age pensioners… ok we’re talking dairy farmers (not farmers) and not Fonterra. Farmers pay the same tax rate as everyone else, and for folks like myself who have a company setup to run the farm, my company pays 30cents in the dollar, no rebates. Thus…. if a farmer is paying less tax than the pensioners… that means they are making less income than the pensioners. Considering the farmer may have over 2 million dollars invested to make such a paltry income (it’s mostly owned by the bank) and they work some very long and hard and dangerous hours to make less than a pensioner, hardly qualifies them as “evil”.
Dropping down to the farm bike stuff. It’s not the training (farm bike training is higher for the last 15 years than the time before that) it’s the senseless risks that staff take with them. an example from our own farm, one young staff member was driving along the road by the farm, it was raining, so rather than drive slower – he pulled the hood of his raincoat OVER HIS FACE and drove full speed blind… the oncoming neighbour almost missed him with a heroic swerve. Another time an individual had a collision with a gate, he figured it would knock out of the way like they do on the movies, but he’d locked the gate on the way down to the paddock, so when he deliberately hit it at 40km/h on the return trip he really made a mess.
But the danger here is created by people being kept in cotton wool, not being allowed to make safe mistakes, not developing the perception (and research) skills to keep themselves safe. It’s their butt, so it’s their responsibility to watch out for it. Having “inclusive” laws rather than “exclusive line in sand” laws gives a nation of sheep. That social effect is truly evil.
As for farmers adhering to practice. I couldn’t even get the local engineers to put the one-way valve on our effluent system around the right way. Their electrician, a guy with 15yrs dairy experience, didn’t even bother checking to see if the effluent pump 3phase motor was around the right way. We changed firms, and the guy didn’t even turn up. We change to another firm an hour away, he tries hard but the overseas gear he had just didn’t work properly, and when asked about correcting some of the changes they said “nah, thats the way our dies are, you dont like it, tough.”. So I’m back with the original firm, they ‘fixed’ my tractor gear box (reverse had stopped working) so now it just pops out of gear on hills, that’s after 3 shots at repairing it. The power board managed to blow my hotwater cylinder last time they were here, said engineering firm managed to destroy the secondary hotwater cylinder (they had yanked on the pipes, ripping the copper inner cylinder. I found this just as I started milking because they hadn’t seen fit to _test_ the cylinders after they worked on them.) After 3 visits the first cylinder still doesn’t come up to the full 85 degrees, but every visit they smash something else. And I have to pay for every attempt….and I get paid less than your average pensioner.
As for water quality…. most of that is from councils messing with the banks and flows. Originally done to reduce flood damage, it just speed up the water delivery ripping all the banks up. The extra soil, plus the riperian growth, and _historic_ fertiliser, and the change in gravel/splash rate is what is messing up your waterways. Fencing off small streams will increase aquatic plant growth, and with it the vegetation decay in the waterways. That decay will serve as ideal breeding ground for bacteria and small waterlife, which will increase the putridness of your water. Add in the effect of flow choking, and the actual nutrient catchment and release of dying/seeding semi-aquatic plant life/algaes , things look real bad for the future. And then there’s all those large population centers dumping their crap and stormwater into the waterways…. farmers drink that stream water. They like nice streams. They don’t like wasting money on fertilisers going to waste. wtf would farmers do the polluting…. (and the trip that idiot Green party guy took down the Mangatainoka stream … there aren’t any dairy farms on that stretch of waterway!!!! and the only real “pollution” Fonterra had been doing was the water was warmer than it should be (not nutrient).
And Malcolm at Horizons work on the manawatu river? He did it on the plants at the top tip of the river, made no allowances for its behaviour, rate, bottom, or the towns it went through or Palmerston North dumping there crap in it…and it is still actually cleaner in most parts than other NZ and almost all other similar rivers _of_its_type_ in the world. But you do have to know the people doing the tests, rather than reply on the spin some foreign councils let on. And you do have to sample at the right time (not rising water, or slower areas, and away from soft edges) but hey, you know the science dont you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Anyway that’s some of the BS misinformation dealt with.
Jackal, the point I was making this bill makes setup and compliance more expensive. That makes it harder for NZ business and new entrants, while leaving the corporate giants (local and foreign) still running peoples’ lives.
NZ has competed on the world market by keeping overhead costs low. With little “parasitic” bureaucracy and with skilled people and minimilistic systems in place rather than bloated checks and balances and checks and balances on the checks and balances, and little investor (dividends, reports, etc) cost we could out produce, cheaper, and cleaner than our competitors. Their bloated government and bureaucracy and red tape and subsides allowing their cost-to-market (consumer price) to be horrendous by NZ standards. This bill is a step to reversing NZ’s advantage, and on top of slack young folk who don’t like to work hard and think everyone should look after their needs, things not looking good
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit.
Misinformation that the Fonterra collective follows it’s farmers directives.
That collectives [of businesses] dont/cant act in altruist manner – especially in the case of dairy farmers. The dairy farmers have dual interest in keeping local communities and local business working (that’s where the farmers and families live, and where their support comes from.) But that’s not usually why the farmers act that way, often they are hands-on people who want a nice good community. They’re the ones that used to travel to lodges, join in working bees – just as local community businesses used to be able to afford to sponsor altruistic projects. Yes it was good for business, and gave some advertising, but it just for a happy thriving community, with a positive atmosphere and “heart”. Grubbing for pennies and pinching them twice to get a profit, and intense competition, has destroyed that.
Bills pushing costs higher and trying to stop people doing natural people things (in favour of government control) giving massive corporations the ability to control the market itself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Carl
Effectively keeping the issue secret for a long time that ensured many more people became sick and died from poisoning. They could have just publicly announced the problem when there was inaction.
Rubbish! They had a care of duty to ensure their product was safe.
Only four children died.. even if true why are their lives insignificant? I think the number of infants who died is much higher than that, but because of the embarrassment caused a proper assessment of how many infants died has been repressed.
Well at least you’re being honest about what you write Carl. I will revisit your obvious industry spin when time permits.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Jackal. Dude you have been living in a nice protected naive country for far too long. The things you’ve stated are not applicable in China.
In China the NUMBER ONE rule. You do what the government tells you.
Rule number 2 is see number one.
Rule number 3 is THEY WILL EXECUTE YOU if you cause embarrassment to the peoples’ government.
If Fonterra had “blown the lid off”, then the Chinese government would have had to protect their reputation and integrity _for_the_good_of_The_People. They would have been blamed as the cause of the very thing they tried to cover up, evidence against sensitive or important officials would have been dealt with by the appropriate people (ie those involved executed, documentation removed/buried).
Fonterra would have been labelled as “foreign enemies of the State” trying to create disturbances within the industries, and been locked out of the county. Those conservatives who don’t want China exposed to the West & trade would have a big feather in their cap and plenty of influence to prove that foreigners won’t play by China’s instructions and seek to cause problems within China.
What _wouldn’t_ have happened, is that the factory and the process concerned, would have been isolated and changed. They would have keep business as usual, the demands for milk proteins would still be there, and other factories would have picked up on this success and duplicated the process to meet their quotas. Certainly the individuals would be permanently disgraced and shifted to other quiet jobs elsewhere to show that they were failures to their assigned duties. And people would still be getting ill.
In China your duty of care is to obey the government.
The government will tell you what products are safe.
(eg like our Food Bill does)
What Jackal said is not applicable in China and only serves to prove the narrowness of foreign (NZ) minds.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Carl
So your excuse is that Fonterra didn’t inform the public of the poisonous infant formula because of the comercial ramifications. Does your small mind comprehend how wrong that is?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Oh poor Jackal did all those words confuse you…. awwwww.
There is no excuse attempt or required.
Fonterra, as soon as it’s people found the problem, they started correcting it.
They told Sanlu executives to stop, they refused. Fonterra spoke to the Chinese government, who said everything was on target. Fonterra pushed the issue with the Chinese government through channels, things got done.
If Fonterra had not followed their duty of care to the Chinese government then nothing would have been fixed. *Because* of Fonterra it was fixed.
IF they had followed your “informing” it would not be fixed.
And no it wasn’t wrong, and if it had been solely a commercial choice (even on the larger scale) it still wouldn’t have been wrong. A companys’ duty of care is to its shareholders (by natural right and law – which is why dairy farmers don’t want commercial/banking/customers taking shareholdings!! obviously! as that means the companies duty of care would only lie in dividends, not community support or seeing viable returns to farm suppliers).
The duty of care does not lie with the producer. This is a smokescreen thrown up by social wannabes trying to push through their agenda and ignore realties they dont like (and judging from your comments that seems to be you Jackal). But its provable, unlike your politically orientated statement (re:Fonterra’s duty of care). (1)IF consumers are presented with a range of products… (2) they make a choice based on their preferences. (3) they surrender their resources to the distribution and producers (4) this keeps those producers in business.
It is the duty of care in the choice of those consumers to support the business and product they actually really want.
If its a lousy product, but the consumers still buy it the business will thrive.
If its a great product (say Betamax) but consumers wont support it then that business fails.
Any business producing a product that will not sell for more than production cost WILL fail. There is no exception to that.
No matter how bad or dangerous a product is, if it sells at a profit then that business will continue, and if the business is a price-setter, then raising the price/cost will just pass on the cost to consumers. A perfect example of this is illegal drugs made by organised criminals – wrong and dangerous in every sense, but they thrive because the choice lies with the consumer.
Governments responsibility therefore is to the public good of enabling accurate decisions to be made. Their job is to ensure transparency and accuracy. This is why Sanlu were prosecuted, they didn’t have accurate reporting and they didn’t have transparency that people and government could monitor. Often transparency has commercial sensitivity, otherwise the millions of shareholders resources poured into an advantage in research or production would be available to others and enable them to gain unfair financial advantage.
Too many words for you Jackal.
Too much completely smashes your prejudice? Do some research kid, not just parroting the crap others put forward.
As for me I got some nice insights ’cause I was sitting on a plane next to the chap dealing with it. He couldn’t tell me detail cause it hadnt broken yet. (The equivalent of it being in a sealed court hearing)
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)