New Zealand’s pig farmers have already been affected by the import of pig meat, most of which is imported from countries with lower or non-existent animal welfare codes, food handling and food safety standards. Cheap imported pork has driven down prices forcing many farmers out of business and leaving many others to consider their options because their returns don’t cover their cost of production.

What I find most interesting about the decision to relax the import standards for untreated pig meat is that there seems to be no thought given to New Zealand’s pig farmer and their pig’s. Allowing raw pork to be imported dramatically increases the risk of PRRS spreading to New Zealand. PRRS means a long slow painful death for infected pigs. It is not preventable and could annihilate the industry here. If that were to happen we’d be only eating imported pig meat. This is unacceptable, when we have pig farmers here making a real effort to farm their pigs in an environmentally acceptable way and taking in to account the welfare of their animals, albeit following years of lobbying from the likes of Sue Kedgley.

What’s more, if PRRS were to be found in New Zealand, the new Government Industry Agreements would require the industry itself to fund half of the response to the outbreak.  This disadvantages the pig farmer even more – they have to pay for the Government’s decision. Our ability to feed our nation from locally grown food is vital to our economy. We need to support our local producers. Their success is our success.

The destruction that occurred was direct action rather than a Scion activity, 2 fences were cut through and the ‘alive’ and electronically monitored fence was tunnelled under. Scion may have been able to discourage the direct action if its security was as good as it portrayed during its ERMA hearing, where Scion suggested surveillance cameras would be operating. It appears that Scion failed to even notice the damage for at least 3 days.

I visited the Rotorua GE tree field trial site last Friday, at least 6 days after the event, and saw one of the scientists inspecting the perimeter of the electrified enclosure fence line. Last time trees were cut down there in 2008, rabbits were coming and going under the heavy security fence, and Scion were not meeting the then approval conditions, of weekly fence inspections or correct management of prunings.

The level of non-compliance and general slackness in the past included potted GE pine cuttings in the open developing pollen cones. This gave those following the ERMA hearing process, no confidence that pollen wouldn’t happen again, especially when ERMA said that non-GE control trees within the site could produce pollen, and approval conditions would deal with the risk of GE pollen escape. That was exactly what they had said about the pollen risk from GE brassicas (cauliflower, broccoli, cabbage and kale) at that ERMA hearing only a few years before. Even while an appeal to the High Court was being heard against the GE brassica decision, the brassica scientist (a friend and colleague of the Scion GE crew) had her GE brassicas planted and flowering in the open, and I discovered a further open pollen event at her ‘secret’ site months later.

The public have been able to actively scrutinise Scion’s operations for compliance to the EPA (formerly ERMA) approval requirements.  Scion would prefer to operate in secret rather than have their activity monitored, and damage such as has occurred may encourage the EPA to allow a secret location.

As a Member of Parliament, I cannot condone illegal activity, but as a participant in the Scion GE tree and Plant & Food Research GE brassica hearings, I know why activists can feel the need to overstep the badly managed processes and take the law into their own hands. Legislation is a better way of correcting GE in the environment of New Zealand, and the sooner a government does it the better.

The ad-hoc piecemeal planning approach was going to lead to the Sounds being blanketed by marine farms. I got involved with the local community and after many years of hard work and environment court challenges a lasting solution was developed – or so I thought.

This is why I am particularly concerned about the proposals from King Salmon effectively overturning the planning process. The local community, including marine farmers committed considerable time and energy to find a workable solution. This proposal is coming in over top of the agreed position, and potentially reopening the way to a piece meal approach that could affect all of New Zealand’s coastlines.

Fonterra is a co-operative which means it is owned by the farmers that supply Fonterra. Co-operatives are great. They deliver good results to their members. In Fonterra’s case this is because the vast majority of milk in NZ is exported. This means Fonterra can’t set the price they sell at. The incentive is then to drive down the price of their raw materials – milk – if they wanted to increase their profits. Fonterra is a co-operative though, increasing their profits means returning more to the farmers that supply Fonterra. A co-operative means that farmers that supply the milk reap the rewards.

The proposed changes are the first step in breaking Fonterra’s co-operative structure. There are some complex financial reasons why the Fonterra board supports the changes. A vote of farmer shareholder/suppliers supported an initial proposal to address these issues. Since 2010 the proposal has changed significantly to be more like a previous model that was soundly rejected.

If the Fonterra Board and the Government has their way, Fonterra will be opened up to investment by non-farmers. This would incentivise Fonterra to drive down the farm gate price of milk. Dairy farmers would be left in a similar position to horticulture growers with increasing costs and decreasing returns which will lead to the squeezing out of family farmers.

We support Fonterra continuing to be a strong co-operative that delivers good returns for dairy farmers. We all know that there are major issues around the environmental impact of dairy farms. I hope that some of Eugenie’s suggestions around introducing the ability for environmental factors to be considered when setting raw milk prices and/or accepting milk supply will be explored further in select committee.

I am meeting again with the minister next week to discuss these issues and look forward to their successful resolution. I will be raising the issue of the bills impact on our food sovereignty and that the bill does not consider genetically engineered (GE) food. The removal of GE food as a safety issue from the first draft of the bill is very worrying. It will remove our ability to prevent unsafe GE food being sold in New Zealand, leaving any control to the Australian dominated, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), or other international agreements.

Keep an eye out on our events page,  I might be meeting at a local hall near you soon, or contact my office and we might be able to organise one near you. Do keep up the letters and emails to the minister. Together we will be able to make real change.

A very effective social media and networking campaign regarding the Food Bill has elevated concerns about bureaucracy intruding unnecessarily into the domestic food supply. Unfortunately some information circulated was incorrect, such as the Food Bill being put through these holidays, or that seed saving was to be outlawed.  The Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson has very clearly stated that seed saving and plant propagation will not be included in the Food Bill, following amendments during the Parliamentary process probably in February-March. However the social media campaign has been useful in exploring where the Food Bill may still need correction or improvement.

As currently drafted, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) and the Food Safety Minister are left significant power to make amendments by way of regulation once the Food Bill is enacted through legislation. Swapping of home garden produce with neighbours and friends, and direct sales from horticultural producers to consumers, are meant to be exempt from the need for food safety plans, under the proposed legislation. However the Minister is empowered by the Food Bill to later effectively change anything by way of regulation, including the exemption to swap food. It is difficult to find anything relating to food that the Minister would not be able to change.

This needs remedying, and blanket exemptions to preserve New Zealand’s culture of gardening, food preserving and community sharing must be drafted in such a way that any significant future changes must go through the full Parliamentary process. New Zealanders should be given every encouragement to feed themselves and their communities, not be constrained unnecessarily.

Except for direct grower to consumer sales of horticultural produce, for even the smaller growers or pickle producers to avoid food safety verification and registration costs, most operators will need to apply to the discretion of the Minister through MAF or a delegated local council.

School fairs, churches, and community fundraisers could have sausage sizzle fundraisers with just food handler guidance (a best practice food safety pamphlet and no checking), yet a small grower wanting to sell some surplus plums or cabbages to the corner dairy has to enter the bureaucratic jungle: Register at a cost, apply for an exemption, or wait and hope that MAF and the Minister decide to make an exemption after the Food Bill is through, but no promises.

It would appear that the only ‘charitable’ groups not able to run sausage sizzles or food stalls under food handler guidance, would be political parties/supporters, strong advocacy groups, and direct action groups such as Greenpeace. They would have to pay registration and undergo food safety plan verification for their sins.

Food safety is strongly covered under the existing Food Act, but has been poorly enforced, with evidence of food borne illness mostly reported as coming from restaurants, cafes, takeaways, caterers, and delis, not the fresh fruit and vege growers whose produce can easily be washed, or the cheese maker who knows their art.

Food borne illness needs better research to identify its causes more accurately, and food handlers need good education and penalties to deter poor practice, but this need not be at the expense of local, diverse food production. Small growers and processors need to be encouraged to rebuild the culture of local artisan food production, building food security and local skills.

Genetic modification, international joint food standards, free trade agreements and New Zealand food sovereignty, the level of force allowed by food safety officers, their immunity from prosecution, and the powers of the Minister, are all issues that need revisiting in the draft of the Food Bill currently before Parliament.

Amendments to the Food Bill could improve it significantly, ensuring New Zealand food sovereignty, confidence for growers and producers alike, encouraging food production at the local level and putting the compliance costs where they belong – on the large agribusiness and food processors that manifest the greater food safety risks.

I am looking forward to meeting with the Minister to discuss the process from here. I hope she will consider supporting a fresh round of submissions on the Bill. Public awareness and concern about the Bill has grown since the first round of submissions, and many people have expressed interest in submitting their views on the Bill.

More posts on the Food Bill

Mojo And Steffan lead Green response to Food Bill – Mojo Mathers, 21 Dec 2011

Food Bill update from Sue Kedgley – Sue Kedgley, 13 September 2011

VARC, based in facilities in Manawatu and Hawkes Bay, had been experimenting on beagles and was also supplying beagles to other experimenters. SAFE have campaigned vigorously against the VARC facilities, and at Parliament in April last year, then Green MP, Sue Kedgley received SAFE’s 12,000 strong petition against animal research on cats and dogs. SAFE deserve a big pat on the back, as it appears that VARC’s inhumane operation has now effectively collapsed.

Secrecy around animal experiments must be blown open and VARC were prize examples of why. VARC’s public statements said that there were not animal deaths at their facility, but the very first records eventually obtained showed 33 experimental deaths. Media follow up clearly shows that there have been more. The public deserves to know what is going on, so that animal welfare and rights can be discussed with full facts openly, and unnecessary pain, suffering and death of animals is stopped.