Food Bill rivals 'scaremongering'

Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson is accusing opponents of the government's draft Food Bill, of scaremongering.

"Much of what they claim is untrue and causing many people unnecessary concern," says Kate.


She is referring to claims the Bill will prevent New Zealanders from growing their own food and trading it with neighbours and friends.

'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,” says Kate.

'Small traders, such as those running roadside stalls or selling their own horticultural produce at markets, are generally classed as low risk and will not need to register; they will simply receive a free ‘food handler guidance' information pamphlet.

'Food grown at home for personal or family consumption, or given away to friends, is excluded from the measures in the Bill.”

But while Kate says the Food Bill will not prevent neighbours and communities from swapping or bartering food, barter itself is covered by the Bill.

The Food Bill will apply to food that is sold or bartered on a commercial basis.

The existing legislation, Food Act 1981, includes barter in the definition of sale.

If bartering was excluded from the new Food Bill it would be possible for some commercial food operations to avoid their regulatory responsibilities, says Kate.

The Minister is accusing the Bill's opponents of 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.

Charitable and community events, such as sausage sizzles, home bake sales, and other fundraising events may still occur without requiring registration, provided they are held no more than 20 times a year by a charity or an individual.

Organisers will be provided with access to 'food handler guidance' tips and advice on how to ensure food sold to others is safe to eat.

People who produce jams and pickles for school galas and fundraisers will not have to undertake any sort of registration, but commercial producers of jams and pickles will be subject to a national programme level and be required to register their operation and make occasional verifications at a frequency that reflects the level of risk.

'The Bill is designed to simplify 30-year-old food safety regulations and ultimately aims to reduce our high level of food-borne illness and corresponding economic cost,” says Kate.

'It's estimated food-borne illness caused a $162 million loss to the New Zealand economy in 2010.

'The current system is prescriptive and based on rules and inspections, which are often costly to food businesses. The new regime will create efficiencies for traders and improve food safety.”

The new regime will have three regulatory levels of safety based on risk, with those food businesses classed as high risk, such as restaurants or baby food manufacturers, having the highest level of requirements.

Businesses presenting a medium level risk, such as bakeries and pre-packaged food processors, will be subject to national programmes with those presenting low risk receiving food handler guidance.

"This is an important piece of legislation and I am conscious that Labour and the Greens have new Food Safety spokesmen,” says Kate.

'I am more than happy to meet with these parties to discuss the Bill and any concerns they have to ensure that it delivers what we all want - safer food and a reduction in illness, without increasing compliance costs to industry.

"The Bill is intended to modernise and enhance our domestic food safety regime - not over-regulate it.

'I encourage people to visit www.foodsafety.govt.nz to read what the Bill actually contains and not to listen to the scaremongering from some of the Bill's opponents.”

Changes have already occurred to the Bill as a result of public pressure.

For example propagation food seeds were unintentionally included in the Food Bill.

When it was brought to Kate Wilkinson's attention she directed an amendment to the definition of food to ensure propagation food seeds are not included.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry director-general has powers under the Food Bill to exempt certain activities from all or any requirements of the Act.

The Food Bill will be enforced by food safety officers (FSOs), who will in reality be the staff of regional and territorial local authorities tasked with policing the Bill.

In reply to accusations they will be empowered to undertake armed raids without search warrants and with immunity from prosecution, Kate says there are very clear guidelines in the Food Bill for FSOs entering a premises with a search warrant.

The Food Bill only allows FSOs to access and enter the areas of premises where the food is being prepared.

There is no provision in the Bill for FSOs to be armed.

But section 275 does grant FSOs the power to undertake a search of food premises without a search warrant, and once there, they can seize food and close a business.

They are not completely immune from prosecution.

The principles and provisions of the Food Bill regarding immunity from criminal and civil liability are substantively the same as those provided for in the existing Food Act 1981.

FSOs are protected from civil or criminal liability for any act that the person does, or omits to do, if the act is part of their functions or duties under the Bill, or they are exercising their powers under those duties.

The FSOs must act in good faith and with reasonable cause. Failure to do so means they are no longer immune from prosecution and they can also be sued.

There are similar provisions in the Animal Products Act 1999, the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Commerce Act 1986, among others.

The draft Bill has been through a full public consultation process and has been passed by Parliament's Primary Production Select Committee with cross-party support.

In general terms, the Bill applies to food for sale and food-related accessories.

The Bill defines food to mean anything that is used, capable of being used, or represented as being used for human consumption, whether raw, prepared, or partly prepared.

The Bill defines a food-related accessory to mean anything that is used, or represented for use, in or for the production, processing and handling, or sale, of food.

According to the Food Bill, food is anything that is used, capable of being used, or represented as being for use, for human consumption; including plants, live animals, and any ingredient or nutrient or other constituent of any food or drink, whether that ingredient or nutrient or other constituent is consumed or represented for consumption on its own by humans, or is used in the preparation of, or mixed with or added to, any food or drink; and anything that is or is intended to be mixed with or added to any food or drink; and chewing gum, and any ingredient of chewing gum, and anything that is or is intended to be mixed with or added to chewing gum; and anything that is declared by the Governor-General, by order in council made under section 25355, to be food for the purposes of the Act; but does not include tobacco, cosmetics, or any substances used only as medicines, controlled drugs or any restricted substances within the meaning of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005.

You may also like....

7 comments

I thought National was Party of less regulation

Posted on 12-01-2012 09:19 | By Gee Really

Instead we are getting a Labour or Green style nanny state piece of legislation. Something I'd expect of a Sue Kedgley or people of her politics. Very disappointing from a National Government. Could our MP Simon Bridges let us know his position on this Bill?


Confused....I am.

Posted on 12-01-2012 12:06 | By dgk

I guess our MP is still being told what to say. Mind you, as Kate doesn't even know if market vendors will, or wont, need a permit, I doubt Simon will have a clue either....


Not surprised

Posted on 12-01-2012 15:11 | By rastus

Gee Really should know that our country has signed up to all sorts of absolute crap legislation simply to stay in line. The UN is the most demanding and many signatures have been made on your behalf as a citizen, however without your knowledge or consent. This food bill is just another of that type of situation where our government is bending to the wishes (some would say demands) of others outside of NZ - you can ask Simon Bridges as many questions on this as you like - he has no influence over the result - (even if he claims to have) The official government response will be "This legislation is simply to keep NZ in line with similar overseas legislation" I say we are still a sovereign nation and as such 'we' should decide such matters - unfortunately that will never happen no matter which party is deemed to be in control - cynical - you bet!


Simons own opinion! You must be joking

Posted on 12-01-2012 19:22 | By The Tomahawk Kid

Simon Bridges position - if it is the same as his position on everything else is: "do what the party tell him!" Simon doesnt have a "position" of his own. The National Party SUPPOSEDLY promote the following principles (according to their website): *Individual freedom and choice *Personal responsibility *Competitive enterprise and rewards for achievement *Limited government There cannot be ‘individual freedom and choice' when they are prepared to perpetrate compulsion. There cannot be ‘personal responsibility' when they are prepared to replace responsibility with compulsion. We cannot have ‘competitive enterprise' when we are weighed down by compulsory levies, charges, and taxes such as this. There cannot be ‘limited government' when the taxpayer is forced to finance the huge bureaucracies that are needed to administer policies such as this. How can you vote for, let alone TRUST a party that ignores its most basic principles. If National is 'the Cure” to the countrys problems, then I'll take the 'Disease” thanks! At least you can be SURE where they will take us, (even if it is a slow torture by socialism!) but National are like a lost pair of flipflops in the surf!


tut Kate tell the truth

Posted on 13-01-2012 13:35 | By Demandthetruth

MP Wilkinson is doing a snow job & only talking about a little tip of the iceberg. This whole issue will see our health shops, Maori medicine, natural medicines disappear. She will not want the rest to come out in public. The NZ Food Bill is part of Codex Alimentarius & I trust Sunlive will let me give you the first information background (please precis this if you wish but please do not lose the impact) It is an insidious piece of legislation that needs thorough examination & I guarantee most of the politicians do not read it. Ever heard of the Codex Alimentarius? If not, don't be surprised. It's one of the best-kept 'open secrets” of the U.S. government. It's scheduled to take effect in 2010/2011, and it may present the greatest disaster for our food supply—and thus for our health—this country has ever seen. What is the Codex Alimentarius, and how did it come to pass? In the Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1897 and 1911, a collection of standards and regulations for a wide variety of foods was developed, called the Codex Alimentarius Austriacus. It wasn't legally binding but served as a useful reference for the courts to determine standards for specific foods. The post-World War II rebirth of the Codex Alimentarius (or short, Codex), however, is much more dubious. To understand the full implications, we need to go back to the history of one huge conglomerate: The Interessengemeinschaft Farben, or IG Farben—a powerful cartel that consisted of German chemical and pharmaceutical companies such as BASF, Bayer, and Hoechst. IG Farben was, you could say, the corporate arm of the Third Reich. Having lucrative contracts with Hitler's regime, IG Farben produced everything from ammunition to Zyklon B, the nerve gas that was used to kill prisoners in the concentration camps. IG Farben was the single largest donor to Hitler's election campaign… and later the single largest profiteer of World War II. 'Whenever the German Wehrmacht conquered another country, IG Farben followed, systematically taking over the industries of those countries,” states the website of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation, a non-profit promoter of natural health. 'The U.S. government investigation of the factors that led to the Second World War in 1946 came to the conclusion that without IG Farben the Second World War would simply not have been possible.” Auschwitz, the largest and most infamous German concentration camp, also benefited IG Farben. New, unsafe pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines were liberally tested on Auschwitz prisoners—many of which died during the tests. Not surprising, the Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal prosecuted 24 IG Farben board members and executives for mass murder, slavery and other crimes against humanity. One of those convicted was Fritz ter Meer, the highest-ranking scientist on the executive board of IG Farben, who was sentenced to seven years in prison (of which he only served four). When asked during trial whether he thought those human experiments had been justified, he answered that 'concentration camp prisoners were not subjected to exceptional suffering, because they would have been killed anyway.” In 1955, ter Meer was reinstated as a member of the supervisory board at Bayer and one year later became its chairman. In 1962, together with other executives of BASF, Bayer and Hoechst, he was one of the main architects of the Codex Alimentarius. 'When he got out of jail, he went to his UN buddies,” said Dr. Rima Laibow, MD, in a passionate speech at the 2005 conference of the National Association of Nutrition Professionals (NANP). 'And he said, ‘[…] If we take over food worldwide, we have power worldwide.'” The result was the creation of a trade commission called the Codex Alimentarius Commission, now funded and run by the UN's World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). At its foundation in 1994, the World Trade Organization (WTO) accepted the standards of the Codex—and by the end of 2009, all member countries of the WTO will be required to implement the Codex, 'to harmonize the standards” for the global trade of foods. In the U.S. meanwhile, Congress passed the Dietary Supplements Health and Education Act (DSHEA) in 1994, which defined vitamins, minerals and herbs as foods, therefore not to be regulated by pharmaceutical standards. The Codex Alimentarius would reverse all that. It would treat those dietary supplements not as foods, but as toxins. In other words, classified as toxins, vitamins, minerals and herbs would only be allowed to be marketed in doses that have no discernible impact on anyone. Then why bother taking them? And that's not all. Where our grocery and health food store shelves are now brimming with supplements, only 18 of them would be on the Codex whitelist. Everything not on the list, such as CoQ10, glucosamine, etc. would be illegal—not as in 'prescription-only” illegal, but as in 'take it and you go to jail” illegal. But the mandatory requirements of the Codex will not only concern vitamins and minerals, but all foods. Under Codex rules, nearly all foods must be irradiated. And levels of radiation can be much higher than previously permitted. While irradiated U.S. foods are currently treated with 1 - 7.5 kiloGray of radiation, the Codex would lift its already high limit of 10kiloGray—the equivalent of ca. 330 million chest X-rays—'when necessary to achieve a legitimate technological purpose,” whatever that may be. Granted, the text says, that the dose of radiation 'should not compromise consumer safety or wholesomeness of the food.” Note, however, that it says 'should,” not 'shall” (an important legal difference, since 'should” is not compulsory). You buy rBST-free milk? Not much longer, because under the Codex all dairy cows will have to be treated with Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone. All animals used for human consumption will have to be fed antibiotics. Organic standards will be relaxed to include such measures. And did we mention that under the Codex, genetically modified (GM) produce will no longer have to be labeled? Say good-bye to true organic food, and maybe even food that retains any resemblance of nutritional value. Moreover, in 2001, twelve hazardous, cancer-causing organic chemicals called POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants) were unanimously banned by 176 countries, including the United States. Codex Alimentarius will bring back seven of these forbidden substances—such as hexachlorobenzene, dieldrin, and aldrin—to be freely used again. Permitted levels of various chemicals in foods will be upped as well.


Food Bill rivals 'scaremongering'

Posted on 14-01-2012 16:14 | By algail

Could our MP Simon Bridges let us know his position on this Bill? No he either won't have one or dare not speak out against the bill.. Would you tell your employer ' You are wrong ' Alastair Bethlehem


GROWING FOOD

Posted on 15-01-2012 18:02 | By PLONKER

Oh yes it will have an "effect", it will require chemicals to be added, food to be irradiated and rules to be complied with. Where is the healthy, NZ green, best for the citizens in that? Looks to be yet another freedom gone to benefit global multi-nationals.


Leave a Comment


You must be logged in to make a comment.