This is why GMOs were created

Kelly Slater's Organic Life

Monsanto's Seeds of Deception

GMO A Go Go!

Wilkinson's waffle

There's been a lot of concern about National's proposed Food Bill (PDF), with over 30,000 people signing an online petition against the law change.

National is promoting the bill under the guise of food safety, when their motivation is entirely different. There's no question that the bill proposes to restrict and regulate people's basic right to grow and exchange food... but it will also attempt to place strict regulation on plant diversity in agriculture, which will unfairly impact organically produced food.

Mass produced food is a multi-billion dollar industry, with huge potential for growth that's greatly restricted by local production. The main industrial food producers like Monsanto with their terminator seeds, are aligned with the World Trade Organisation... who promote their globalisation through various treaties specifically designed to promote transaction-based policies... where the profit motive is king.

The WTO adheres to something called Codex Alimentarius (Latin for "Book of food"), which is designed to serve the interest of global agribusiness, while actively undermining the rights of local producers and the general consumer.

Despite the obvious allegiances National has with these global conglomerates, today, Kate WIlkinson made a disingenuous press release about the changes her food bill proposes:

Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson says opponents of the Government’s draft Food Bill are scaremongering about its impacts.

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

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

Unfortunately the food bill will do little to reduce the main area where food-borne illnesses are derived from; mass-produced and imported food. It proposes to simply track where imported food originates, something that's already in effect. The bill is simply designed to restrict the local producer so that the industrialized process can gain more market share.

This is entirely the opposite of what needs to happen, with transportation costs making local produce far more cost effective. Falling yields attributed to climate change also make local produce a no-brainer.

Consideration should be given to security of supply, especially in regards to dwindling oil reserves. Additional expenses attributed to packaging, refrigeration and transportation to retail outlets all around the globe mean the consumer ultimately pays more and the environment is damaged. Some have estimated that it now costs seven times the energy yielded to produce food, which is highly unsustainable.

Despite the obvious ramifications of restricting the small local producer through idiotic legislation that favours mass production, Wilkinson's rhetoric goes into overdrive:

Ms Wilkinson says the Bill’s opponents are whipping up fears that small traders such as community gardens, food co-ops, heritage seed banks, farmers markets, bake sales and roadside fruit and vegetable stalls will be caught up in costly red tape.

“That is simply not true. This Bill won’t in any way affect people’s right to grow food and to then exchange, sell or trade it.

“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.

The bill includes all of the food businesses she has listed above in its current draft... and also includes people "directly or peripherally involved in facilitating the trade of food, such as organisers of food markets or events". Here's who is included:

The following provides a summary of food sectors that are subject to food control plans under this schedule:
(a) food retail sector where food businesses prepare or manufacture and sell food:
(b) food service sector (except for those categories of food service listed below as subject to other risk-based measures):
(c) manufacturers of commercially sterilised food products:
(d) manufacturers of dairy products:
(e) manufacturers of dry mix powders:
(f) manufacturers of food for vulnerable populations:
(g) manufacturers of fresh ready-to-eat salads:
(h) manufacturers of meals or meal components:
(i) manufacturers of meat, poultry, or fish products:
(j) manufacturers of non-shelf-stable sauces, spreads, dips, soups, broths, gravies, or dressings:
(k) manufacturers of perishable grain-based products:
(l) manufacturers of processed egg products:
(m) manufacturers of vegetable proteins or other protein products:
(n) processors of herbs or spices:
(o) processors of nuts or seeds.

It's up to the Ministers discretion or the Governor General, by Order in Council made under section 356, for any special dispensation to be granted for any food business for it not to be included under the proposed law changes. That means all the food sectors listed above are automatically included.

Despite this fact being glaringly obvious, Wilkinson delivers up another serving of propaganda:

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

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) would be subject to national programmes (a more flexible and generic approach), with those presenting low risk receiving food handler guidance.

The "three regulatory levels of safety based on risk" are not written into the bill... so Wilkinson is being dishonest. Her obfuscation completely ignores the fact that the seeds required to grow your home garden are included under the proposed bill... with a potential for further legislative restrictions easily implemented. The food bill effectively lets the government do whatever it wants to irrespective of property rights and many other laws that currently govern New Zealand.

National has a sinister motive behind their proposed law changes, which gives special powers to private sector employees to enter any premises deemed a food business, without a legally obtained warrant being required. They're also allowed to use any device without restriction to undertake their fascist agenda.

The power that the proposed bill gives to the government means the Minister could at any stage decree for any reason that any food item be removed from all businesses throughout New Zealand.

Therefor the proposed food bill should be considered a move away from democracy and towards totalitarianism... and that's simply unacceptable.

An Excuse for GE

We should all know by now that climate change will affect crops that we humans rely on for sustenance. Changing seasons and fluctuating weather patterns could be devastating for food production, which is essential to maintain current population levels.

The side effects of unchecked industrialisation could grow further in scope with diseases, viruses and bacteria all finding more favourable conditions under a warmer and unstable climate. So what is the answer to this threat?

Horticulturalists have been developing new crops and cultivars through plant breeding for a long time now. How effective this relatively slow process will be at negating the unprecedented adverse effect from climate change on plant crops is debatable. However it's assuredly one of the best methods to use to advance agricultural security.

Can plants be changed to such a degree in this way as to contend with climate change at all? One can only hope so. What is required is a large undertaking of horticultural research to find specific plant crops that will suit the projected conditions. Migrating suitable crops around the globe as conditions change could help maintain production to ensure mass starvation is mitigated.

Moves to undertake such things as crop diversification are very slow to get organised to a degree that will have much effect. Unfortunately a good deal of the focus has been on genetic engineering, which has been touted as a saviour but has delivered very little in terms of increased production or resistance to pests and diseases, which are likely to increase dramatically under climate change conditions.

Research and development into suitable crops with an intelligent variety redistribution system, proper water management and decentralizing production areas is in my opinion the best methods to use. Canada made a start on just such an endeavour stating:

The applicability and success of different adaptation options will vary greatly between regions and farm types. To determine whether an adaptation option is appropriate for a given situation, its effectiveness, economic feasibility, flexibility, and institutional compatibility should be assessed. In addition, the characteristics of the producer and the farm operation should be considered, as should the nature of the climate change stimuli. Possible economic and political constraints are also important considerations.

Most importantly, however, the adaptation option should be assessed in the context of a broader decision-making process. Researchers agree that agriculture will adapt to climate change through ongoing management decisions, and that the interactions between climatic and non-climatic drivers, rather than climate change alone, will direct adaptation.

The question for New Zealand politicians is whether they're happy for the agriculture sector to be reactive to the effects of climate change, or will they undertake a plan to protect the hugely profitable sector by researching and developing pre-emptive adaptation measures to ensure the effects of climate change are minimized? With John key being a climate change denier, such a worthwhile endeavor is unlikely to gain Governmental support at all.

Genetic Engineered Madness

Want to pretend you're god and play with the natural equilibrium of genes that have taken nature millions of years to develop into harmony? Want to pervert the delicate balance for some short-term financial gain and test your Frankenstein creations on the public? Genetic engineering is one of the dumbest things humans have ever come up with, here’s why:

Nature is a perfectly balanced and delicate structure. (Despite deforestation) every type of cure is available if we can find it. Nature always finds a way and playing with something we have little real understanding of is simply stupid! GE tampers with Natures delicate balance and puts at risk our ability to find cures for human, animal and plant diseases. Many cures are to be found in plants and animals that could be detrimentally affected by genetic engineering, especially if field trials are undertaken whereby cross contamination eventuates. It is not worth risking such cures that will only remain if humans do not tamper with things they do not adequately understand.

A cure for cancer for instance, could be within a plant that will be affected by cross contamination of a genetically modified super resistant disease. Or a bovine vaccine for worm parasites might become ineffective because of the worms adaptation to the genetically changed host. With human gene splicing, these new parasites could prove deadly to mankind. 

Disastrous consequences of genetic modification are not ruled out by scientific research. Tampering with the structure of nature could have adverse effects not currently understood by the scientific fraternity and not apparent on the human organism until it is to late.

A major export earner for New Zealand is horse breeding. The risk to this multi million-dollar industry from genetic manipulation is not worthwhile. I’m sure that if you asked these animals if they were prepared to undergo alteration of their DNA which nature has perfected over millions of years, they would unanimously say no! It is a breach of animal rights to undertake such testing. Companies that wish to experiment on these fine animals and manipulate their genetic material, simply have no right to do so.

New Zealand has an opportunity to undertake effective research into sustainable farming practices. Genetic modification of plants so that more spray can be applied is clearly not a sustainable practice, nor is it healthy for the end user to be exposed to such large amounts of pesticides. There is enough poisonous residue on the food we eat already. It’s not healthy for the soil to be stripped of nutrients from the use of chemicals and over cultivation of one variety of plant. Lesson 101: Don’t fuck with  Mother nature, or she will kill you.

The effects of consuming genetically engineered sheep and beef is not properly researched or understood. It is not proven to be safe. Is there a proposal to use the general New Zealand public in a large experiment to see what the effect is, or would the GE pushers rather deceitfully sneak their product into the food chain? Personally I do not trust genetically engineered produce or the largely non-existent safety measures that should be regulating what we consume.

Changing from production industries that pollute the environment, into sustainable and more profitable industries is recommended. If New Zealand chose to market itself to the world as a GE free and organic producer, that undertook rigorous checks on quality, pest and disease control as well as a proper and effective quota system that recognised the benefits in diversifying product, the World would be our oyster and New Zealand’s clean and green image would be something more than just a marketing gimmick.

Strategic planning so that our markets are properly supplied with the best produce (Bio-diverse, GE Free and Organic) with stricter rules governing our intellectual property (plant matter and growing procedures) would give far greater returns than any genetic engineered fix on already dysfunctional production procedures. Increasing sustainable and GE free production and increasing our bio-security would give New Zealand a far greater advantage in the global food and medicinal markets than dangerous and unproven Genetic Engineered products, that put our entire plant based and meat export sectors at risk.