Food Bill, a conspiracy theory or a true threat?

In Critic issue 3.

The vans arrive next to the railway station early; before dawn farmers are already setting up the tables in their usual spots. They chat to their neighbours before the first customers arrive. Vegetables, cakes, Grandma's jam, cheese; a variety of products can be found across the stalls. The hustle and bustle of the next few hours will bring the station back to its heyday, when Dunedin was the gold-plated gem of New Zealand. Now the only trains that run are scarce and touristy. New Zealand's transport system could get a whole other article, but at least the rise in popularity of Farmers' Markets across the country is giving something back to the local economy. The Kiwi trend of buying local could be under threat though. Farmers' Markets, sausage sizzles and community gardens could suffer under the new Food Bill. One lady selling vegetables says she is “concerned”, the vendor next to her fears “the cost of maintenance will go up the roof”. The management of the Market say the 5000-odd buyers shouldn't feel worried, “it won't affect individual vendors”.

Farmers and small-scale traders across the country hardly have time to read a 365-page bill in legalese that even politicians call vague. They feel the sudden bill hasn't been exposed to them enough, and in a matter of months the bill has spurred many critics. So dubbed conspiracy theorists claim the Food Bill has an Orwellian tinge. Under the guise of safety, they say it will actually lead to a degradation of our freedoms and increased control.

Early December the ODT ran the headline “Police Arrest Pensioner Found Supplying Carrots”. The article claimed the bill would revoke our right to grow food, becoming “a government-authorised privilege”. Other media outlets also demonstrated the growing concern citizens had. In a Campbell Live interview, former Green MP Sue Kedgley stated that exchanges with neighbours would also have to comply with the vague provisions of the bill. She also said the bill “could end up discouraging healthy food choice”. A more recent headline from Stuff.co.nz, from the 11^th of February 2012, asks whether the food bill will make food safer or be a form of control.

All in all though, concerned citizens say the bill has been hiding from the public eye and that the media is still just giving a slant. The Minister of Food Safety, Kate Wilkinson, disagrees. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry held public consultations from 2007-2010 through submissions, forums and consumer groups. Why then do farmers feel they haven't been consulted? A spokesperson for Federated Farmers says they haven't been paying much attention to the bill.

The bill “seeks to provide an efficient, risk-based regulator regime that places a primary duty on persons trading in food to ensure that what is sold is safe and suitable”. According to the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, food-borne illnesses cost $162 million a year to the economy.

Breakdown of the NZFSA illness costs: Cost of Treatment- $6 million Cost of Food Industry Regulation- $17 million Cost of Business Compliance- $12 million Loss of Work Output due to Illnes- $27 million *Residual Private Cost- $100 million The residual private cost is an estimate of how much Kiwis spend preventing illnesses.

Farmers’ Marketeers though believe it will increase costs, some people think it would lead to an end of small-scale trade altogether and others are more concerned with an ulterior motive: the bill gives unnecessary rights to Food Safety Officers (FSO’s), who will be able to search private properties and get rid of small-scale competition.

Kate Wilkinson, Minister of Food Safety, rubbishes the claims: it won’t “in any way affect people’s right to grow food and to then exchange sell or trade it”. She accuses the denouncers as either misinformed or scaremongers. The Bill will simplify 30-year-old legislation, according to the Minister. It will also minimise the risk to public health. During the first reading in Parliament the majority of parties supported the bill, but just a few months later National could be in a minority. Maybe there is something deeper to it.

David Clark, Dunedin North Labour MP says his party “won’t give final support to the bill”. Though the old bill “needs updating”, the Labour party wants to avoid “unnecessary red tape” and “protect local growers and small businesses”. The same goes for sausage sizzle and cake stands, he doesn’t want to see them jeopardized by new legislation. Steffan Browning, Safe Food spokesperson for the Green party, fears the new regulations could increase costs. The Green Party is keen for geographical exemptions, which would be more environmentally friendly and in turn encourage local food consumption. Browning doesn’t believe the “issues” arise from local growers; instead the spread of diseases such as E-coli or campylobacter originate in bigger industries that manufacture more elaborate products- especially the meat industry. Damien O'Connor, Labour spokesperson for Food Safety, says Parliament agrees that the commercial storage of chicken in particular has to be improved.
The Food Bill could potentially affect local producers much worse than large conglomerates, despite the latter being more at fault. Phil Bremer, professor at the University of Otago's Food Science department, says larger industries already self-regulate. In order to compete, big companies such as Tesco or Walmart hire 3^rd party auditors.
The International Socialist Organisation (ISO) in Dunedin points out the bill won't do anything about the fat, sugar or additive levels in food. Browning also warns that under the Bill in its current form, OUSA as a student union would not be allowed to hold sausage sizzles without red tape being fried in the process.
Mana and NZ First are also set to vote against the bill.

A Bill for trade.

The Government was quick to take out a clause that said seed-sharing would become illegal. Facebook groups and the New Zealand Food Security website soon pick up on the 'slip-up' that would have benefited giant agribusiness and fertiliser corporations. The Bill is not just a new version of an old bill, it follows the guidelines of the Codex Alimentarius. A set of food regulations pushed by the World Trade Organisation. According to Winsome Parnell, nutrition policy expert at the University of Otago, the Codex aims to create better environments for trade by setting equal regulations across the world. Both Clarke and O'Connor of the Labour party mention export markets when talking about the Food Bill. The Bill seems to be set up for large producers trading by international standards, so the measures will push local traders to stand by hitherto unprecedented regulations. Steffan Browning says there should be geographical exemptions to encourage local producers in their own markets.

FSO's the new police.

Added to the ambiguity of the Bill, Under section 243 the Food Bill states the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry will be able to appoint Food Safety Officers who don't work for the State. A spokesman from the Federated Farmers says the “powers of FSO’s will be no different now than before”, however the fact that the private sector can contract them as well, could lead to “conflicts of interest”. FSO’s contracted for private interests will have the same functions as those employed by the state. They will have the right to search a premise without a search warrant and seize and dispose of food if they “reasonably believe” somebody may not be complying with the act. This goes against New Zealand's Bill of Rights. David Clarke points out that private FSO's are an example of the ongoing heed for privatisation by the National government. This will cut hundreds of jobs and also put food safety in the hands of private companies. The Government says FSO's shall act in “good faith”, otherwise they can be sued. What is good faith though? At the end of the day it is subjective, so it could end up as your word against theirs in court. For the ISO, the best FSOs would be the workers themselves. They say enpowered and educated workers will know the best working-conditions, as a democratically-owned production system would be able to choose better than police enforcements.

How will the Food Bill impact you?

First off, OUSA's sausage sizzles will only be accepted after piles of bureaucracy. The fact that non-charitable organisations will be subject to this is a type of censorship, especially for the less powerful organisations. But to make it worse, the Bill gives the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry rights to create particular exemptions and change whole clauses altogether, once it is approved. So while it is possible to foresee an exemption to OUSA's wedge of paperwork, we are much more likely to see the Food Bill taking away rights from such organisations. We all know the National Government isn't that keen on student associations!
For our 'security', the government will be able to strip rights from small-scale farmers as soon as one accident occurs. Potentially, they will also be able to barge into student flats to seize homebrew, or barbeques.
These unprecedented rights given to the ministry allow it to change the whole bill to suit some interests, whenever it feels like it. Agribusiness, with their massive lobbying budgets could gain rights to work more effectively in New Zealand, and then use FSO's to further their own goals. Indeed if the bill passed, in New Zealand we'd soon start hearing debates about Genetically Engineered products, but certainly not in the Farmers' Markets.

Though the government calls them loonies, when it comes to this bill, conspiracy-theorists could be right. It is the combination of the Food Bill's vague premises and overarching powers that make it dangerous in the first place.

As of the 1st of March an online petition against the current Food Bill has received almost 42,000 signatures out of 50,000. If you disagree with the Food Bill, sign the petition at petitiononline.co.nz.

from the Nelson Mail by Mike Moreu. 14^th of Feb 2012.