Nature is Life — MH
This is article is Part 2 of three (for now) on the Gene Technology Bill. In Part 1 the irreversible dangers of future intended DNA-altering mRNA injections — part of the Gene Tech Bill — were addressed. Part 2 deals with the irreversible harm that will be caused, including no meaningful regulation or accountability of Gene Technology and no requirement to label GMOs, so Kiwis will be unaware of what they are eating. Part 3 is an Open Letter to All MPs.
As outlined in Part 1: The following article is based on my opinion — that of an everyday New Zealander. Everyone should slog through at least the main parts of this proposed legislation and arrive at their own conclusions. Please let me know if my evaluation is incorrect, but I have done the best I could with an extremely complex Bill under unreasonable time constraints, as submissions must be in by 17 February 2025. As mentioned in Part 1, this unnecessarily rushed piece of legislation that has the potential to irreversibly alter all living things — including human beings — and should not be before parliament. No one has any right to assume authority over nature and irreversibly alter it.
The Gene Technology Bill is the most urgent issue facing New Zealanders in the history of our nation. We stand at the crossroads of monumental change with a proposed legislation poised to do irreparable harm.
In my view, it is an Act of War (second definition shown) on our people and our country to attempt to bring such rushed legislation before parliament with no meaningful safety guards. It was a cheap trick to try to rush the submission process through over the Christmas and summer break when most Kiwis are on holiday with their families. To have the submission period close approximately two weeks after the summer break illustrates a callous disregard for genuinely hearing feedback from New Zealanders. Voices of dissent must not be suppressed in an unethical bid to get this legislation rushed through — especially not legislation that can cause such damage to our people and our country.
NZDSOS (New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science) state: The Gene Technology Bill represents what can only be described as a mass biological intervention in our national food systems and medicine. They have powerful articles on it, along with a simple guide on how to put in an objection to the Bill before 17 February. An excellent discussion on it is on RCR here and here with further important interviews here. Their suggestions on how to make an objection are here. Dr Guy Hatchard has several important articles and a video available with suggestions on how to respond before submissions close on 17 February 2025. The Daily Telegraph has additional vital articles here. The exceptional GE Free NZ team has been fighting this for many years and their website, along with their suggestions on what to do about it are here and also provide a template and a two-page document outlining key definitions and seven facts about GE food that is well worth a click. Gary Moller invites Kiwis to copy and paste from his submission that succinctly outlines key points. Additional suggestions are in the final paragraphs of this article. As well, please feel free to scan through the subtitles of my articles (Part 1 and 2 ) and choose key points ton which you may wish to base your objections — the ones that matter most to you. Farmers are extremely concerned about the rush and the Farmers Weekly rightly suggests the important point that it is the market, not the scientists, that must drive the GM stance.
Jodie Bruning has powerful articles on the Bill here as well as another entitled ‘When Parliament is Misdirected’. Additional articles can be found on JRBruning.Substack.com and at TalkingRisk.NZ where there is also a video highlighting ‘the dangers of the utilisation of novel entities in the GMO field’ and ‘the failure of governments (such as in New Zealand) to provide a space for independent, public science to explore risk.’ This is particularly important when, as Jodie outlines, most regulation is undertaken based on ‘the supply of private data from the industry seeking to release the technology.’
The above information highlights the dangerous, irreversible quagmire that this proposed legislation can lead to, including further ill-health, less international markets for our produce, and the devastating impact it will have on food exports. There is no road back from this. The fatuous sound-bites and the horrific pitfalls are exposed in the references above — and in this article and Part 1 — bringing to light how rotten it is to its very core, along with the serious, irremediable harm to every living thing in our country.
As we cast back the curtain and view the puppet-masters behind it, we see, as noted by astute barrister and solicitor of New Zealand and NSW lawyer, Katie Ashby-Koppens: This Bill is an integral part of globalist control of the world and New Zealand. This is now clear for all to see. No longer hiding in the shadows, the World Economic Forum, the United Nations or its purported agency of health, the World Health Organisation and their funders, big pharma, biotech companies, Bill Gates, and Larry Ellison, are paving the way for there to be no barriers, limited questions and virtually no regulation for their gene-altering products to be administered to New Zealanders, our animals, our flora, our fauna or our agriculture. This is the One Health policy of these’ global organisation’s in action. It seems clear that this is their depraved quest for world power and control.
There are likely to be others behind them too, including bankers, among others. The world-renowned Catherine Austin-Fitts, of the Solari Report, gives her view on what seems to be one of the players — Ellison — in this four-minute clip.
The main concerns of the Bill in regard to our food and all living plants and animals, are outlined below.
1. Where is the precautionary principle?
The Precautionary Principle is absent: if an action poses potential harm, in the absence of scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those taking the action. Clause 187 attempts to protect those involved from civil and criminal liability.
2. No controls, no traceability
There are no controls for containing the spread of GMOs in the environment, or in our people. There is no traceability back to any source when things go wrong, so there is no ability to contain a negative outcome. Genetically modified plants and/or animal experiments were previously under strict controls and contained, with testing in labs. This Bill disposes of those controls.
Removing controls in an area where the actual DNA of food, animals, human beings and the living environment can be changed with unknown and irreversible consequences is, in my view, a serious crime of the highest magnitude and is the action of a government that appears to have run amok. Pushing for no control and no traceability with novel technology that can cause substantial harm is not the action of a government that is serving and representing the people. It seems more like a government that is paying lip-service to those they purport to represent while serving international interests
This push for lack of control and accountability of multi-billion dollar bio-tech and pharma corporations who seek world domination and control and appear to make billions through licencing and patents — regardless of the potential destruction to our GE-free farmers, our people and our environment. Scientists with dissenting views are ignored.
Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. — Robert Kennedy
3. No labelling
Genetically modified animals, food and seeds will not be labelled GMO, so no one will have any idea what they are eating or drinking. Many people have food allergies. How will they know if what they are eating contains organisms from something that could cause a severe allergy, including anaphylactic shock? What if they are allergic to fish and there are fish genes in the food? Peanuts? Eggs? Nuts?
This removes the power to choose, which is a violation of our Human Rights.
If NZ had an excellent product that made people healthy and we could attain a premium for that food when exported wouldn’t we want to proudly name it and shout it out to the world? The only reason to have food unlabelled as GMO would be to hide that fact as most would avoid it. It’s hardly a good advertisement for the product. Even China has required labelling. That’s our biggest export market. And this current Bill before parliament means GMO food won’t be required to be labelled.
The alarm has been sounded about GMO food concerns for some years now. Bhutan made the best decision by making all of their produce organic. The US hasn’t required labelling, but with RFK Jr wanting to make the USA healthy again that looks like it is about to change.
Our farmers are required to have tags on all livestock so they can be tracked back to the farm if anything goes awry. Even woollen clothing is tagged so the wool can be traced back to the farm that provided it. Yet with this Bill the government want no GMO labelling and no GMO traceability for novel gene tech editing in food and medicines that can interfere with the DNA of all living things. No notification of where gene technology has been used on the farm, on the stock, or within plants.
NZ will become known as a country that is little more than the plaything of big pharma and biotech corporations for whenever they want to experiment with their Frankenstein gene-altering technology.
4. No ability to contain
There is no information on potential side effects or adverse events resulting from these GMOs being put into seeds, animals, food, and our bodies. One of the reasons for this is the extent of the negative effects may be unknown and when they do occur there is no traceability as to where this came from, so it will be impossible to contain and/or prove where the genetic substance within the food eaten (or injection given) was situated. Nobody will be able to state the exact location of the adverse event in the environment, so it won’t be able to be contained.
5. Our country becomes the laboratory
The Gene Technology Bill doesn’t require those dealing in this tech to have carefully monitored conditions in a lab to test for the negative effects of genetically modified plants animals or medicine before it is released. Instead, it makes our country ‘the lab’. Under this legislation, apparently gene-tech organisms can be sprayed into the environment — over land and crops — without any meaningful testing and be inhaled or ingested and subsequently alter the cells within the bodies of those who inhaled or ingested it, without the knowledge of the recipient.
When farmers purchase stock or seed they will have no idea if it is genetically-modified or not. Nor will anyone who eats the food.
6. No meaningful consultation with farmers and exporters
It has been reported that 93% of our farmers want more consultation. Our organic farmers, and our GE-free farmers (that is currently all farmers) who produce premium quality exports, have not been consulted. Hardly fitting for some of our greatest exporters with premium produce. They put their heart and soul into producing the best NZ produce and they are not consulted when it could ruin their livelihoods? New Zealanders have not been asked for their opinion before the First Reading of the Bill. No discussion documents were put out before it was presented on the last day of parliament sitting in 2024. Everyone needs to be heard. Scientists such as Professor Jack Heineman, Director of Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, have not been consulted. (Search under his name on RCR) Other scientists who call for caution have not been heard.
The Farmers Weekly reports that there is a great deal of concern about this from farmers.
NZMP (New Zealand Milk Products) has a certification from the US non-GMO Project ‘which now sees $45 billion in annual sales in the US and Canada.’ NZMP said that NZ is one of the only countries in the world that has not approved the release of genetically modified crops and is well recognised for its regulatory control of GMOs. The article listed several key areas of concern:
- The push for change isn’t coming from their customers and consumers overseas;
- GMOs are high on promise and low on delivery;
- We see no market analysis to support the law changes;
- There is no plan to protect the supply chain;
- Scientists wouldn’t need to prove they are benefitting New Zealand.
They also insist on traceability and a demonstrated net economic benefit for all GMOs with GMO users wearing the full cost of their activities.
7. Our greatest marketing advantage will vanish
Currently New Zealand is able to charge a premium on its exports due to our GE-Free status. In a recent RCR interview Claire Bleakley, President of GE Free NZ, explained that our organic/GE-Free status on the world market brings in approximately 20 billion dollars each year. China pays a 123% premium on our food imports. The US pays a 231% premium on our food with apples obtaining a 96% premium. We are a small country surrounded by ocean in the Southern Hemisphere and so are perfectly placed to be GE-Free and also organic. Importers of our food and produce are reassured by the GE-Free status of our country — as are discerning tourists who seek out GE-free and organic food, as explained by Tiffany Tompkins of Organics Aotearoa NZ in a recent RCR interview. This envied reputation will vanish overnight and we will never be able to restore it. The damage will be irreversible due to no meaningful control. It will destroy our competitive advantage on the world stage.
The proposed legislation for removing the controls on the release of genetic technology in agriculture and plants will put New Zealand into the unenvied position of their agricultural exports being among the least-desired and most untrusted in the world.
Claire Bleakley also explained that of 20 field trials of GE in New Zealand, ALL of them failed to provide any advantages, and the animals involved suffered, became very ill and developed cancers. (So what does the government think would happen to Kiwis if they consistently eat non-labelled GMO food?) She also mentioned an experiment in South Africa where a GE crop of 82,000 hectares also failed to pollinate.
If one has no affection for a person or a system, one should feel free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite violence. — Mahatma Gandhi
8. No cost benefit analysis
My father always said that no one should be an MP without having run a successful small business first. He was right. A small business owner would run through a cost-benefit analysis. Yet MIBE — the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, is leading this Bill and has done no cost benefit analysis.
Wouldn’t one of the vital aspects be — after assessing whether or not the product could cause harm — to insist on detailed knowledge of the costs and the benefits and the potential harm to our export markets? For a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment this seems like a reckless neglect of duty.
MP from the Greens concurred: . . .The release of live, self-replicating organisms into the environment and agricultural systems is a different story.” This particular legislation is a reckless rush job of potentially monumental proportions because it has failed to take into account those who are most impacted by this liberalisation of the current regime. It is extraordinary that this Government has not done a full economic analysis of the impact of this legislation, and the only one done by a New Zealand institute of Economic Research finds a potential $10 billion to $20 billion cost of our existing value-added component to our primary production sector. That is an extraordinary cost to risk. . .
“This legislation, effectively, forfeits New Zealand’s current non-GMO producer status at a cost of potentially tens of billions of dollars to the economy. What an extraordinarily reckless piece of legislation this is. One would hope that this was actually treated with true scientific rigour in assessment of the evidence.
The evidence of genetic engineering is that the hyperbolic claims made by the Luxon Government for what it can do are not borne out by what we’ve seen in 30 years of commercial production of GE crops. “New Zealand is not an outlier in having a rigorous regulatory regime. There are only actually 27 countries in the world that have commercial production of GE crops, out of 195 countries. Most of those countries are in the Americas, and of the four main commodity crops produced, 99 percentage of the global acreage is four crops: soy, maize, cotton, canola. They mostly end up as animal feed or as biofuels. There is no single product that has high commercial value that is sold as direct human food in the global market—after 40 years of billions of dollars of investment in the United States and thousands of field trials. So when the Government suggests that, somehow, us forfeiting our GMO-free status is going to get us some sort of high-value product, it just doesn’t bear out with the evidence of what GE does.
“The Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology talks about genetically engineering apples. Well, we currently have a potential 95 percent premium on New Zealand apples because they are GMO free, and there is no genetically engineered apple sold anywhere in the world that has extra commercial value—in fact, I know don’t know of any. “So let’s be clear that when we evaluate how best to use GE . . . the cost to New Zealand farmers of that forfeiture, whereby they will wear the burden, is a big cost. And they should be screaming blue murder, frankly, for this Government being willing to sacrifice and risk the value of their primary production industry.
There were other excellent points by the Opposition but when I went back to the link to locate the names of the MPs quoted, they seemed to have been buried and are now difficult to find. There is no time for a detailed search.
9. Proven success vs hyperbole
New Zealand has proven its success with our promotion on the world stage under our hard-fought and well-deserved GE-free status. It has paid magnificent dividends to our country, as has the organic industry. In recent years farmers have had endless, unnecessary regulations placed on them in efforts to make it increasingly difficult for them to farm, and that includes chasing targets on ‘climate change’ that are idiotic. As reporter Peter Williams has said, New Zealand’s emissions are negligible. Even if the climate change lies were true and we attained 0% emissions it would make zero difference on the world stage. But it would ruin farming. And the environment, as plants need carbon to survive. Are they out of their minds?
The destructive reduction of a key element of photosynthesis to zero gives us a clue of where they intend to head. It also sends our farmers broke and reduces our ability to produce food. Is that the goal? The intention of the WEF certainly seems to be for us to all ‘eat bugs’ despite how bad they are for our health. Knowing they cannot reduce the food output of NZ quickly enough to their schedule, one wonders if this GT Bill is their plan B? Ruin Nature’s blueprint, destroy the food, and make people sick from eating it as, according to them, there are too many people in the world and they want to replace us with robots. Is that the plan?
Farmers need to be free to do what they do best — produce GE-free produce (and as much organic food as possible) for the local and world markets. They are a proven success story and deserve the backing of the country. Jaspreet Boparai and Don Nicholson have an RCR slot that tells of the enormous challenges farmers currently face in NZ. This legislation harms them even further.
GE has had no success. It has failed on all trials. It is a method to control the seed, control the food sources and starve the people. The empty, false PR rhetoric that has tried to give a positive spin on GE farming is untrue. NZ is not behind the rest of the world. It is ahead of the rest of the world with its GE Free status.
It is better to walk alone than with a crowd going in the wrong direction – Mahatma Gandhi
The European Commission has put a hold on GE because, as J.R. Bruning stated in a recent article, they want more content in the legislation that will strengthen regulations and increase transparency and traceability and also states: MIBE doesn’t take the stance on GE that is held by the European Commission and their proposals to put tighter controls on GE produce and downplays any concerns. From the European parliament: Allowing for new genomic techniques and their results to be patented risks giving multinational seed companies even more power over farmers’ access to seeds. In a context where large companies already have a monopoly on seeds and increasingly control natural resources, this would deprive farmers of all freedom of action by making them dependent on private companies. For this reason, patents on these products must be banned. [Am. 167]
The GE road is a race to the bottom and sabotages our premium produce. It is an Act of War against our people, our farmers, and our country. New Zealand will, as Collins said, be ahead but in a race to the bottom and to be the nation that has the least wanted export produce in the world market — something that goes hand-in-hand with a country that will have the most lax GE regulations in the western world if this Bill is passed. It also seems to clear the pathway for any corporation who wanted to sabotage our premium exports as the field would become wide-open for untraceable ‘mistakes’.
10. Government, Big Pharma and Biotech
Following the money: Pharmaceutical corporations launched a trial mRNA injection on the world for what they called Covid which resulted in the maiming and/or death of millions worldwide. Despite that it is still being administered. As mentioned previously, Dr David Martin called that injection a bio-weapon and has the qualifications to do so. My earlier article on this part of the proposed legislation addressed the extreme danger of planning to introduce more bio-weapons.
Pharma touts ‘curing cancer’ with mRNA injections as one of their goals. But, big pharma doesn’t mention the rapid increase in cancers since the rollout of the ‘covid jabs’. Perhaps as an immediate first step, they could withdraw all of their gene technology jabs that alter DNA and are causing cancers. Nor do they mention their work with multi-billionaires who consider we have too many people on the planet. Harari of the WEF calls us all ‘useless people’ and says they intend to produce bodies, brains and minds. Ones that they control. It bears repeating that Harari (WEF) describes that they intend to hack into our brains, to make us do things we wouldn’t normally do, and be under their control and whim. He also mentions we should forget about being a soul, a spiritual being and says that is over. How could they do that? Through genetically-modified, DNA-altering, undisclosed substances taken through ingestion, inhalation and injection of foreign substances? Then they want us to believe they want to cure people of disease? That doesn’t quite fit does it? It is better described as a Trojan Horse — a ‘gift’ offered to help, and once inside it wreaks irreversible havoc. Just like genetic engineering of DNA through the food chain.
Pharmaceutical corporations have paid billions in fines for failing to disclose safety data, for kickbacks to physicians and for making false and misleading statements. If you — as a government — were wanting to deal with corporations that had high business ethics and were concerned with ensuring high quality public health, would you seek to work with corporations who had caused such harm?
The contracts signed with these pharma giants and governments absolve them of all liability. The contents of the gene tech injections were also kept confidential, illustrating to most that the priority of Pharma’s commercially sensitive information’ was senior to informed consent. Or was it because they didn’t want us to know what was in the injections as almost no one would have had them if they had known? This was all done when big pharma knew the adverse events that could be caused from the bio-weapon injection if one didn’t receive a placebo. It is a long list. With the unchecked, unlabelled, untraced release of GMOs into our beloved country and unleashed into our food supply and — through this avenue — into our people, it is poised to create mayhem. One they may possibly label another ‘pandemic’? And again, we find that they have clauses in the Bill that allow them to keep the contents of their GMO products secret.
11. Biotech corporations – a further look
Who are the biotech corporations that our government might deal with to procure gene tech seeds for agriculture? Monsanto? Bayer? Dow? Bioceres? Biox? Is the government aware of the products of harm and death from some of them? What products? Oh, DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange and recombinant bovine growth hormone. And, among others, Roundup. What multi-billion dollar international corporations push such products? Well, in 2020, Monsanto paid almost $11 billion to settle lawsuits related to damage caused from Roundup. Monsanto seem familiar with lawsuits. Apparently, Bayer purchased Monsanto in 2018 and Blackrock is Bayer’s largest shareholder.
Bioceres is also of substantial concern. Bioceres has already faced strong opposition for its GM wheat HB4 from Latin America, Africa and Asia which is already being consumed in Argentina and threatens to reach other countries. Organisations from Asia, Africa and Latin America have appealed to the UN and requested intervention. They state, according to this article, that HB4 GMO wheat from the Bioceres company has not been tested for safety and is less productive than conventional wheat. In the article, they affirmed there are no independent studies confirming its safety [and they] denounced the dangerous herbicide glufosinate ammonium, which it is engineered to tolerate, and stated that the GM wheat is less productive than conventional wheat.
It reports that: In 2020, more than a thousand scientists connected with the main Argentine research agency Conicet and 30 public universities in Argentina condemned the approval of HB4 wheat and warned of the risks to the health of the population and even to agricultural production and human rights. “This authorisation refers to an agribusiness model that has proven to be harmful in environmental and social terms, is the main cause of biodiversity loss, does not solve food problems, and further threatens the health of our people by threatening food security and sovereignty, began the letter, addressed to the national government and the Conicet authorities.
Disturbingly, the CEO of Bioceres commented — in what looks to be a PR article, published in February 2024 — that . . . the international scene played favourably for HB4 wheat with consumption/import approvals from Colombia, the United States, Nigeria, Australia, and New Zealand. In the same article it was reported that, the CEO of Bioceres commented they expect to get commercial approval in Australia and New Zealand this year. [2024]. Does that have the ring of a foregone conclusion? Pre-planned? Set to go? What happened to the democratic process? Has New Zealand been fraudulently sold without the knowledge of New Zealanders?
Who owns Bioceres? Well, partly Blackrock of course. Also the Wellington Management Group LLP and Dimensional Fund Advisors LP. (The WMG — LLP’s largest shareholding belongs to Microsoft Corporation. Isn’t the Prime Minister on friendly enough terms with Bill Gates to dine at his home? Is there a conflict?
12. Failure of GMO crops – ruination of farmers?
In an article for Global Research, physicist Vanda Shiva, reported the catastrophic damage that has been caused in India as a result of Monsanto and its GE/GM crops. She links the devastating suicide rate of Indian farmers — some estimates are 300,000 farmers have suicided over the past 20 years — to the rolling out of GE/GM seed on this continent and mentions that talk of technology in this area is an attempt to hide the real objectives which are control over seed and where genetic engineering is really just a means to control seed. As a result of purchasing GE/GMO seed, farmers become locked in a cycle of increasing debt, GM seeds must be purchased each year, there are licencing costs to use the GM seeds and apparently large amounts of pesticides need to be used to kill weeds if GM seeds are used. (More money for biotech with pesticides that harm health as well.)
Why would the government trust these Biotech corporations and want to do further business with those that make products that harm and kill? Or is it that the government are on their team and working with them? Is this an Act of War against the people and our food supply? These questions have to be asked because when joining the dots to the products of some of these corporations, it seems clear they cause serious harm. And the nightmare list of law suits against these corporations, and the payouts they make seem like fairly substantial clues for the government to lead their country in the opposite direction. That is surely common-sense? Instead, the government could not be more welcoming to those who trial their Frankenstein products and produce in our beloved country. Nothing will be left unscathed. The irreversible damage has the potential to be off-the-scale.
13. Rhetoric and misleading lies
The PR about this Bill from Collins and Luxon is empty propaganda that looks suspiciously like it was grabbed from slick PR soundbites of Biotech corporations. It means nothing. It does not have the ring of truth.
If it was a great product why would they want to be free of all liability? Why ignore the Precautionary Principle? Why withhold the disclosure of the contents?
Genetic engineering has the potential to cause internal cell-changing adverse effects within one’s body through just being in the vicinity of crop-spraying (as one example) through inhalation or ingestion. It spells doom for our health and for New Zealand’s future trade and exports.
There is no science that backs the glib claims that it will be “good for health” and “make New Zealand wealthier through increased exports” (what a grotesque falsehood) and it is time we “caught up with the rest of the world”. They don’t seem to have any idea that the rest of the world is moving back from this, that they cannot sell GM /GE produce off-shore and a key reason for buying NZ exports is the concept of our clean green image and GE-Free status.
Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep. — Mahatma Gandhi
14. Ruining our primary food sources
Is this the next step in getting rid of New Zealand’s food sources and decimating the viability of farmers through GM? Are Kiwi farmers aware that even if you are a GM-free farmer — which all Kiwi farmers are at present — your paddocks can be contaminated with GM seed and stripped of organic status and the patent-owner of the seed spread (that you did not want) may be able to come after you – as they have done in the US with some farmers for their seed being found on your land? What luck would a hardworking Kiwi farmer have in taking that corporation to court? Not much, according to salt-of-the-earth US farmers who have had all manner of tactics used against them.
As one MP in Opposition said: “When it is assessed as to the marginal costs and benefits of the package, in the regulatory impact statement it states: When GMOs are eventually released into the environment under the proposed regime, there will be additional costs to certify products as GMO free.. . .the burden of remaining GMO free—as every current producer in this country is, whether you’re an animal producer, a fruit or a vegetable producer, or a crop producer—will now fall on those producers to prove their non-GMO status. “It is expected that additional costs to obtain”—is the word that is used—“this premium should be borne by those seeking to obtain value from it.” Which is to say—and farmers of New Zealand, you should hear this out—you no longer are maintaining your current GE-free status, you in fact are having to pay the cost of obtaining it. This legislation, effectively, forfeits New Zealand’s current non-GMO producer status at a cost of potentially tens of billions of dollars to the economy. What an extraordinarily reckless piece of legislation this is.. . .
15. Damaging health through GE
J.R. Bruning discusses the dangers in this article and video and explains: Many chemicals disrupt health by acting as hormone, or endocrine disruptors, setting the conditions for the development of cancer and neurodevelopmental delay, following exposures to chemical emissions. Exposures can be particularly harmful in utero, in infancy and childhood. The release of newer genetically edited technologies, and chemicals such as herbicides, carry clear potential for unanticipated and/or harmful off-target effects that are not easily reversed. The video draws attention to the difficulty scientists have in accessing funding for this research, which is often outside the scope of funding policies, but which stymies knowledge of harm, delaying regulation.
16. Withholding of information
Clause 60: Withholding of Information. Clauses 60 and 61 show an extraordinary amount of leeway to withhold information and keep other information confidential. It appears to strongly lean towards protecting pharma and bio-tech corporations interests rather than the health and safety of New Zealanders.
Clause 61: Confidential Information. This alarming clause appears, in some circumstances, to allow an unelected Regulator to be able to ‘act’ as though they are the Minister of Health. It reads as though they have no intention of divulging the contents of any new gene tech medicine or what ‘organisms’ they may intend to inject into human beings or animals.
The power of choice and the power of knowledge as to what the contents of the gene technology that could be inhaled, ingested or injected is absent. It is difficult to see how this allows for Informed Consent. That violates the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Even the Opposition members of parliament were concerned, with one from Labour commenting:
“. . .it doesn’t just liberalise our rules around genetic engineering; it takes us out in advance of other countries, and it does so with no public consultation, no analysis of the impact on trade, no certain role for tangata whenua, no ethics input.”
17. Destroying nature’s sacred blueprint?
How can anyone allow the destruction of nature’s sacred blueprint on what used to be one of the most uncontaminated countries on Earth? All MPs should cross the floor and vote against this Bill. THEY should protest this. Where are you Greens? Labour? What DO you stand for these days? Yes, some of you have made great points in the First Reading, as have others in Opposition, and you have voted against it. But why aren’t you out in force marching down the street on this issue? Where are your loud voices of protest outside this parliament? What about the Maori Party? Are you going to beat the drum for ultimate protection of our native flora and fauna or are you going to allow it to be contaminated on your watch? What about a march for this? National? How do you hope to represent farmers with this blatant, vicious attack on them? What about you New Zealand First? Where are you? Surely, you would vote against this desecration of our country? But you didn’t. Yes, it is in the Coalition Agreement but it is understood to mean it has to be safe. This is far from safe. This is a Bill that interferes with the DNA of life and is in violation of our Human Rights.
When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall… think of it, always. — Mahatma Gandhi
To usher in GM produce and to have little to no robust checks and balances, is a treasonous act. It is a Pandora’s Box to use genetically modified patented seeds as once they are planted with little or no restrictions, it is impossible to reverse.
Contamination of traditional seeds allegedly become the intellectual property of the GE patent holder even though they have NO right to do that, as Vinda Shiva says, they didn’t create the plants. They just tamper with nature’s sacred blueprint, all in a bid for total world control? How depraved.
The government must withdraw this proposed legislation or stand down. In my view it is a treasonous piece of legislation that will have dire consequences for each one of us, our descendants and our country. Do these politicians not realise how it will affect their descendants and the country they live in? No government has the right to make such decisions. They are not sovereign.
18. The loss of key competitive advantages
The proposed Bill on Gene Technology trashes the competitive advantages that New Zealand has (GE-Free and Organic) and will destroy the most incredible opportunities we have in the world market to turn our country into an organic GM-free paradise for exports that command increasing premium prices. Instead, it will set New Zealand on a course of destruction, destroy our export markets along with our former envied international reputation for premium produce, putting NZ at the bottom. New Zealand exporters will find themselves pleading for sales with contaminated, tasteless, produce that can harbour hidden unlabelled, undefined components — possibly including parasites — and will alter the DNA of animals, plants and human beings, causing harm to all living things. GMO food grown here will be unlabelled and when importers see NZ has become a country with the most lax laws on GMO they will avoid and distrust our food and produce.
In the 1990s, the National Party paid for Michael Porter (a professor and businessman in strategy, marketing, and competitiveness) to fly to New Zealand and advise politicians on marketing New Zealand to the world. He had written many books on “modern competitive strategy for businesses” and in more recent years, much to his shame, had the ignominy of being a speaker at the WEF. He made some valuable points at his speech in New Zealand though that, in a nutshell, involved either selling our products more cheaply, or finding one’s competitive advantage and utilising that to charge more by providing greater quality products.
At the time, New Zealand was grappling with the fact that it was a long way from international markets, which it took longer to arrive and transport costs were excessive in comparison to competitors in the Northern Hemisphere.
19. A dream for New Zealand
At the time of Porter’s visit to NZ, I had just completed a paper on how New Zealand could turn its perceived disadvantages into outstanding advantages by producing the highest quality organic, non-GM produce enabling our exporters to charge a substantial premium . In this way we didn’t need to be concerned about battling to compete with other countries.
I attended Porter’s speech in Wellington and found it dovetailed with the concept of marketing our country as the organic food basket of the world. And more. My dissertation expanded on that premise and envisaged New Zealand as the most desired destination for premium outdoor adventures, combining luxury outdoor expeditions in our stunning landscape, while providing the highest quality outdoor camping environments, eco-lodges and hotels, with immense character. The accommodation would be simple, yet of the highest quality. Non-toxic, natural building materials would be de rigueur in the construction of accommodation. Pure water with no chemicals, organic bedlinen and organic food and wines would standardly be provided.
I imagined New Zealand becoming the foremost country in natural healing and detoxification that could welcome patients with all manner of ills and return them to genuinely full health — using their active participation — with a combination of integrative medicine that addressed mind, body and spirit, and included, but was not limited to, homeopathy, massage, fasting, chiropractic, osteopathic, kinesiology and herbal remedies. People from all over the world would queue to check in for a magical stay at an island country (NZ) and restore their health in an environment where organic food and homes were the norm and were a sanctuary for natural healing.
I went wild with it. It was so invigorating! Imagine it! There was no limit to this concept as each part of it built upon the other and it made such great sense! Other examples abounded: Natural organic linens made from our flax and exported to the world; building materials with no toxic elements manufactured and used exclusively in NZ and exported as well; no part of NZ would ever need chlorinated water as it would be so pure. Our water would be so important to the country and its international positioning that it would be illegal to poison our life-giving water with chemicals (like fluoride) by trying to rebrand them as “good for health” — when the truth is the fluoride put into drinking water has been proven to be a harmful neuro-toxin.
Yes, our exports would be more expensive, but it would be entirely organic GE/GM-free quality produce. The world would queue for our exports and tourism. New Zealand would be perfectly placed, with distance our friend, rather than our disadvantage, as we are surrounded by ocean, so not joined to other countries where GE/GM cross-contamination could occur.
I made this Paper known to the politicians. Nothing came of it. I presented the concept to some affluent movers and shakers in the tourism industry, one of whom was already running a premium luxury lodge. He loved the idea and purchased a luxury boat for select premium cruises for his clientele, which was a well-deserved success. I pushed it as far as I could with politicians, but it landed on deaf ears. Entrepreneurial thought, positive action and innovative solutions that resolved our nation’s perceived disadvantages and make our country the best it could be seemed to be an alien concept in the corridors of power. Apparently it still is.
New Zealand can be a Utopia. To do that we need to ban DNA-altering mRNA injections and mRNA and GMOs inserted into food and use our competitive advantages as outlined.
Most of us feel fantastic when we are outside in nature, breathing the air from our mountains, swimming in a pristine lake or the ocean, picking wildflowers and rejoicing in this miraculous God-given nature. It is free. It is sacrosanct. And it is our job to keep it so.
Summary
In summary, I feel this Bill is the worst in New Zealand history because it will cause irreversible and uncontrollable harm and it means all of the hard work by so many farmers to provide premium produce and a genuine GE-free, clean, green image is destroyed.
To me, this is one of the most treasonous acts a government could possibly take because as idiotic as many decisions have been in parliament, until now, there has always been an opportunity for them to be reversed, but it is impossible to contain GM seed and its contamination of non-GMO products once it is let loose. Rather than the advertised “good health and better economy” lies that slip so easily off the tongue, it will create more disease, substantial ill-health and a stuffed economy as no one will want contaminated New Zealand exports.
This is a line we must not cross. Never.
For it is an ultimate betrayal
of the people, of nature, and of our land.
It is a wanton destruction of the perfect synchronisation of nature and the miracle it is.
An example of this (aside from being outside in nature) is a fascinating story I came across recently in an old book I was reading (Mind Waves — Betty Shine) where the author relayed a fascinating account that had been published in Science News in 1988:
It was about a Japanese geneticist, Susumu Ohno who, bored with tedious mathematical equations, decided to convert the genetic patterns of living cells into musical notation. He thought that listening to genetic codes, rather than staring at them, would make patterns easier to detect. In this process he discovered that genes not only carry the blueprint of life, they also carry a tune.
‘Translated into sheet music, a portion of mouse ribonucleic acid sounds like a lively waltz, very similar to Chopin’s Nocturne, Opus 55, No.1. The notes derived from the genetic codes are NOT just random notes that some geneticists predicted, but genuine music of the Baroque and Romantic eras, with an uncanny similarity to the works of great composers.
‘Interestingly, the musical score derived from cancer cells sounds very sombre, while the musical coding of the gene that gives transparency to the eye is filled with trills and flourishes, and is airy and light. Mr Ohno said, ‘What I think is at work here are underlying principles that govern the structure of many things — a gene, a birdsong, a musical composition.’
The author of the book explained that vibrations are at the root of life and vibrations form themselves into patterns which in turn create sound which is musical. Nature left alone would never be the creator of something that was unmusical; everything in Creation is harmonious . . .
You see, nature’s blueprint is perfect. No one has any right to interfere with it. Not government — or anyone — has any right to irreversibly alter Nature by altering the DNA of anything, including human beings. Or its music. It is sacred.
And so, I ask, if this Bill went through — what would happen to the music?
Nature is sacrosanct. It is our job to keep it so. — MH
