Skip to content


The Food Bill is NZ’s Codex Alimentarius implementation. You need to know about Codex. It could kill you.

Below, the govt confirms the link between Codex Alimentarius and the Food Bill, which is all about “risk management”.

Note that the Codex envoy was a guest of the Labour Government. Codex and the Food Bill basically have cross-party support. Which is why Parliament can never solve the problem.

The below is reproduced in original form with highlights. Source link is at bottom.

Review of NZFSA risk management processes underway

1 February 2008

The initial stage of a review of New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) risk management processes is nearing completion.

In mid-December last year Food Safety Minister Lianne Dalziel announced that internationally-renowned food safety expert Dr Stuart Slorach would be undertaking the review.

Dr Slorach has been in New Zealand for the past two weeks, and leaves for Europe today. During his time here he has evaluated NZFSA’s systems and processes and met with Minister Dalziel and a wide range of interested parties, including scientists, members of special-interest groups, and representatives of food industry and consumer organisations.

During February Dr Slorach will visit the government food safety agencies of Ireland, Denmark and Sweden with the aim of comparing the approach in New Zealand with that of these highly regarded, European nations.

Dr Slorach is expected to return to New Zealand in late March to finalise his review, with Ministerial consideration of the final report and recommendations in the second quarter of the year.

Dr Slorach has been given full access to NZFSA files, staff and resources during his time in New Zealand. “I have had an opportunity to meet with people from a range of backgrounds and over the next month will be assessing the material I have gathered during my time here. My next step will be to undertake an assessment of NZFSA’s decision-making processes compared with those of the other food safety agencies.”

Food Safety Minister Lianne Dalziel has stated: “Dr Slorach has extensive experience in this area. He was Chair of the Management Board of the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) during its critical establishment phase, and Chair of the international food standards setting agency, the Codex Alimentarius.”

Dr Slorach also chaired an independent enquiry set up by the Norwegian government into the handling of an outbreak of foodborne illness caused by E.coli O103:H25 in Norway in early 2006


This was taken from:  Thanks to Hoagy, who gave us this link.


  1. Shannon permalink

    Kia ora Cuz.

    I am currently finishing a Bachelor of Iwi Environmental Management and have had discussions with my kaiako regarding the fact that New Zealand does not have a written ‘constitution’ and therefore can amend/rewrite/repeal legislation almost at will (or change of government). So, I am just wondering what your take is on this issue and if you have any ideas that would help (both practically and ‘theoretically’)

    Peace Brother


    • Mark permalink

      I believe our constitutional rights are written down but may not be as a “new Zealand Constitution” but as guaranteed by Queen Victoria as we are still a part of the commonwealth of the British empire. We are self governing but still our head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, HRH’s representative is the Governor General and therefore their has to be a course of action or at least an opportunity to appeal to our head of state. I know for a fact that this form of control over a peoples right to grow and consume food is definitely not in keeping with our Queens ideals or morals. She is a lover of gardening, home grown food, organics and natural remedies.
      These clauses of “food inspectors”, weapons, police, raids etc etc, well, let them have a go. It is time for people in our country to stand up for themselves and not allow weak minds in Wellington who serve international corporations without question to treat the everyday New Zealanders with the kind of contempt that is shown in this bill under the guise of our “safety”. If this was to go ahead as is, I can see no other options than compliance or civil disobedience. I choose the latter, this law is wrong.

    • Kia ora Shannon, and apologies for a very late reply (just picked up your comment after someone replied to your thread). There’s two diverging streams, it seems, on the question of a constitution in NZ.

      The first stream is if you take the existence of the 1835 Declaration of Independence to be a fact (which it is, undeniably). This is the foundational document of the country, and lays the constitutional foundations for it. It defines the role of the rangatira of the hapu (as sovereigns) and role of the Crown (as Trustee / Protector of the land and its people). The Maori version of the 1840 Treaty clarifies and extends this relationship/constitution, making a contract where the Crown provides kawanatanga – governmental services – but the rangatira retain their sovereignty and thereby the right of veto. If that right of veto was being exercised – and we think it is time that it should be, with the world going crazy and all (financial collapse, war, famine, over-regulation, GE etc) – then all legislation before being enacted should gain the assent of the Assembly of Chiefs, the Whakaminenga, who are the blood descendants of the original signatories of the Maori version of the Treaty.

      The second stream is just taking the English version of the Treaty, and ignoring the 1835 Declaration and the Maori version of the Treaty. This stream argues that we may need a constitution – indeed John Key has initiated a review of whether we do. It side-steps the foundational relationship between the Rangatira and Crown in the Declaration and Tiriti however, kind of pretends it never existed. Indeed, it intends to paper over the relationship, because that relationship actually undermines the power of the Crown to act unilaterally, which of course is what it wants to do. The only problem with this stream, which is aiming for Constitutional Review on terms favourable to it, is that it ignores the fact that hardly any Maori chiefs signed the English version of the Treaty (which gives Sovereignty to the Crown). It also ignores the Declaration, which upholds the Maori version of the Treaty, where Sovereignty resides with the Chiefs.

      So, watch out when debate starts up about whether we have a Constitution, and whether we need one. Those who say we do, wish for a Constitution to be created that sidelines the rangatira of the hapu and their role in the formation of the country in 1835 and 1840, and you can tell this is so because they will propose that the new Constitution is be formed by unilateral parliamentary processes that don’t include the hapu. Such a constitution will be formed from, and encapsulate, historical revisionism. That is the danger.

      The alternative is a Constitution that recognises the dual role of the Crown and the Hapu. Not the Crown alongside iwi trust boards, which are statutory bodies formed under the Crown side of the partnership. But the Crown alongside the sovereign people in their districts. Unfortunately our government is driven by big international business and banking concerns, and does not wish to recognise that sovereignty, because it undermines its aims. Our PM works for the creditors of this country, not the people of this country. He’s an international bankster who has given his former mates Merryl Lynch, the Rothschilds, Morgan Stanley etc etc some real sweet secured loan arrangements – and pretty soon they’re going to come knocking for the securities on the debts… that’s shares in our state-owned enterprises, our water, and our minerals from our national parks.

      It’s called an asset strip. Any key-led Constitutional review will head that way.

      So don’t expect a new Constitution to be an improvement – we’d rather say look to the old one, the Declaration and te Tiriti, because it’s within those that lie the solutions to the problems that this country, and the world, is facing. They can be seen as a constitution in their own right – because they consituted the formation of the country. but even better they could be seen as the framework for a new, clarified constitution, one that recognises and respects the foundations of this country, so that it doesn’t fall over when the next big financial crash comes (which as we’ve said will be hot on the heels of a war with Iran). On second thoughts, there may not be time for that though 😉

      In the meantime look to your whanau, whenua, food… your water… your local community… and then to the nation. in that order. that’s our take anyway 🙂

  2. leilania06 permalink

    Hi Shannon
    If you read the preamble of the Constitution of Australia, you will see, quite clearly that New Zealand is actually mentioned in the Constitution as a “colony” of Australia.

    An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia

    [9th July 1900]
    6. “The Commonwealth” shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as
    established under this Act.
    “The States” shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South
    Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for
    the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or
    territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth
    as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called “a

    Interesting to see that the NZ Bill of Rights Act date of assent is the 28 August 1900..conveniently after the Constitution of Australia 9 July 1900.

    The adoption of a single currency between the two nations could be sooner than we think..

    • Miles Rout permalink

      Are you actually that stupid?

      • Actually, there may be some truth in this. We’re not certain of the details, but folks we know say they are, and their take is that NZ was set up as a company out of New South Wales. Kind of like the East India Company – a ship’s company. In any case, the country is set up as an international corporation now – a US corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington. And who would have thought that? Yet it is true.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: