Email to MP Kate Wilkinson, aka, Food Fascist

Mark Hubbard's picture
Submitted by Mark Hubbard on Tue, 2011-11-22 07:04

I have no idea what your Food Bill is about other than what I have seen on Campbell Live tonight.

But:

You are from the party that is supposed to stand for limited government yet you are pushing a 360 page bill (360 pages!) regulating food sales that may well imperil the viability of participants of one of my chief loves in life: food and farmers markets. Another bloody government licencing system to certify food sellers. And here was me completely oblivious to what must be the soaring death rate from people buying food from farmers markets. Why hasn't that made the news?

You silly bloody fascist. Doesn't the fact that even Kedgley from the Greens thinks you're over-regulating tell you something?

I'm white hot angry. Bugger meddling politicians who've got to regulate every damned thing.

Freedom of the individual. Laissez faire capitalism. The love of life and food and the pursuit of happiness. What is wrong with you? You're supposed to stand for all these noble - and they truly are noble - notions. Well, aren't you? What does National actually stand for? Buggered if I know anymore. Certainly not my freedom.

Just go away and leave free, consenting adults, and my farmers markets, alone.

God, do I hate politicians.

Mark Hubbard

PS: Look, over there, something moved. Oh goodness me, quick, Kate, regulate the bloody thing out of existence, someone might get some enjoyment from it.

Tailpiece: ... the problem, Nanny Kate, is that you're attempting to reduce compliance costs (which you won't, but bear with me) in the same manner that Mussolini thought he could get the trains to run on time. By the brute force of State.


( categories: )

See, you just have to keep fighting these buggers.

Mark Hubbard's picture

Council Backs Down on Sausage Sizzle Compliance Fee.

Snags are back on the menu after Dunedin City Council ditched plans to slap a $16 fee on sausage sizzles.

Council staff yesterday confirmed they had dropped the fee, which would have been applied to groups running public food stalls as a fundraiser.

...

The back-down came after the planned fees were revealed in the media.

Though, of course, they still win the war, as regulation creep continues to grow the power, size, and coffers of that council:

Other fees remain, including a proposal to lift the fee for commercial food stall operators from $16 to $30, and introduce a fee of $111 for every 10 stalls to cover the cost of inspecting "high risk'' markets, to be paid by event organisers.

Annual registration fees for markets would also increase by 2 per cent if the proposed changes were accepted.

.... And now I turn my attention to the 70 new officers being employed by the Christchurch City Council to hold up people rebuilding by the fencing racket known as consents.

End of the Sausage Sizzle.

Mark Hubbard's picture

Worth listening to. We're waking up, one by one:

The embed won't work so click to the National Radio link and listen: http://www.radionz.co.nz/natio...

Quote: 'The school holds regular sausage sizzles to buy books and send the kids on camp, but I now need to sell 40 sausages just to pay the Dunedin City Council compliance charge.'

When I last visited NZ...

Marcus's picture

...they all seemed to be doing sausage sizzle fundraisers outside supermarkets.

In the UK that type of fundraising is always done on school grounds.

Read and weep, Statist creep ...

Mark Hubbard's picture

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n...


The humble sausage sizzle could soon come with a serving of red tape in the deep South.

Dunedin City Council is considering charging schools, clubs and other not-for-profit groups $16 register their sausage sizzles.

The move is among a raft of charges for events where food is being sold in public.

Commercial operators - such as fruit sellers in George St, the main street - would be charged $30, while market organisers could also face hefty new fees rising by $111 for every 10 stalls if the event was considered "high risk''. ...

Another very good piece by economist Eric Crampton:

Mark Hubbard's picture

http://offsettingbehaviour.blo...

He cites a very good Muriel Newman quotation:


For a government that claims to be committed to encouraging wealth creation and reducing compliance costs on small business, the Food Bill could be a major step backwards. It appears to be being driven more by bureaucratic considerations rather than the need to encourage entrepreneurship in the food sector - within the bounds of stringent food safety imperatives. It is also not clear what the answer is to a fundamental question that should be asked of all new legislation: Is there a problem to be fixed and if so will this Bill fix it?

This turns back to my post yesterday on how our Western Nanny States are killing off entrepreneurship: http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Campbell Live

Mark Hubbard's picture

Bloody hell, even John Campbell did a piece tonight (January, 24) showing how ludicrous this Food Bill is. Worth watching if you can find it online.

Eric Crampton On Food Bill

Mark Hubbard's picture

As always, economist Eric Crampton (Offsetting Behaviour) is worth reading. He posts on the Food Bill here:

http://offsettingbehaviour.blo...

Suppose that there's a roadside falafel place with food I adore but that comes with completely known 1% risk that I'll get mild food poisoning. I eat there a hundred times, I get food poisoning once. But I keep going back because of the taste. If new food safety regulations mean the place shuts down, Wilkinson's measure says I'm better off because I'm saved those willingness-to-pay derived figures on the costs of mild food poisoning. But I've already specified that I knew about the risk and judged it worthwhile; I'm then necessarily worse off if I can't get a falafel. You can't easily use a willingness-to-pay measure to overturn a consumer's decision when consumer decisions underlie willingness-to-pay measures. You can perhaps make an asymmetric information argument; that tends to argue for random inspections and public posting of findings on facility cleanliness rather than for big compliance regimes.

... Banning me and others like me from having my hamburgers medium-rare might save the health system a bit, but it'll certainly cost me some utils. Equally bad is what a big fixed-cost regime would do to food startups. I really hope that the legislation isn't as costly on those two fronts as some folks fear; I'd love to see independent legal analysis.

Why Does Nanny Kate Have a Huge Problem?

Mark Hubbard's picture

Because I agree with far too much of this Frogblog post by the Green Party about the Food Bill: http://blog.greens.org.nz/2012...

With the proviso that there are many things wrong with this post, this is right:

A culture of home gardening, food sharing and small artisan producers are at risk of being suppressed by future Ministerial decree. The Food Bill, supposedly intended to reduce compliance costs for the food industry, while eventually reducing the incidence of food borne illness, has such sweeping powers that best intent could be lost under bureaucratic pressure.

And:

Except for direct grower to consumer sales of horticultural produce, for even the smaller growers or pickle producers to avoid food safety verification and registration costs, most operators will need to apply to the discretion of the Minister through MAF or a delegated local council.

School fairs, churches, and community fundraisers could have sausage sizzle fundraisers with just food handler guidance (a best practice food safety pamphlet and no checking), yet a small grower wanting to sell some surplus plums or cabbages to the corner dairy has to enter the bureaucratic jungle: Register at a cost, apply for an exemption, or wait and hope that MAF and the Minister decide to make an exemption after the Food Bill is through, but no promises.

It would appear that the only ‘charitable’ groups not able to run sausage sizzles or food stalls under food handler guidance, would be political parties/supporters, strong advocacy groups, and direct action groups such as Greenpeace. They would have to pay registration and undergo food safety plan verification for their sins.

And:

... the level of force allowed by food safety officers, their immunity from prosecution, and the powers of the Minister, are all issues that need revisiting in the draft of the Food Bill currently before Parliament.

You see the problem, Nanny Kate, is that you're attempting to reduce compliance costs (which you won't, but bear with me) in the same manner that Mussolini thought he could get the trains to run on time. By the brute force of State.

Provisos

Richard Goode's picture

We're in full agreement then,

Mark Hubbard's picture

We're in full agreement then, Reed.

Mark I can't think of any

reed's picture

Mark
I can't think of any reason for food regulations (or building regulations). Any legitimate issue I can think of should already be covered by civil or criminal law.

Reed

Mark Hubbard's picture

List for me the reasons why we need food regulations.

Mark Should there be any food

reed's picture

Mark
Should there be any food regulations?

OK

reed's picture

What are your provisos?

Reed

Richard Goode's picture

For example... there ought to be food regulations and housing/building regulations?

Ask me about my provisos. Eye

Mark - Do you think these

reed's picture

Mark -
Do you think these situations are similar?
Yes, they are all risky and in all cases the parents have the authority to decide if the risk is acceptable.

Vaccination is not included as that goes back to my original premise of rational parenting.
Forcing medical treatment on to other people's children would be far worse than any food regulations.

Think of the children

reed's picture

Richard -
My point is that there ought to be a law against endangering the lives of others. (Provisos apply.)
For example... there ought to be food regulations and housing/building regulations?

False Reporting.

Mark Hubbard's picture

I reckon this man wasn't reading his receipt, he was reading Nanny Wilkinson's Food Bill, wondering about the extra time it would take to get his patties through three layers of bureaucracy. Lucky it was only the police that got him: if one of the new Food Safety Officers acting legally illegally beyond the law, Rand knows what might have happened to him.

where do we start making

Mark Hubbard's picture

where do we start making laws?

One does not encourage "responsibility" by forcibly restricting the range of people's authority over their own lives. - Butler Shaffer

Mark

Richard Goode's picture

Where do we stop making laws, do you think?

Libzoogle returned no results.

Did you mean, where do we start making laws? Eye

Richard

Mark Hubbard's picture

Yes; agreed.

Question back: if Joe Bennett had children, in a situation where he has checked the rocks above his house and is happy he is safe, even if the Council believes he not safe, should his children be taken away by force?

Also, if this genius has children, should they be taken from him as it could be argued his mind is a danger to them?

Where do we stop making laws, do you think?

My point

Richard Goode's picture

Your point?

My point is that there ought to be a law against endangering the lives of others. (Provisos apply.)

Richard

Mark Hubbard's picture

Your point?

Reed

Mark Hubbard's picture

Do you think these situations are similar?

1) Living in a house under a loose rock outcrop in a zone that has experienced severe earthquakes in which rock falls have been a common occurrence, and have destroyed many houses in exactly the same situation as your home is in.

and:

2) Kids doing normal kiddy things such as climbing trees, sailing, riding bikes (never wore a helmet when I was a kid, by the way, nor any of my school-friends).

(Vaccination is not included as that goes back to my original premise of rational parenting).

Victimless crime

Richard Goode's picture

If you drive home blind drunk at 150 kph, with your children unseatbelted in the back and passenger seats, and you're fortunate enough that there is no oncoming traffic on the several occasions when you veer into the other lane ... and you and your children arrive home safely ... it's a victimless crime.

Why would loving parents ever

reed's picture

Why would loving parents ever draw the conclusion that it was acceptable to have their children:- climb trees, be unvaccinated, ride bikes without helmets, travel to dangerous countries, sail, etc?

Richard

Mark Hubbard's picture

I knew I would be accused of evasion, but I don't think it is. At least, I've learned the foolhardiness of a several debating dead-ends, amongst them, arguing the theoretical 'what about this situation now, applied back in history' - that is always pointless. Or, as in the case of Reed's question, arguing to a theoretical that would not exist in a free society. By which I mean the following.

In the absence of a Nanny Welfare State, almost all births would be the result of two rational human beings - not dumbed down via the brainwashing of a state school system, and thus fully capable of understanding 'consequences' - coming together to have a child through natural love and affection. Given that, Reed's question doesn't exist, as such rational individuals would not make the decision to endanger their child by living in a house with a identifiably high chance of being destroyed in a rock fall. That would be a contradiction, in that it would deny the reason for having the child in the first instance, thus would be an impossible decision for them to make. That question only exists in a welfare state that specialises in producing dumb people having children for reasons other than natural love and affection, and whom have no concept of responsibility or consequences.

Mark

Richard Goode's picture

Why would loving parents ever draw the conclusion that it was acceptable to have their children live in a house subject to rock falls?

You're evading answering Reed's question. Eye

Reed

Mark Hubbard's picture

Why would loving parents ever draw the conclusion that it was acceptable to have their children live in a house subject to rock falls?

Mark and Richard

reed's picture

Mark: It is up to each individual to decide ... On this, there can be no compromise.
Richard: Quite right, too, Mark, and very well said. To paraphrase Voltaire... I disapprove of dying stupidly, but I will defend to the death your right to do so.

What if there were children involved?

If instead it was a young family refusing to leave their property - would you support or oppose the state taking children off their parents to remove them from potential harm of the parent's stupidity?

Paraphrasing Voltaire

Richard Goode's picture

It is up to each individual to decide ... On this, there can be no compromise.

Quite right, too, Mark, and very well said. To paraphrase Voltaire

I disapprove of dying stupidly, but I will defend to the death your right to do so.

It won't be a good look when

Mark Hubbard's picture

It won't be a good look when rocks fall ...

But that won't change any of the principles involved here .

Quoting myself:

And the same applies to those 500 or so Port Hill residents, many in Lyttelton, threatened with the forced removal from their homes, who want to assume the risk of living under possible rock falls. It is up to each individual to decide the risk in their life, not a bureaucrat. Freedom is what the human heart and mind aspires to, always. As well as everything that freedom involves, it also involves the freedom to die stupidly, remembering that one person’s stupid risk, may well be another’s leap to new invention, or simple thrill that makes their life worth the living. Given I don’t plan to live under a possible rock fall myself, it’s a price for freedom I’m willing to pay, for better that, than we all lose our freedom to the Nanny State. On this, there can be no compromise.

It won't be a good look ...

Richard Goode's picture

... when rocks fall upon Joe Bennett and his loved ones.

And Joe Bennett

Ross Elliot's picture

...was on the news tonight saying that he'd not vacate his Christchurch house despite being issued with an eviction order due to the danger of rocks falling upon him and his loved ones.

I always thought Bennett was a bit of a sillydumbfuckloudmouth in the Paul Henry mold. But I may be wrong.

Joe Bennett also fears the Food Police

Mark Hubbard's picture

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-pre...

Quoting:

"The proposed new law will be enforced by Food Safety Officers with such powers of entry and seizure that we are tempted by the words sweeping and/or draconian. [Well done for resisting temptation. But boo hiss for succumbing to and/or.] Should these officers hear of anyone producing strawberries for barter or gain - and they could hardly fail to notice yours which stand out on the brown Lyttelton hillside like beacons to warn shipping [thank you once more] - they will descend without warrant or warning. You will recognise them by their highly polished thigh-length boots and their tendency when marching to kick their legs straight out in front of them.

And summing up:

... stop pretending to protect me. Food producers don't want to poison me and this legislation wouldn't stop them if they did. Indeed, I'm willing to bet a wheelbarrow of strawberries that it wouldn't reduce the incidence of food-borne illness one jot. Instead it would just bugger people about, yet again, in the name of health and safety.

Nanny Wilkinson Has a Letter in Today's Press

Mark Hubbard's picture

Her main point in that letter is that it is, quote, "absurd to say that food safety officers will be entering premises armed with guns"

Um, pardon. Who has said that?

The problem is those food safety officers are above civil or criminal prosecution while on those premises. What possible reason can there be for that? Indeed, how, even, does that work? So if they assault an owner unnecessarily they are immune from prosecution? If they kill the owner? If they thieve produce?

It's so much State enforced power to give to a person, and merely a food safety officer, for Rand's sake, that it's just plain weird. Why? Are you aware of something we're not about our food supply that you use it to justify the initiation of force by the State on the people to this over-the-top extent?

Plus - uncertain of my ground now, as I refuse to waste any of my time reading the legislation - but I'm pretty sure I'm correct that food safety officers, the same as IRD officers, do not need a warrant to raid business premises. Why?

360 pages of legislation regulating the trading of food, and allowing an above-the-law use of State force, is Nanny Statism, and much worse. There's no squirming around the fact. I have to conclude, in a party that theoretically stands (well laughingly) for limited government, you are a bad apple.

I'm a little bit mollified,

Mark Hubbard's picture

I'm a little bit mollified, or at least not so mortified as I was.

If you look at her food link - and no, I'm not reading through 360 ruddy pages of food legislation that I'd ignore for my own circumstances anyway - they have already had to make changes around propagation seeds, and reading her elsewhere, she doesn't instil me with confidence that 'They' really understand all the unintended consequences of the legislation.

So long as it closes none of my food pleasures down, okay, but I feel 360 pages of legislation and three layers of bureaucracy, and my tax money being used to delve out food handling information to granny when she gives away an apple, is way, way, way, way over-regulating. Plus why have food officers been given more powers than police, that is, the same as IRD, to search and seize, and been given immunity for their actions from civil and criminal law? That is not right. Nanny Wilkinson is on record to the effect that these powers will 'hardly' be used, it's a beat up: fine, then take away those powers. (And IRD are certainly using them more and more).

Um, when I think about it, her phrase, Much of what they claim is untrue ... is unimpressive.

Also, I've read enough Eric Crampton to question any justifications such as: ... 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." Show me the evidence for that figure? And even then, it is not the role of government to be so involved in the food market to the extent of this Bill, as all free men know.

Finally, none of this obscures the fact that cellar door sales are still in jeopardy: http://www.unscrewed.co.nz/sto...

On a brighter side, my Komodo Kamado arrived in Port of Lyttelton last Thursday. On the worrying side its been sitting in a warehouse in Chrischurch through at least three size 5 aftershocks, so I hope I'm not simply being delivered of a crate of cracked tiles for a mosaic on Monday. And yes, having to pay the NZ government, via customs, a whole bunch of GST on bringing this into the country is an outright ripoff. Nanny State is an unwanted looter sitting at the table of every meal I cook on it.

Looks as though ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... you struck a nerve, Bro Hubbard, you scaremonger!

Hon Kate Wilkinson

Minister for Food Safety

7 January 2012
Media Statement

Food Bill to make food safer – not restrict small traders

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."

“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.

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.

“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 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.

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

ENDS
Media contact: Luke Chappell 021 242 7219

Luke Chappell | Ministerial Advisor to Hon Kate Wilkinson
Executive Wing | Parliament Buildings | Wellington
Phone 04 817 9169 | Fax 04 817 6519 | Mobile 021 242 7219

2 attachments — Download all attachments
image001.jpg
19K View Download
Food Bill Q&A.doc
33K View Download

As always...

Ross Elliot's picture

...the problem isn't that the bill regulates small businesses. The problem is that it regulates BIG business.

The Greens and Labour only rail against the provisions aimed at the little man, and it's easy for the statists to resile from that, in fact often, they don't mind doing that at all since it looks like they're being moderate. Two steps forward, one step back.

It's big business that bears the brunt, and the regulation of big business is the goal of all statists. They understand that if you regulate the producers, you regulate *all* business.

Sure, fight the good fight, but the statists are looking to chop the top off.

More on Food Directive 10-289

Mark Hubbard's picture

Labour rethinking its backing for Food Bill:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n...

Damien O'Connor said. "We do not want to see New Zealand end up with some unwieldy piece of legislation that confuses the retailers and those working in this area, particularly those working in volunteer or community settings."

Question for Damien: does that mean you are now thinking of rescinding all the unwieldy taxation legislation foisted on business during your nine year tenure? Most of it so bad, that it's the courts which are having to sort it out to the great disadvantage of businesspeople.

Final quotation from article:

"This week, Aucklander Jenine Abarbanel, a member of food network Ooooby (Out of Our Own Back Yards), wrote to Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson with her concerns.

"For many rural (and some suburban) people, roadside stands, farmers' markets and similar outlets are their best source of reasonably priced fresh produce," her letter said.

"If these small producers are forced to jump regulatory hurdles, or pay fees related to this trade, there will be strong incentive for them to stop this activity entirely."

You know, there's a silver lining to Food Directive 10-289: the sheeple are starting to realise just how much the State controls their lives. Freedom is only possible as a movement, once 'the people' realise how enslaved they are.

Homepaddock.

Mark Hubbard's picture

Take it all back.

Homepaddock joins the good guys Smiling

Might have just been a technical glitch ... Post is up.

Further round up ...

Mark Hubbard's picture

A nice little piece on Food Directive 10-289 at No Minister: http://nominister.blogspot.com...

Including this quotation:

Marlborough Farmers' Market stallholder Ken Gordon said another layer of food safety standards was not needed in New Zealand when fruit and vegetables from countries such as Vietnam, Thailand and China "which are basically grown in effluent" fill supermarket shelves.

He was opposed to the Government controlling "just about every aspect of the food chain. They are trying to fix something that is not broken ... the act is just another form of control with no benefits."

And further Granny Herald reporting on Nanny Wilkinson here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/n...

The salient point being this 360 pages of legislation is so complex, creates so much new bureaucracy, that the Minister bringing it in cannot comprehend all the consequences, thus unintended consequences, of it herself. Appalling. All the complexity surrounding taxation legislation now spreading like a bureaucrat borne virus to the very food we eat. There needs to be a revolution.

Finally this, from Nanny Wilkinson:


The spokesman also rejected criticism that food safety officers would have excessive powers under the bill, which would empower them to enter and search premises without a warrant in some circumstances and use any force necessary, while being immune from civil or criminal liability.

"The claims that they will start carrying guns and storming businesses and marae is alarmist nonsense," the spokesman said.

But Green Party primary production spokesman Steffan Browning said that, however unlikely, the fact that the bill as proposed would allow such a scenario was not good enough.

"Having any government agent to be free from any liability seems quite unusual. Our police, for example, don't even have that."

Yes, police don't have such powers of search and seizure, but IRD do, and they use them routinely now. And why give food safety fascists such powers if you don't intend for them to be used? More muddied thinking.

Yet once-free New Zealanders are forced to pay for all this bullshit. And from a National government.

Read this and weep: Food Bill Directive 10-289

Mark Hubbard's picture

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/busi...

Simply quoting some of the worst of it - and remember this is from the party that in theory subscribes to limited government - BULLSHIT:

A bill bringing sweeping reform to food safety standards is being criticised for giving food safety officers excessive power and threatening the viability of small-scale food sellers and backyard community food swaps.

And:

... small operators fear that new compliance costs could push them under, while others have concerns about the bill's effects on community food swaps and growers who sell small amounts to retailers.

An online petition, which says the bill impedes the basic right to share food, has gathered almost 24,000 signatures.

And:

There is also concern over the powers of food safety officers, who could search premises without a warrant in some circumstances and use any force necessary to enter and search, while being immune from civil or criminal liability.

WTF!!! I'm even to scared to read my North Korean Fatboy post of yesterday after that; it's all too close to home.

Other traders of food - including sausage sizzles for charity, community vegetable gardens, or giving home-grown tomatoes to the neighbours or flatmates - would be given guidance on handling food and be exempt from a programme.

Given guidance from the government for 'giving' food to a flatmate. Hahahahahahahahahahaaha. No really, it's too much. I'm going now.

And that's the best thing to

Mark Hubbard's picture

And that's the best thing to do with a regulation.

Fuck!

Deborah Coddington's picture

Reminds me of another time when Act scared the bejesus out of the horses (see my upcoming column this Sunday).

We had a 44-gallon drum on the steps of Parliament and we literally burned all regulations!

I wish I could email Herr

Mark Hubbard's picture

I wish I could email Herr Wilkinson smoked, wild boar bacon direct from my BBQ. She'd quickly find a sense of life and throw 360 pages of food legislation onto the charcoal ...

We went to the inaugural

Mark Hubbard's picture

We went to the inaugural farmers market in Picton yesterday morning, on the beautiful waterfront, and had a fantastic day. Long may farmers markets continue, despite the meddling of these damned politicians.

Bought a swag of wild meats from the Premium Meats stall, so going to have a fantastic day over the BBQ today, despite the rain (and the odd shake).

I recall...

Ross Elliot's picture

...about five years ago that the Food Safety Authority had come up with a standard for meat pies, mandating 25% meat in the pie.

Now, as a man who enjoys the odd meat pie, I wondered why I needed to be helped in my discernment of this snack. But apparently I did. It wasn't good enough that I knew, through experience, the best brands and the tastiest offerings. I was now to be helped by a regulation.

Goodness knows how much effort, expense and international (with Australia) consultation was required to tell me something I already knew.

"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

US Declaration of Independence.

The eat bit is apropos.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.