Which, as I suggest, begs the question.
To recap, some of the issues are:
Anyone growing or handling (for other than exclusive personal consumption) or exchanging food is automatically bound by regulatory constraints.
The bill defines "sale" as any sort of exchange, whether for cash or kind or even give-aways.
There is too much interpretative discretion devolved to the bureaucracy to regulate and enforce the "safety" provisions, or expect consistency.
It's unclear what standards an authorised food safety officer must attain, and their powers of enforcement are not only extraordinarily wide, but (unlike police) they will be exempt from any liability for their actions.
Given Foss called my interpretation of this a fantasy, let's examine that last a little more closely.
First, s.243 of the bill gives those with delegated authority - likely someone at your local council - power to appoint anyone a food safety officer (FSO).
The primary requirement for an FSO is they be a "fit and proper person" - as determined by the person doing the appointing.
Under s.275, an FSO may enter any place where a food business operates "without a search warrant and may use any force that is reasonable for the purposes of entry and search".
Bear in mind the definition of "food business" is very wide; such places specifically include private homes and marae.
This clause extends to "a place where a person intends to operate a food business".
How open to interpretation is that?
Then, under s.265, an FSO may use "any equipment the officer has taken into the place if the officer reasonably believes that its use is necessary" and, under s.294, "may use the force that is reasonable in the circumstances".
"Equipment" in this context is not defined - but (given only "reasonable belief" of need) could, without restraint, include weapons.
It gets better. Anyone - ordinary J Public on the spot - can agree to assist an FSO in carrying out their duties, using any of the powers of the FSO as if they were one.
And here's the real show-stealer: not only the FSO, but also any ordinary person agreeing to assist them, is fully "protected from civil and criminal liability for an act that the person does or omits to do" in good faith (s.263).
Thus I contend that as proposed, it's entirely possible not just for a policeman or even a food safety officer but an ordinary member of the public assisting them to carry out an un-warranted armed raid on a private dwelling on the basis of suspicion of intent alone.
And if they shot someone, "in good faith and with reasonable cause", they could not be prosecuted.
I admit it's an unlikely and extreme interpretation - but since the bill allows it, it cannot be dismissed as fantasy.
Many other parts are equally as absurd, because the bill's basic fault is to turn our right to grow and share food into a government-authorised privilege, while capturing nutrients, seeds, natural medicines, essential minerals and drinks (including water) in its definition of "food".
Don't - as Foss clearly has - get me wrong. I support food safety and in its stated intent this bill is on the right track.
But currently, it's the wrong train. It must be derailed.
That's the right of it.
Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet.
