The latest letter to the editor at the Northland Age.
The latest letter to the editor at the Northland Age.
Our National government appears determined to override individual health freedoms and local autonomy, even when faced with determined opposition armed with scientific information, local support and the letter of the law.
Recently GM-Free Northland, with the support of the relevant councils in the Far North of New Zealand, won aHigh Court case that affirms the right of councils to ban genetically-modified crops (GMOs) in their area, under the Resource Management Act.
The response of Parliament has been to promote legislation aimed at curbing the powers of district councils and strengthening the powers of central government to control local decisions.
Is it too far to liken this to the action of the fledgling Nazi state in 1933, when it passed the Gleichschaltung law, which compelled state governments to follow the decrees of the central government even when they conflicted with the protections and rights of the people enshrined in state laws?
There are some fundamental issues here. There are unresolved scientific concerns about GMOs and health. These result from the enormous complexity of human physiology, unexplained rises in the incidence of modern illnesses (including neurological illness, cancer and mental illness), from deliberately ignoring epidemiological evidence, and from the lack of funding for any serious safety research. I discuss these in my newly-published book Your DNA Diet.
New Zealand has no written constitution, but the proposed Bill clearly shows the need for one. Geoffrey Palmer and Andrew Butler, in their widely-read book, A Constitution for Aotearoa New Zealand,' suggest articles 83 and 84 be included in a written constitution: 83 - Every person has a right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person's consent. 84 - Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.
The introduction of GMO crops amounts to a giant experiment with human health. The potentially devastating effects of this are only just now becoming apparent.
Any party wishing to preserve health freedoms and oppose invasive measures can frame their opposition in terms of the proposed constitutional health freedoms.
