It's not appropriate that scientific claims underpinning new laws & regulations should be 'pre-settled' in a predetermined manner. Why? Select Committees then rule public comment out of scope.
Thank you very much for ths article JRB . We are rushing headlong into a genetic swamo and this allowed by politicians who have no idea at all on the broader imlications of this engineering .
There is a proposal in Europe for a seed breeders exemption (doesn't change the fact the genome could be altered in ways that could be harmful). Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Recital 45 - page 17-18. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0325_EN.pdf
Jodie, do we know why MBIE was heading up the covid response, not the Min of Health? This whole genetic aspect stinks, eh? And look at the amount of our money they spent on it. In legal fees alone it adds up to over NZ$74m. Jeez.
As far as I understand MBIE were one of the lead agencies on signing the contract. My guess is that they wanted to get NZ to the signed contract stage, and needed to manage/influence/nudge the whole of government response to that stage to ensure it did not go off the rails, including setting up disinfo project. They knew they had to manage the informational environment and perhaps MoH didn't have those resources. Then there was their control over science and research funding - so could get modelling resources in place to control how risk was understood. 2017 paper interesting: https://www.epra.org/news_items/council-of-europe-s-report-identifies-strategies-to-tackle-disinformation#
Thank you very much for ths article JRB . We are rushing headlong into a genetic swamo and this allowed by politicians who have no idea at all on the broader imlications of this engineering .
Perhaps a new law outlawing intellectual property rights for seeds is required. Then the dark push for GMO might suddenly disappear again !
Absolutely.
There is a proposal in Europe for a seed breeders exemption (doesn't change the fact the genome could be altered in ways that could be harmful). Amendment 23 Proposal for a regulation Recital 45 - page 17-18. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0325_EN.pdf
Thanks for doing the hard yards here. This is an issue I have been concerned about for a long time.
and when a NZ company sells its seed business to a foreigner, I don't see any govt action to protect a vital NZ asset.
Jodie, do we know why MBIE was heading up the covid response, not the Min of Health? This whole genetic aspect stinks, eh? And look at the amount of our money they spent on it. In legal fees alone it adds up to over NZ$74m. Jeez.
As far as I understand MBIE were one of the lead agencies on signing the contract. My guess is that they wanted to get NZ to the signed contract stage, and needed to manage/influence/nudge the whole of government response to that stage to ensure it did not go off the rails, including setting up disinfo project. They knew they had to manage the informational environment and perhaps MoH didn't have those resources. Then there was their control over science and research funding - so could get modelling resources in place to control how risk was understood. 2017 paper interesting: https://www.epra.org/news_items/council-of-europe-s-report-identifies-strategies-to-tackle-disinformation#
I missed this - head spinning
https://open.substack.com/pub/rebeccacceber/p/pfizers-comirnaty-whaccine-is-not?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=pk46g
The animal testing of foods shown here may be of interest, at Agent131711’s Substack. https://chemtrails.substack.com/p/substantial-equivalence-the-gmo-safety