Bruce Bisset.
Much as we might like to stay GE-Free, I'm sorry to say the argument is already settled, in favour of frankenfoods - thanks to the government's slavish acceptance of the terms of the TPPA.
Sure, the so-called "trade" treaty still needs ratification, but even if some countries pull out the rest will barrel ahead, and there's no doubt National and its support-flakes (including Labour's conservative apologist Phil Goff) will stamp it approved.
At which point, the idea of being able to protect our agriculture, and environment in general, from the careless grasp of Monsanto and its ilk will have evaporated.
There's no use protesting National's plans to corrupt the RMA by allowing central government intervention and veto at will, thereby removing the rights of local councils to specify what can and can't happen.
That's merely Plan B, backing up the TPPA. So pack up the signs, petitions, and policies, organic growers and local councils, because it's already game over.
Federated Farmers president William Rolleston, a rabid lobbyist on behalf of genetic engineering, must be wetting himself laughing. That his organisation, by its appeals against councils on GE's behalf, has proven itself staunchly anti-farmer and anti-environment is hypocrisy at full kick-back.
It speaks volumes about the agenda of the Feds that it costs no more - often less - for a company to be a member than it does for an individual farmer. The day farmers realise they are now controlled by corporations who care not a whit for the land or the individuals trying to sustain it cannot come soon enough.
But to answer the question you're now asking: the TPPA has trumped the GE-Free movement because it has, in effect, removed the ability for any country party to it to exclude GE.
Chapter 8 of the TPPA deals with technical barriers to trade. In article 8.6 it seeks to lower such barriers by adopting conformity to accepted standards, essentially saying everyone's standards must conform to everyone else's.
Moreover any party must "accord treatment no less favourable" than for its own to any other party's standards assessment bodies, and even should there be doubt about conformity, the concerned party MUST accept the other's findings. Note well: This includes both non-governmental and for-profit assessment bodies.
That means Monsanto, whose testing regime is accepted by the US FDA without review, and the FDA's stamp of approval is in turn accepted as "conforming" by New Zealand, has the power to require New Zealand to accept that there is nothing wrong with a GE product - even one that isn't licensed in the US!
To ensure everyone "gets" this, the agreement emphasises a party CANNOT refuse to accept a conformity assessment from a recognised assessment body of another party.
So if Monsanto says allow us to plant GE or we'll sue, plant it we must - or go broke. Perhaps that's and go broke.
In case anyone thinks there might be an "out" for local councils under the (existing) RMA, the TPPA specifically requires central government to ensure local government conforms to all its standards.
So National's RMA changes are solely to make doubly sure it is able to enforce this TPPA rule - because it must.
Oh, and any other wriggle room in terms of existing regulations is firmly closed down by article 8.9 which in part defines "appropriate regulatory mechanisms" in terms of contestable "legitimate objectives".
Who decides what's legitimate? Ultimately, the secret TPPA corporate tribunals - without right of appeal.
Yep, game over. Sell the farm.
- Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet.