With respect to food safety, it is the public that is taking all the risk because it is us that has to eat the food.
Craig Foss also says that: "Those in the lowest risk category - small traders who run roadside stalls or sell their own produce at farmers markets, charity sausage sizzles and bake sales - would receive food handler guidance."
His statement implies that small traders would receive food handler guidance automatically, which contradicts Sec95 (5) of the Food Bill, which reads: "Without limiting anything in this section, a person who may be granted an exemption under this section includes someone who -
(a) produces in his or her own home any food for sale; and
(b) sells the food to a consumer only; and
(c) does not employ or engage any other person to assist in the production or sale of the food; and
(d) does not otherwise sell or distribute the food.
I think the key words here are "may be granted". This does not guarantee any exemption and means that if I wanted to sell my neighbours some eggs more than 20 times a year (in which case I would fall under Sec94A ), I would need to apply to some authority for an exemption.
One also has to wonder how many people would actually bother applying for the exemption, meaning there would be a lot of people out there breaking the law.
The bush lawyer in me says why not rewrite Sec95 (5), along the lines of: "Without limiting anything in this section, a person shall be granted an exemption under this section where someone - [so on and so on]"?
PAUL BAILEY, Napier
Let it go, Friends
I note there have been a couple of letters re: Marineland in this column recently. One commenting on the money raised by Friends of Marineland to take on the city council in court and the other an attempt to revive the dolphin debate.
I would have thought that even the most ardent supporter of keeping dolphins in captivity would have realised by now that the days of this practice in New Zealand are well and truly over.
The other debate, whether Marineland should reopen in some form or another, is obviously still an issue. I must begin by congratulating Friends of Marineland for their perseverance. In the early stages of their campaign, I was somewhat supportive.
My stand has always been that if we must keep wild animals in captivity we should be able to justify what we are doing and ensure that the whole operation is undertaken as humanely as possible.
Some of the submissions presented to the early hearings into the future of Marineland seemed to suggest that this might be possible.
Submissions at the time were heavily weighted towards the establishment of a marine education and rehabilitation facility, which seemed the best possible outcome.
However, in recent years there has been an ever-growing question about the necessity of keeping wild animals in captivity at all, particularly when it comes to marine mammals, and I have always been uncomfortable about confining such animals for our benefit. So when the Department of Conservation announced a year or so ago that the plan was to phase out the keeping of captive marine mammals in New Zealand altogether, I felt great relief.
Consequently, I could no longer support plans to reopen Marineland in any form which involved confinement of healthy marine mammals.
I can only assume that, when the city council made its original decision to close Marineland, there was some plan for the rehousing of the animals still held.
I sincerely hope that such plans are still in place and can be acted on as soon as the all clear is given.
On a purely financial note, does anyone know what it has cost to care for the animals since Marineland's gates were closed to the public?
This was always a concern, even when there was a paying public to help offset the cost of care.
As well intentioned as Friends of Marineland are, I really cannot see any point in further action against NCC now that it has been clearly stated by the Department of Conservation that the keeping of marine mammals will be phased out.
You've fought the good fight, Friends, but it is time to let it go and allow Marineland a relatively dignified end, rather than dragging the whole thing through the courts.
ROBIN STEWART, Greenmeadows
Council restitution
The council should surely pay restitution to Marineland for all the months of lost revenue they have incurred.
This once extremely popular venue to promote, save and preserve life, with an educational component, has been a great loss to scores of schoolchildren, and the continuing flow of tourists from all areas and countries.
One can only realise this once all the pledges, help and information has been assimilated from all around the world. Yet another disaster for animals, which could have been avoided.
And who gave the Napier City Council supreme authority to high-handedly close an NZ-registered Marineland Zoo anyway?
They must have something really special on the agenda for the space.
I would certainly hope it's not similar to the museum, where the cost of improving it keeps escalating upwards.
SHEILA LINTON, Napier
