As you may have heard or read from numerous sources circulating widely, FSANZ (Food Standards Australia and New Zealand) is proposing to end any requirement for labelling certain foods which have been genetically modified. In brief, foods that they judge through various technical criteria are ‘substantially equivalent’ to natural foods will no longer be labelled as such or even referred to as ‘genetically modified’.

This article is also available as an audio version here.

You can read a detailed discussion of the issues in a Substack post by Jodie Bruning entitled “FSANZ’s paradigm shift in gene-edited food regulation to exclude a wide range of gene edited foods from being categorised as GMOs.“. If you would like to register your concern you can make a submission to FSANZ here but be quick, the deadline is 10th September which has left very little time for the public to respond.

According to FSANZ the new regulations will:

• make it clear which foods are genetically modified (GM) foods for Code (???) purposes
• accommodate (???) new technologies
• regulate (???) foods according to the risk they pose.

In reality the new Code exempts the following processes from labelling:

• Cell-cultured food: Food derived from animal cell lines grown in biotech cell culture vats and then processed to resemble traditional meat or seafood.
• Foods that have processed through genetically modification where the modification is supposed to be deleted or no longer detectable
• Food from grafted GM plants: where the food portion does not contain novel DNA or novel protein.
• Food additives, processing aids and nutritive substances.

In essence, the regulations will be accommodating the commercial biotechnology food sector ensuring that they will no longer be required to label many gene modified foods. In other words, the public will be left in the dark about the GM origin of a wide range of foods and thereby denied their right of choice.

This is a key part of the government’s programme for biotechnology deregulation. They are well aware that if GM foods are labelled, the public will not buy them in any quantity. So their simple solution, take away labelling thus forcing the public to buy into the biotech paradigm. Food is of course a sensitive subject, traditional foods are a part of our daily life. The government apparently doesn’t care about this. They want to ride roughshod over tradition. This is not small government, it is the antithesis of small government.

It is interesting to see how they are going about enacting these huge changes to the food chain. Firstly, it is being achieved through regulation rather than parliamentary legislation. This has a lower profile and occurs over a short time period. It avoids any meaningful opportunity for the public to lobby their MP. In any case, a regulator will now decide the menu for us.

Secondly, a PR barrage has been launched suggesting that without these changes NZ will be left behind the times and economically disadvantaged. In other words, we will be outmoded rather than contemporary and fashionable. In fact, many of the PR arguments have been turned on their head and can be easily debunked. See our article “Fact Checking the Incredible Claims of Prime Minister Chris Luxon, Judith Collins and the New Zealand Biotech Lobby.”

Clear, comprehensive full-disclosure food labelling was one of the great advances of the twentieth century. The new FSANZ exemptions will be turning the clock back to the dark days of the nineteenth century when you very often didn’t know what you were eating.

The reasons for food labelling are very compelling from the health perspective, without labelling there is little prospect of identifying a cause if adverse health impacts occur over the short or long term. As our post “A Brief Peek into Tomorrow” revealed, the incidence of illness has been rising especially in the USA where gene altered foods have been proliferating.

The notion of “substantial equivalence” is a discredited ploy long used by the food processing industry to allow the substitution of ingredients with cheaper synthetic or chemical alternatives which appear to look or taste similar to the natural products they are replacing. In reality, these substituted ingredients are identifiably different in chemical composition. And hence will react differently through the digestive process.

The problem becomes far more serious and concerning when genetically modified ingredients are substituted. In my experience working in the gene safety testing and certification industry, genetic modification and production is plagued by contamination and by significant differences from natural products. This is always detectable. In this light, substantial equivalence is a bogus concept.

In my book Your DNA Diet I advance the many reasons why the unadulterated genetic content of natural foods is an essential part of our nutritional paradigm. Research shows we are literally eating the genetic intelligence of nature. It maintains our health. We have co-evolved over millions of years in a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship with our natural food sources. Changing the genetic profile of foods means entering uncharted territory.

But you may ask, will small molecular changes to our food really make that much difference? FSANZ is applying a rough rule of thumb, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck. A fact that has cost many a duck dearly when they encountered a duck decoy. Only reflect for a moment, the genetic world is far more powerful than the world of chemicals. Single codon mutations out of billions are capable of causing catastrophic illnesses like Huntington’s or sickle cell anaemia. The gene world is very exacting with no safe room for approximations.

Unfortunately we have a government intent on implementing wide scale changes over the wishes of the public. Already many of the changes proposed in the FSANZ document have been implemented using their existing regulatory powers. Unlabelled synthetic ingredients, additives, flavours, nutritional components, preservatives and processing aids manufactured using genetic modification tools are already finding their way onto our supermarket shelves. The present proposals are there to regularise this under-the-radar bastardisation of our food supply which is contributing to the ill health of adults and children alike.

Home food preparation, organic ingredients, seed saving, local food networks and avoidance of processed foods are of increasing importance if we wish to continue to exercise food choice. The government is ignoring the well-documented adverse health effects of ultra processed foods. It is planning to support the further modification of our diet with untested unlabelled gene altered foods.

The removal of GM labelling is a bridge too far and a direct assault on our rights. It reflects on an arrogant government casually dictating our food choices to facilitate the untested, risk-heavy plans of biotechnology scientists, investors and giant corporations. You can register your concerns before the 10th September at these links:

https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/food-standards-code/consultations/submissions

And

https://consultations.foodstandards.gov.au/fsanz/p1055

This week, Judith Collins, Minister for Science and Technology, and Chris Luxon, Prime Minister, decided to introduce a policy change with a Laurel and Hardy double act on Twitter full of bonhomie and laughter designed to mask a sinister intent. Deregulation of biotechnology will contain provisions that take away our basic human rights of choice. They will change the face of our small island nation forever (yes, forever).

This article is available as a PDF document to download/print or share.

According to their vaudeville performance, biotech deregulation will enable amazing scientists to mitigate climate change, improve our health, boost our horticulture, and grow our economy. Collins effused “it is so great to be part of this government”. Luxon agreed, calling it “an amazing day”. As he sees it, some laws formulated in 1996 to protect consumers make no sense in 2024 because they prevent incredibly smart biotech scientists from releasing their products into the environment without having to go through public scrutiny.

Luxon added “We’re going to make sure we do it safely, don’t worry about that.” (at this point Luxon appeared to be channelling Jacinda Ardern). It would be easy to poke fun, but the consequences are too far reaching and serious for levity. The 1996 laws do not prevent biotech food products from reaching the market as Luxon implied. Instead, they require that gene altered ingredients be labelled as such. In other words, Luxon is taking away our right of consumer choice, our right to know what we are eating. In the near future “incredibly smart scientists” will be deciding for us.

Aside from our right to know, there is one other very important reason for the 1996 law. It involves one word “traceability”. If novel gene-altered food substitutes are not labelled, there will be no way for anyone to find out if they are causing illness. Compulsory food labelling has been a fundamental part of our global food safety system since it was first introduced in 1913. Bypassing this principle is a key strategy of biotech marketing for the simple reason that consumers don’t want biotech foods and manufacturers don’t want to face lawsuits. Thus in one stroke Luxon’s government has taken us back into the 19th century world of food adulteration, in his words: “amazing”.

Watching the video of Luxon and Collins I was forcibly struck by how far out of touch they are with reality. They appeared to me as a pair of simpletons smirking and chuckling with glee as they thought they could pass off iron pyrites as gold. We are still in the shadow of a pandemic era where incredibly intelligent scientists (???) were given free rein and funding to develop a deadly virus and then a botched vaccine that killed rather than cured.

Luxon and Collins were part of a parliament that forced it on us as a nation with promises of safety and efficacy. Currently, we have a rate of excess deaths more than 10% above the long term trend. Yet here they are again with the same meaningless mantra: “don’t worry, we will do it safely”. Anyone who swallows that needs to have their head examined. But this time the ante has been upped, if Luxon’s government has its way, we will be swallowing it without knowing we are.

The current National led government aspires to a Thatcherite ideology whose narrative no longer fits the facts on the ground, not even close.

Our birth rate, along with those of other western nations, has fallen so low that our population is no longer renewing itself, not even close. Before long, there won’t be enough youthful workers to keep the economy going, yet David Seymour is obsessed with the idea that poor people need to stop having children.

Our health service is in crisis because too many people are falling sick with heart disease, cancers, and other illnesses in numbers that dwarf previous trends, but the government believes this is due to administrative inefficiency.

The number of people suffering long term disability is ballooning, but the government believes this is due to malingering.

These are all recognisable Thatcherite tropes, and they no longer fit the reality of social statistics. We are in the midst of a health crisis engineered by biotechnology. Our government wants to go further down that road by removing the very few safeguards that we have left. As we know very well by now, biotechnology edits can spread without limit and they can never be recalled. Luxon wants to deny us our right to know and he is laughing about it to our face on Twitter. We need to raise our voices and push back.

Last week, we published an open letter to parliamentarians, which was personally sent to every MP and marked URGENT. So what happened? We got some responses.

This article is also available as a PDF to download, print, and/or share, or listen to an audio version here.

You will recall that the letter raised questions about the plan of the government to deregulate biotechnology. In particular we raised questions about safety and risk, and suggested that parliament pause this move until phase 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid Pandemic reports its findings.

We pointed to our high rate of excess deaths which is continuing and the failure of the government to investigate its causes. We noted that both the Covid virus and the vaccine were linked to biotechnology experimentation. We pointed to the current unprecedented highly elevated rate of hospitalisation for heart disease, cancers, and other conditions which come at a massive personal and financial cost. We also noted, contrary to government PR, that biotech derived foods are not attracting consumers overseas, many companies are failing.

Alarming disability figures

The scale of the problem was brought home to us this week when we analysed the June 2024 Quarter Labour Market Statistics. Alarmingly, the working age population who are disabled rose by a massive 8.2% from June 23 to June 24. This underlines our excess deaths figures. People are also falling sick and unable to work in unprecedented numbers. During this period the New Zealand working age population rose by just 2.3%, so the year to June quarter rise is not an artefact of population growth.

For comparison, in terms of numbers, from Jun 17 to Jun 21 the annual average increase in the working age population who are disabled was 2300 mirroring population rise. From Jun 21 to Jun 24 (post Covid vaccination) the annual average increase is 5300. In the last 12 months the increase was 10400. Things are getting worse, not better.

This underlines the urgency of our letter to MPs which suggested their plan to deregulate biotechnology had implications for public health and the economy.

So what did MPs reply?

The Hon. Nicola Willis, Minister of Finance, replied: “As the issues you raise fall within the portfolio responsibilities of Hon Judith Collins, Minister of Science, Innovation, and Technology, I have referred your email to her office for consideration.”

Fair enough:-), so Judith Collins, Minister of Science and Technology, who is pushing biotechnology deregulation on behalf of her party is being asked to reply to my detailed letter. Great.

The Hon. Judith Collins, skilled politician that she is, passed the parcel again replying: “Upon further consideration by our office, we feel your correspondence is more appropriately directed to Hon Dr Shane Reti (Minister of Health)”. How is that????

Well good to hear my letter deserved ‘further consideration’:-)

The Hon. Shane Reti’s Office replied “As the matter you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister of Health, Hon Shane Reti, your email has been forwarded to this office for consideration. On behalf of the Minister, thank you for taking the time to write.I have made note of your email below and passed it to the health team for their consideration.”

Curiously then, no members of the ruling National Party felt that the safety of biotechnology deregulation was worthy of immediate comment.

The ACT Party is a member of the coalition government and a big supporter of biotechnology deregulation (which as I pointed out in my letter is de facto already happening). Dr. Parmjeet Parmar MP writing on behalf of the ACT Office replied: “I appreciate you taking the time to contact me with your detailed information. New legislation to regulate [actually deregulate] biotechnology will be introduced to Parliament in the future and once this new legislation is tabled, the public will have an opportunity to submit on this matter. You may wish to consider this option when it becomes available.”

In other words the ACT Party admitted that our letter contained ‘detailed information’, but they didn’t feel any need to reply to the content:-)

UPDATED: Stuart Smith, the National Party MP for Kaikoura, replied: “Thank you for the informative email, which is helpful and timely.” Thank you, Stuart.

I did not receive a reply from the third member of the ruling coalition, the NZ First Party, but I understand through third-party communications that NZ First is prepared to find out more about the issues. I hope they do so.

Which brings me to the nub of the problem. MPs know next to nothing about biotechnology risks and safety, but they are planning to deregulate it. Why would the government act so decisively on something they don’t understand?

No one from the Labour Party, Greens or Te Pati Maori replied.

In the 1970s, I was able to walk into the office of Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, have a conversation with his private secretary, ask some questions and receive a detailed written reply from Muldoon himself. I also met the Director General of Health, Dr Hiddlestone, in person. He assembled his whole team to listen to me make a presentation about the potential savings from natural approaches to healthcare.

Today I seriously doubt whether any more than a small handful of politicians got to even see my letter, let alone read it. They probably get their information from newspapers like Stuff which yesterday printed an article blaming the unvaccinated for a resurgence in Covid at the Olympics. It quoted Maria Van Kerkhove, a WHO epidemiologist who said “I am concerned with such low [vaccine] coverage”. The article managed somehow to transfer this concern to New Zealand which has a vaccination rate of 90% (along with most other western nations experiencing renewed Covid waves:-). Kerkhove inexplicably forgot to mention IgG4 mediated vaccine induced immune deficiency among highly Covid vaccinated populations which is subject to much discussion in current scientific literature. I wonder why?

Our government has declined to measure the comparative health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Yet they have become fixated in their adherence to the ‘safety and efficacy’ myth of biotechnology. MPs, especially ministers, are insulated from the public by minders, advisors, bureaucrats, experts, private consultants, technologists, media hacks and favoured lobbyists. They are spoon fed opinions which are judged to be ‘ideologically correct’, ‘electorally acceptable’, ‘party line’ and ‘consonant with those of our allies’. Facts be damned.

We are a small nation of people who have a long history of talking to one another in a straightforward and honest manner. We are a long way from the rest of the world so have had to be self reliant. We have needed to find and investigate the solutions that work for us. We have often charted an independent course, but not it seems now.

Whatever has happened to us and what can we do about it? In the modern era, letters to MPs and submissions to consultation processes disappear into a black hole, so forget about that, dig a little deeper. You might be very surprised at what I am going to say, but it reflects an older knowledge and a deeper understanding of science than the superficialities dominating political life today.

Who is really governing New Zealand, or any country for that matter?

It is the laws of nature. The sun rises everyday and warms us, the earth gives up abundance, rains quench our thirst, natural biodiversity gives us clothing, food, housing. There are natural laws governing light, heat, cold, gravity, cohesion, movement and growth. Rivers are the lifeblood of the land, trees clear the air, the ocean currents mitigate climate extremes. The display of nature’s intelligence is endless. Our connection with nature is something we rely upon completely in so many ways. Yet the government is planning to allow biological intelligence to be altered and degraded.

In our posts at GLOBE, starting from theoretical physics, we have regularly discussed the intimate connection between matter and consciousness. We have pointed out the key deficiency of the biotech paradigm, it doesn’t even begin to understand how biology supports our everyday consciousness, let alone its higher functions. Yet the biotech industry has ploughed on altering fundamental genetic processes in agriculture and in global populations without regard to the risks or consequences for our physical health or mental identity.

We have pointed out that the connection between consciousness and matter has multiple dimensions—chemistry, electricity, electromagnetic fields, vibrational modes, molecular shape, transcription regulation and uniform genetic identity. All of these play key roles in physiological immunity, homeostasis, expression, and development; and they all play key roles in supporting our consciousness.

We haven’t previously discussed the function of shape. Nature grows by enclosing space in material structures. Atoms, molecules, organisms including humans, cells, and organs are all analogous to houses, distinct spaces housing forms of intelligence. Structure has two aspects: shape and space. Shape is one of the most important properties of matter including biology. It helps to determine action. Enclosed space is not dead, it has characteristics and influence. Even empty space has a non-zero energy density.

What is true of the microcosm is also true of the macrocosm. We might consider the built environment. We are connected to nature through our dwelling house. The whole house is more than the sum of its parts. We live in a space defined by a structure. In many cultures, there has been a knowledge of the effect of built spaces on the individual occupiers. This involves proportions, placement, orientation, construction materials and building uses. The Greeks had classes of columns and knew about golden proportions between the dimensions of height and width. Georgian homes are much sought after because of their pleasing proportions which copied classical ideas.

Other older cultures clearly utilised a sophisticated construction knowledge like the Khmers who built Angkor or the Harappans in the Indus valley. Ancient India had one of the most developed systems of building in harmony with natural law known as Vastu which prescribes precise mathematical relationships between dimensions, placement of buildings relative to natural features, natural construction materials and alignment with the cardinal directions. The Chinese also have a Feng Shui.

One of the foundational principles of Vastu is a preference for rectilinear buildings with east facing entrances, Along with all the other prescriptions of the system, this is said to enhance health and longevity by connecting the occupant with the energy and movement of the sun. In contrast, circular buildings like the Colosseum for example are said to bring misfortune

So this morning I remembered that in 1981 something momentous happened to New Zealand politics. The Beehive opened. The ruling government moved from the old east facing rectangular parliament building to a modernistic circular icon.

Ever since then, we seem to have been going round in circles.

The beehive is no doubt also saddled with sick building syndrome—high levels of EMF radiation, subject to off gassing and particulates from modern materials, artificial light, and deficient in fresh air. Judging by the number of MPs who have suffered mental breakdowns over recent months and years or been accused of bullying their staff, the beehive must be a very stressful place to work (if that is the right term).

There are always deeper, more unified principles at work at smaller time and distance scales. We need to learn a lot more about the deeper principles of nature. At some point a wider knowledge and appreciation of natural law is going to re-emerge from the chaos we are now experiencing. In the meantime politicians are acting superficially without understanding; treating biotechnology as if it were solely an economic fantasyland without rules or risks. Action without understanding is ultimately self-destructive. Our political tsars might want to break away from their minders to start thinking about that and possibly read a little more from their post bag:-)

Whilst I have reported the replies from MPs with an ironic tone, the concerns we raised were very serious indeed, they involve human health and life. These concerns speak to a compelling need for the International Genetic Charter. Its simple terms spell out in a few sentences the safeguards necessary to protect human life from genetic degradation driven by government ignorance, corporate greed and academic hubris. Please take a couple of minutes to sign up to The International Genetic Charter here.

>>> Support the Hatchard Report with a small donation <<<

My experience as an educator has taught me that change begins within. It is our inner experience that enables us to gain perspective, to re-evaluate and change gear. This is the need of our time.

This article is also available as a PDF to download, print, and/or share, or listen to an audio version here.

This point was forcibly driven home for me this week when I read the “New Zealand Pandemic Plan: A Framework For Action.” This document has just been published by Health New Zealand laying out New Zealand policy in the event that WHO declares another pandemic. It is a prime example of an aspiring cabal of policy wonks stuck in the past, unable to change gear and move forward. For 211 pages the document rambles on rubber stamping all the mistakes of the Covid pandemic response. It dictates that in the near future, we will do it all again—lockdowns, masks, vaccines, antivirals, mandates, social distancing, isolation, school and business closures, and censorship of media content.

How is it possible that Health New Zealand managed to validate all their previous pandemic actions when phase one of the Royal Commission of Inquiry doesn’t report its findings until November? The answer to this conundrum may not be too far from the chief commissioner, who was himself involved in discussions which formulated Covid policy. A sort of self-saucing chocolate pudding arrangement, whereby you can have your cake and eat it too.

In an extraordinary display of dictatorial hubris and misplaced self-assurance, the document hails the Covid vaccine program as effective and safe, and an ideal model for future responses. Pandemics are flagged as zoonotic (from animals) in origin, no mention at all of the now widely accepted laboratory escape of biotech gain of function products.

Detecting and monitoring longer term morbidity and sequelae are described as established policy, along with informed consent, whilst failing to recognise this didn’t happen during the Covid pandemic. Our alarming and continuing rate of excess deaths doesn’t get a mention, instead Covid pandemic policy is described as saving thousands of lives. Nor does mRNA vaccine induced immune suppression, now widely discussed in the scientific literature, get a mention.

Most chilling of all, the policy recognises the power of a medical officer of health, in conjunction with the police, to detain persons in isolation by force and to continue to do so until necessary prescribed preventive treatment has been administered. You know what that means.

A close reading of this provision reveals that Health New Zealand expects the right to wield very broad powers during future pandemics, even broader than those it was granted during the Covid pandemic. Despite the frightening written word, Health New Zealand is clearly out of touch with reality. They are not managing the current health of New Zealand, how could they possibly imagine their failed policies will succeed in future? They may well find that the public rejects their myopic vision.

The New Zealand Pandemic Plan: A Framework For Action makes no mention of exercise, nutrition, lifestyle, diet or meditation, all of which, as we have previously reported, strengthen the immune system and promote health. Education in these topics would genuinely prepare New Zealand for any future health threats. As previously reported those who exercised, followed a lighter diet, used herbal remedies, or got enough sleep had very significantly lower rates of hospitalisation from Covid. Together they constitute a truly preventive approach and a recipe for longevity which published studies show are tens of times more effective than the current trends of biotech allopathy (which Health New Zealand unthinkingly expects to enforce on an unwilling population).

The exercise of raw power without regard to fact or justice is not limited to New Zealand; It is threatening to overtake the world.

To get some temporary relief from doom and gloom, you might admire the display on the eastern horizon in the early morning before dawn where you will see two bright points of light—fiery red Mars and Jupiter, known as the planet of knowledge, coming closer together day by day. They draw level around the middle of the month. Despite the beauty, some are calling this combination the ‘fire of knowledge’—an augury of conflict. Whether you believe this or not, given the state of the world no one will be much surprised if they are right.

Polarisation, disinformation and anger are growing everyday around the world. If you are a history buff, you will be aware that these conditions precede global conflict. Although it hasn’t been much reported here in New Zealand, if you follow international news sources you will be aware of regional conflicts which are reaching boiling point. The protagonists are tied to larger super powers who supply much of the armament which helps fuel the conflict. There is a point that is reached when the stress in society becomes unsustainable and war erupts.

Conflicts almost always have ancient roots, indicating unresolved stress in collective consciousness, coming down through countless generations. It is as though whole nations are stuck in the past, unable to find common ground or rationalise and resolve their emotions to move forward.

The ‘fire of knowledge’ has another meaning altogether—it refers to the deep silence of inner consciousness which alone stands unaffected by the world of outer sensory experience. This is the purifying fire of inner experience which burns up the dross of confused misapprehension, past mistakes and stress leaving a pure clarity of knowledge and an ocean of real peace.

Just after the Hiroshima nuclear devastation, Clement Atlee, British Prime Minister wrote “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.”

How we individuals protect, nourish and develop our consciousness is critical to our personal peace, and that of the society and the world as a whole. In the materialist climate of the current age, many have forgotten about the essential spirit of life and its great power to unlock peace and well being. If there is one thing we can do now for the world, even in remote New Zealand, it is to revive or restart a journey to inner peace and well being.

For a forest to be green the individual trees must be green, for the world to be at peace, individuals must be at peace. If you can place peace within the reach of individuals, peace can be within reach for the world. Fortunately peace is not far away from us. Since time immemorial, peace has been found in the inner self. Jesus taught “The Kingdom of Heaven is within you”. Buddha taught “Peace comes from within, Do not seek it without.” Gandhi added “”The greatest power in the world is that of the Soul. Peace is its highest expression.”

Madness is threatening to overwhelm the world, but never forget that fate is in our hands. Consciousness, our own inner self, operates at the fulcrum point of the cosmos. Peace and well being are tied together, we would do well to start learning about their essence, before it is too late. Our inner compass can see us safe through anything that is thrown in our path.

Meeting the post-pandemic challenges facing the nation

I am writing to you on a matter of urgency that affects us all. Following on from the circumstances of the pandemic, the nation is facing new challenges on multiple fronts: with finances, the provision of healthcare, and regarding social and geopolitical relations. How we meet these in the coming months and years will define us as a nation going forward.

This article is also available as a PDF to download, print, and/or share, or listen to an audio version here.

This open letter is not seeking to assign blame for past mistakes, nor does it expect that the government alone is responsible for meeting these challenges. We must all recognise that our circumstances have radically changed during the last four and a half years. In some key cases, the values and practices in common use before the pandemic have become inappropriate or obsolete today. This is due to significantly altered circumstances.

It may well be that some of our past ideological standpoints are now outdated, our preconceptions about what is right and reliable may be mistaken and in need of reconsideration. Discovering what will be in the best interests of both the nation and the individual is a task requiring deep thought and the consideration of comprehensive evidence.

Government decisions are being made daily in an effort to chart a course ahead. The pandemic years have taught us that a wrong step now may have catastrophic consequences, even in the near future. We consider two of these in a spirit of scientific caution and common sense.

Constitutional challenges

The current parliament is proposing to deregulate biotechnology. This is an extraordinary step to be taking at this time. During the pandemic, biotechnology applications were de facto deregulated. The government of the day invoked Clause Five of the NZ Bill of Rights: Justified Limitations thereby setting aside basic human rights in the process of approving and enforcing novel mRNA vaccinations on the public. In addition, Covid-19, which is now widely understood to have originated in a laboratory, proved impossible to contain, In effect, it introduced itself into our nation without government approval or regulation.

Since 2021, New Zealand has suffered an excess mortality rate, which is continuing week by week up to the present time. Official figures reported to the OECD are conservatively in excess of 10% above the historical trend. Once population rises are accounted for, in excess of 50 people are dying each week unexpectedly. 50 lives lost to families, industry and the nation.

Having invoked the exception clause in the New Zealand Bill of Rights, it is incumbent on the current government to prove that this decision was in the public interest, not with rhetoric, but with facts and figures. Increasingly, evidence is being published in the scientific literature which strongly supports an adverse health effect of mRNA vaccination. To decide the issue, the only vital source of relevant evidence is a comparison of health outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated segments of the population by age and condition. The fact that this information remains out of public view in New Zealand is a violation of our constitutional principles which state:

1. The Rule of Law

Legislation should be consistent with fundamental constitutional principles, including the rule of law. Officials should carefully consider the impact of fundamental constitutional principles on proposed legislation or regulation , particularly when the legislation will:

• change the relationship between citizens and the State in a fundamental way (for example, by encroaching on the operation of democratic processes, individual dignity or liberty, equality before the law or access to the courts);

• modify or remove safeguards and limitations imposed on the exercise of State functions (for example, the rule of law, human rights, the spirit and principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, or natural justice).

The scope of the rule of law has at its core the following principle:

• Everyone is subject to the law, including the Government—People and institutions that wield power must do so within legal limits, and be accountable for their actions; everybody is equal before the law and is subject to it. The application of legislation to the Government itself is a cornerstone of a fair and free society.

2. The Principle of Legality—the dignity of the individual and the presumption in favour of liberty

All law is made (and, when enacted, should be construed by courts) against a matrix of values and principles that are regarded as fundamentally important to our legal system. These values and principles can be expressed at differing levels of abstraction. Fundamentally, they concern human dignity and liberty but these terms embrace a broader set of rights and freedoms that include:

• the right not to be deprived of life;
• physical integrity of one’s body, including freedom from medical treatment or scientific experimentation without consent;
• freedom of conscience, religion, expression, association, assembly, and movement;
• liberty, in the sense of freedom to make fundamental personal choices as to how one lives one’s life; and
• procedural fairness, often referred to as natural justice.

---

The expectation of our constitution is that legislation and regulation will be construed and applied in light of these abiding values. As long as the government omits to release mortality data comparing the health outcomes of those who received mRNA vaccines with those who did not, it cannot reasonably deregulate biotechnology without violating our fundamental constitutional framework as outlined above.

It is of particular concern that a major priority of the government’s biotech deregulation plan is the creation of a NZ mRNA Platform. This programme is already funded and in progress without any assurance of the safety of the platform, in fact with clear scientific evidence to the contrary. There are reasonable expectations and available evidence that the experimental outcomes of such a programme, on humans, animals and plants, will not be able to be contained. It may contaminate our food system and impact public health.

It is our contention that serious mistakes and omissions were made during the pandemic creating risks of such concern that they cannot be allowed to be repeated.

Therefore any deregulation of biotechnology should be paused until Phase 2 of the Covid-19 Royal Inquiry is able to report its findings on risk and safety.

Public Health Measures

The government has announced the appointment of a Commissioner, Professor Lester Levy, to oversee the operation of Health New Zealand. According to Health Minister Dr. Shane Reti’s announcement, Health New Zealand is overspending its budget by $130 million per month. Reti said “The issues at Health New Zealand stem from the previous government’s mismanaged health reforms…. Our intention is to secure a better future for health in Nea Z.”

Whatever the causes, Health New Zealand’s problems far exceed financial shortfalls or overspending. Leaked figures show there has been a surge in cardiac admissions, cancer incidence, and other health conditions. For example an 83% increase in cardiac hospital admissions in the Wellington Region.

Professor Levy in accepting the appointment revealed his family had experienced health issues during the past year. In this he is joined by hundreds of thousands of families across New Zealand. The potential causes have been masked by the pandemic education programme undertaken with cross party support which rammed home the “safe and effective” mantra in the complete absence of long term health and safety assessments. This cloaked the nation with an extraordinary blanket of misinformation. As a result, the possible causes of a very large number of individual cases and family tragedies have been obscured. It is time to rectify this situation.

Moreover we are overdue for facts and figures which detail the massive growth of illness by category. Without this crucial evidence, no government attempts to improve the service of Health New Zealand will be successful. The health problems are too large and too unprecedented. They have novel causes.

Deep scientific and integrity issues

The issues surrounding biotechnology deregulation and public health are deep scientific issues requiring specialist assessment. Because of this, parliamentarians have become vulnerable to commercial lobbying. This influence comes from the pharmaceutical sector and the academic community, both have unreasonable expectations of continuing funding for biotechnology experimentation and implementation in a deregulated environment.

Much of the lobbying effort for biotech deregulation, and the government’s response to it, is based on unsubstantiated hype about the efficacy and safety of products and their economic prospects.

The suggestion that our trading partners will eat up ‘sustainable’ biotech food doesn’t hold water. Tebrito, a Swedish firm producing food from mealworms, has just filed for bankruptcy following low consumer demand, despite millions of investment. Beyond Meat is currently in talks with bond holders to restructure its finances following disappointing sales. The stock price of biotech giant Moderna, an mRNA vaccine maker, is down to $120 as of yesterday off from its high of $484.

Therefore I am writing to urge caution, careful consideration of prior outcomes and research, and full public disclosure of up to date health data.

This should be assessed along with the benefit of expert advice that is free of commercial interest. The links embedded in this letter are there to provide you with the details of a precautionary view. Without such a probing risk assessment, we will be destined to perpetuate and repeat the same pandemic mistakes.

In closing I have to point out that this letter does not revolve around dry points of constitutional procedure or administrative efficiency. Nor is it about the judgement of history at some future time. It concerns the current health and life of individual citizens today, this week and every week, and the well being of the nation as a whole. At this time when past abuse in state care is receiving so much attention, we must remember a government and its members stand or fall on the integrity of their actions.

There are very deep principles of democracy and legitimacy at stake—the duty of care for its citizens that a government must evidence. But more than this, every week human life is ebbing away from families and the nation sooner than in the past. It is the task of politicians to face this squarely. If we continue to turn our back on relevant facts, refuse to investigate and ignore the plight of those affected we will continue to suffer the dire and growing consequences into an uncertain future, or with courage the present time can be a turning point in the history of our nation. It is in your hands.

Yours sincerely

Guy Hatchard PhD

Principal at GLOBE and the Hatchard Report