As month one draws to a close, I wanted to leave everyone with some motivation to stay hydrated, especially as you get older. You are probably aware that as you age, there are certain bodily processes that start to become sluggish compared to when you were younger. For example, when I was in my late teens and early twenties, I was better able to recover after a night of drinking. If you’re thinking, “late teens!!!”, don’t worry, the drinking age in Ontario is 19 and 18 in Quebec, which I live very close to. I would be able to spend all night drinking, have very little sleep, barely any water and still be able to function quite well the next day. Not always, mind you, but it was still possible. Now, I find that if I don’t drink some water before I go to sleep after a night of drinking, I have a headache the next day. I often feel very lethargic as well. Being hungover is essentially the aftermath of dehydration the alcohol has done to your body. Coupled with the diuretic effects of caffeine from one of my staple bevvies, the rum and coke, it isn’t looking pretty. So, as we age, our bodies have a more difficult time recovering from dehydration.

There are two reasons why we need to drink more water as we get older:

1. Your body starts to lose its capacity to process water efficiently, therefore it is easier to become dehydrated.

2. Your body doesn’t signal its thirst as well. As we age, we are less likely to feel the need to drink water.

When I started to plan my year of the detox, I asked my dad that if he could do only one thing to improve his health, that it be to increase his water intake. Though his intake of alcohol has decreased, he used to drink a lot of beer and he also has coffee occasionally. I asked him one day, as I was researching more about water, how much water he’d had that day and it was about a cup. That was at the end of an entire day! To keep our bodies functioning at its best, we need to be hydrated.

Link to Source: Here

Once again big government steps in and pisses people off; this time by refusing a little girl her homemade turkey sandwich.

No turkey sandwich for you.
Story By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller

A North Carolina elementary school forced a preschool student to eat cafeteria chicken nuggets for lunch on Jan. 30 after officials reportedly determined that her homemade meal wasn’t up to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s standards for healthfulness, according to a report from the Carolina Journal.

The newspaper reported that the four-year-old girl brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice in her packed lunch from home. That meal didn’t meet with approval from the government agent who was on site inspecting kids’ lunches that day.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education requires that all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs must meet USDA guidelines. Meals, the guidelines say, must include one serving each of meat, milk and grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Those guidelines apply to home-packed lunches as well as cafeteria meals.

The Carolina Journal reported that the girl and her mother wish to remain anonymous to avoid public scrutiny, but she did write to her state representative to complain about it.

“I don’t feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home,” the mother wrote in a complaint to her state representative, Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County.

“What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly,” the girl’s mother told a reporter. “I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables.”

The story has sparked national outrage against bureaucrats and politicians who aim to force food standards and health initiatives into place through legislation and regulatory action. North Carolina Republican Party spokesman Rob Lockwood told The Daily Caller it’s the latest example of why government “intrusion” isn’t helping anyone.

“More parental inclusion, less government intrusion would go a long way to solving our nation’s woes,” Lockwood said in an email. “Today is not a strong day for big-government, nanny-state enthusiasts.”

Link to: Source

Written by Mary Hobbs

I am very concerned about the Food Bill, despite the Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson's assurances (Perspective, Jan 16) that there is nothing to be concerned about. No matter how honourable her intentions, it is not what the minister says but what is written in the bill that will be enforced.

I understand that Part 4, Clause 275 of the proposed bill gives power to enter a premises without a search warrant, and any reasonable force for the purposes of entry and search may be used. On page 210, there is apparently an allowance for being able to break open anything at the premises.

One would understand this if the officers were looking for harmful chemical substances but, for food, it seems to be quite the overkill. It seems like legislation for a police state rather than a democracy.

Another main concern is that the bill is vague. There appear to be too many complicated compliance requirements that could close down small businesses with excessive red tape, including niche restaurants, and organic and artisan food providers which are such a special part of our culture.

The red tape will also discourage entrepreneurs and more holistic enterprises in the food industry. The definition of food in this bill is apparently anything a person ingests. This is ominous for those who take responsibility for their own health and purchase vitamins and organic and free-range food from sources other than the major conglomerates. I don't want the Government to decide what food or vitamins are "safe" for me.

That is one of my rights. The majority of us don't want a nanny state monitoring our personal choices on what food and vitamins we ingest. Government has no business in our private lives.

The proposed Food Bill gives more governmental control, under the banner of "Food Safety". The title of the bill seems to be a PR line, which, in my view, doesn't give the real reason for the bill, because the legislation apparently wasn't written by New Zealanders but comes from overseas as part of a compliance to be able to "freely trade" internationally. There is nothing free about it. Many who are voting on it have probably not even read it. Perhaps they hear "Food Safety" and think, "That sounds OK."

We need our own laws in New Zealand, not 600-page laws that have been drafted in other countries where it is well-known lobbyists such as pharmaceutical corporations and seed monopolies contribute so much to overseas politics that they practically write the law (for greater control) themselves.


Added compliance costs for small businesses will not be sustainable for some. They are already overburdened with bureaucracy. We are all keen on ensuring food establishments are sensibly hygienic but burdening them with excessive compliance costs is not the way to do it.

The minister states the Government won't be concerned about sausage sizzles or home- baking sales, yet the same items will come under scrutiny in a restaurant that almost always has strict hygiene rules in place. The same goes for bartering. Larger- scale bartering will attract more regulations than smaller-scale bartering. If food safety is of concern, then why the double standards? Food is either safe, or it isn't. How can the minister tell that the humble fund-raising snarler sold at the front of a hardware store is any safer than one sold in a restaurant? Or is this just a way to collect more tax from restaurants because they are there every day?

The minister states the government does not intend to over-regulate the food industry, but also states the industry will be required to "meet more robust requirements and operate under a regulated food-control plan". The devil is in the detail (of which there is plenty) and her carefully crafted words seem to simply spell out More Bureaucracy. Nor, in its current form, does it seem that the bill will prevent food-related illnesses. To address those concerns, it is more appropriate for our laws, written in simple language, to focus on common- sense hygiene and cleanliness requirements (which the majority of restaurants are scrupulous about anyway) and eradicate synthetic additives in food, rather than overburdening small business with mind-numbing daily audits and box-ticking.

Proper food-safety law should also focus on prohibiting the import of pollens that are suspected of destroying our kiwifruit industry, prohibiting raw pork imports from offshore countries that have foot-and- mouth disease and could destroy our farming industries and, above all, prohibiting genetically engineered seed from our shores. Such legislation would alleviate the concerns of most New Zealanders, protect our food industry and give a lasting worthwhile legacy to future Kiwis.

Keep laws in New Zealand simple and written for our culture, our land, and our people. Our government should be true to our country and New Zealanders, rather than foreign interests.

Freedom for an individual and a country comes at a cost personally, nationally and internationally. Sometimes that cost is letting go of a "free trade" deal, which was never genuinely free in the first place. Let us ensure that, as a nation, we don't compromise our integrity, freedom, and independence.

* Mary Hobbs was the publisher of New Zealand Outside magazine for 10 years and is based at Aoraki/Mt Cook and also Sumner. Her fifth book, published in 2010, Matagouri and Other Pricks, The Journey to Aoraki/Mount Cook, was about battling intrusive bureaucracy in small business, followed in 2011 by a book for Christchurch, Christchurch Dreaming. She is married to restaurateur and mountain and ski guide Charlie Hobbs.

Link to: Source

by Dan Flynn

For everyone who went through the controversies surrounding passage of the Food Safety Modernization Act in the United States, what is happening now in New Zealand is going to sound very familiar.

New Zealand has introduced a food safety bill updating the nation's Food Act of 1981. The food safety reforms have broad-based support, including from such backers as Robert Bradley and Murray Burns, who own the country's largest and oldest produce market.

Just as occurred in the U.S., however, opposition from small producers and operators of roadside and farmer's markets has bubbled up in New Zealand.  It has included a petition drive that claims to have gathered 30,000 signatures, and an anonymously sponsored website that includes what the government says is misinformation about the food safety bill.All of which led NZ's Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson this week to push back on what she says is an organized campaign of scaremongering. 

"Most of what they claim is untrue and causing many people unnecessary concern," she said.Among the claims being made against the NZ food safety bill are:- People would be prohibited from growing their own food and trading it with their neighbors.- Registration would be required to provide homemade food for charitable and community events.- Food safety officers will be empowered to conduct armed raids without warrants and with full immunity from prosecution.

Wilkinson wants New Zealanders who are concerned about the bill to read the draft and suggest changes. She says both the Labour and Green Parties have food safely spokesmen people can speak with.Some "misunderstanding" about the NZ food safety bill may be based on language that is in the proposal. For example, food safety officers would get limited civil and criminal immunity when operating in good faith in the exercise of their duties. This is similar to existing NZ law in other areas, including animals, biosecurity and commerce.The NZ food safety bill has cross-party support and has passed the Parliament's gate-keeping Primary Production Select Committee after its full consultation process.New Zealand, with a population of just under five million, suffered  losses of $162 million in 2010 due to foodborne illnesses.

Link to: Source

Opinion by Nandor Tanczos

I've been hearing about this Food Bill for months now. Facebook sources tell me the Government is going to fine us for growing carrots and lock us up for giving away our excess marrows. Hell, I've got so many oversized zucchini's that I don't know what I'd do if it was illegal to give them to my friends. I decided I'd better take a look for myself.

What a stupid idea THAT was. The select committee report, including the bill as amended, ran to 378 pages of meticulously crafted tedium. Only another late night reader of legislative material can comprehend the depths of stupification of which I write. By the time I got to the end I felt as braindead as Paul Holmes on Waitangi morning.

What comes next is not legal advice – or easy reading. This is just a general explanation of what I think the bill means. I need to read the bill a few more times to get the full picture but frankly that thought makes a round with Sonny Bill Williams look appealing. If you are responsible for a food business you need to get some detailed advice about your specific situation. In addition the bill is coming up for its second reading and there will be amendments made during the Committee of the House stage after that, so it is likely to change a bit. Nevertheless it is worth being aware of some of what it does do, while getting some reassurance about what it doesn't.

Firstly, the bill will not affect people who grow or process food for themselves and their family or keep seed. The bill does affect people who sell or trade food, including barter, but how much depends of the scale and type of the operation. Keep in mind that barter is not the same as reciprocal gift giving of excess harvest. Barter is a commercial transaction (maintaining value) while gift giving is a social transaction (maintaining relationships). The bill does not mention gift giving at all but I'd argue it does not apply to it.

At the lowest end of the scale, some people who trade food will have no new obligations under the bill. They will be subject to “food handler guidelines” but these will be educative only. This will be for things like clubs providing food to members secondary to an activity, school fairs, growers that sell at the farm gate or at farmers markets, very small scale or home-based production, people who sell things like chippies only, childcare providers where food handling is no more than, say, cutting up apples. This is not a complete list and schedule 3 of the bill sets it out in more detail.

The next level is where people have to go on a public register and will have to comply with a National Programme. These will be designed to identify and deal with potential health risks from food production. NB This will almost certainly not deal with things like pesticide residues or GMOs, but will be aimed at hygiene and gross contamination etc. They will also specify what paperwork businesses need to do to reassure the Ministry that they are complying. National Programmes with be at three levels of hassle, depending on type of business.

Level 1, the easiest, will cover honey, wholesale horticultural growers and pack houses, sugar refineries, people who sell hot drinks and prepackaged foods only, ice cream and ice block makers and food transportation companies.

Level 2 will include bakeries that only make bread, residential child care, lolly makers, dehydrated fruits, crisps and popcorn, jam, pickles and preserves, water and ice, frozen food (not ice cream), cereals and biscuits.

Level 3 businesses include those that make things like alcohol and non-alcohol drinks, edible oils and margerines, food additives (incl. vitamins and minerals), flours and grains and things like dairies with pick 'n' mix lollies and garages that heat up pies. Again, a full list of what is covered in set out in schedule 2 of the bill.

The heaviest regulation comes for businesses that have to register a Food Control Plan. This includes the food retail sector (bakeries, dairies that make filled rolls, fish mongers and butchers), food service sector (on premises, home or commercial delivery, take away and mobile) and manufacturers of everything from dairy products, herbs, dips and nuts to commercially sterilised food, dry powders and vegetable proteins. The full list is set out in schedule 1 of the bill.

A Food Control Plan must begin with a detailed description of the business including the type of food it deals with and the nature of the business. It must identify all the hazards and risks and set out how the business will deal with them. It must also set out who is responsible for the plan and verification procedures.

The plan can be developed by an individual business or adapted from someone else's. It can also be based on a template that the Ministry may develop for different classes of business. The plan must be registered and approved - in practise by the local authority under powers delegated by the Ministry. There are a range of procedures for amending, approving and appealing.

The bill also has special clauses for winemakers and requires importers to be registered on a public register and comply with certain requirements.

If a lot of this looks like incredibly bureaucratic paper-shuffling, that's because it is. Making dairies write a Food Control Plan with all the on-going verification and paperwork that goes with it because they make filled rolls is kind of bizarre. What's more, if the dairy gets sold the new owner has to register a new Food Control Plan. I seriously doubt that filled rolls and samosa from the local Four Square present enough of a health risk to New Zealanders to warrant this kind of bureaucratic overkill.

In fact I don't know any significant problems with the way the system operates now that deserves this level of intervention. The current Food Act from 1981 probably does need updating but this is something far more ambitious than that. It's Ministry empire building.

The National led Government is slashing jobs from the public sector and looking at how it can further tighten the screws on the poorest and most marginalised people in our community. At the same time it is introducing legislation that will massively increase enforcement officers to ensure that – wait for it – the local chip shop is up to date with their verification paperwork.

Most of the bill is not actually about how to improve food safety. Its about how to make sure that the New Zealand food industry obediently fills out all the necessary forms, and charge them for the privilege. Make no mistake, the bill very carefully empowers the charging of fees and levies, spending 12 pages on the subject.

The bill contains provisions for the appointment and registration of 'recognised agencies and persons', 'verification agencies and persons' and 'food safety officers'. With almost every food business in the country having to register and comply with either a National Programme or a Food Control Plan, expect there to be plenty of them.

The powers of food safety officers in particular are concerning. They have the power to enter (using force if necessary) a wide range of premises with or without a warrant. The power to enter without a warrant is so unconstrained that it is hard to see why they would ever bother to apply to get one, although its such a simple process that they can do it on the phone if they leave it to the last minute. If they do search without a warrant they have to give the owner reasonable notice, unless that would interfere with the investigation. They don't even have to produce the warrant and identify themselves if “compliance would prejudice the successful execution of the warrant.” for example if they forgot to bring them.

The Food Bill isn't as bad as some of the wilder claims being made about it, but does make you wonder what on earth they were thinking. A more conspiratorial soul might comment that it lies at the intersection where bureaucratic and global food corporation's interests meet. Big businesses won't be phased by it – it probably won't be that different from what they do now, but it will be a major compliance obstacle for small and medium sized businesses. New businesses in particular need to spend time on making money to pay the bills rather than filling out redundant plans and forms. Either way this bill will be bad for the majority of food businesses and bad for consumers. The Minister needs to challenge her Ministry on it and start again.

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/The-Food-Bill-explained-and-debunked---blog/tabid/1341/articleID/243163/Default.aspx#ixzz1nFXUhq3o

Introduction by Tim Lynch

This newspaper piece shocked me awake to what is being put in our daily bread. Coming from a country that has always thought of "itself as clean and Green" brought forward the realization that we have become too complacent and it is up to us as community to read labels and/or get proper labeling.  Read on from the New Zealand Herald:

New Zealand Herald, July 21 2009 Letters to the Editor.

From R B Elliott Professor Emeritus, Child Health Research Remuera Auckland

Breads Toxicity

The standard demanding the addition of micrograms of the B vitamin folate to bread to prevent neural tube defects and possibly many other diseases has been greeted in some quarters as heresy. To put this in perspective, we should look at what else is added to bread to increase the profit of wheat growers, millers and bakers without any health benefit whatsoever.

In the wheat field, any one or more of the pesticides listed in the 11 pages of the European Union data base for these agents are used. Pre- and post- emergent herbicides are also used, as well as toxic fungicides.

Millers use anti bacterial and anti fungal agents and add similar agents to the milled flour to prevent spoilage. Any folic acid in wheat is removed in milling.

At the bakery, 'improvers' are added to produce an airier loaf. These are usually a mix of chemicals, including a large amount of ascorbic acid - Vitamin C. Oxidised vitamin C is quite toxic. Wheat farmer Bill English, when Minister of Health for the National Government, asked "Why would we worry about a bit of B vitamin that will do some good? You should see what is added to wheat at the farm".

Residents of a Sydney suburban town unite to create fantastic food gardens along their street as part of the Origin Energy Sustainability Drive Competition, where there was once an expanse of concrete footpath. The vegetable beds are watered by diverted stormwater and the produce is shared. This is very much in keeping with the GreenWay vision develop a network of green streets within the GreenWay catchment. Sustainability Drive offers a $10,000 prize to help communities live more sustainable lives. If there's an entry that you want to see win in the People's Choice, make sure you get your family and friends to vote.

Link to Source: http://bit.ly/qa125M