sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Bernard's Top 10: So what replaces TV news?; Thank goodness for NZ's minimum wage; Bubble in Auckland? What bubble?; The Hollywood model of work; Dilbert

Bernard's Top 10: So what replaces TV news?; Thank goodness for NZ's minimum wage; Bubble in Auckland? What bubble?; The Hollywood model of work; Dilbert

Here's my Top 10 items from around the Internet over the last week or so. As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to bernard.hickey@interest.co.nz

See all previous Top 10s here.

My must read is #5 on the future of work when we're all contractors.

1, A post broadcast world - I've been thinking a bit lately about what 'news' and journalism might look like in video form after the free-to-air channels abandon serious news to instead focus on entertainment, scandal and reality television.

It's topical.

I hope Campbell Live doesn't get the chop, but the economics of ad-funded free-to-air broadcast television are painfully ominous in the long run as advertising spending moves to the increasingly mobile worlds of Youtube and Facebook in the hunt for millenial viewership. The kids (ie anyone younger than me) don't own televisions, and if they do, they don't watch many of the ads at anything slower than X 30.

But there is hope.

Here's a useful Guardian piece on Vice Media's ability to do some serious (and some not so serious) video journalism that pays for itself through youtube ads.

Launched in March 2014, Vice News is one of the fastest growing news channels on YouTube with more than a million subscribers to date. It’s easy to see the growing appeal of online video, for advertisers at least. Three-quarters of adults watch an average of 115 hours of TV news a year compared with just 27 hours a year among 16- to 24-year-olds, according to the latest Ofcom research.

2. Thank goodness for our minimum wage - This OECD paper shows the importance of a strong minimum wage in helping to reduce poverty.

New Zealand has over the last decade or so kept increasing its minimum wage to over 55% of the median wage, which is the sixth highest in the OECD. It means a single parent with two children has to work less than 30 hours a week to get above the poverty line, although that's a national figure rather than an Auckland one.

Working for Families also helps immensely.

It's one of the reasons why poverty is much less awful for us as a first world country than say other first worlders such as United States, which has a relatively low minimum wage and a single parent has to work more than 50 hours to get over the poverty line.

Here's a chart:

3. The last hope? - Auckland's housing market seems unstoppable at the moment.

I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy, but a volcanic eruption would indeed take the steam (sorry couldn't resist the pun) out of the market (and cut GDP 46% in the process).

South Auckland and Howick seem most vulnerable, the Herald reports.

4. Bubble? What bubble? - Reading Mike Hosking, you get the feeling not even a volcano could stop the unending goodness and joy. He says there's never been a crash in Auckland and there won't be one. Worth printing this one out.

There is no crisis, there is no bubble. Increased numbers of houses will come on to the market, interest rates will rise, migration will slow ... market forces will meld their way into their own natural solution.

This is the way it's always been in this country.

Do remember the oft quoted fact - in 45 years we've never actually had a housing crash.

5. The Hollywood Model - The future of work is a hot topic in this era or the 'Rise of the Robots', 'The Second Machine Age' and the rise of the precariat and zero hours.

So this Adam Davidson piece looking at how Hollywood organises people very efficiently on discrete projects is worth a read. The strong role of unions there is important too.

A project is identified; a team is assembled; it works together for precisely as long as is needed to complete the task; then the team disbands. This short-­term, project-­based business structure is an alternative to the corporate model, in which capital is spent up front to build a business, which then hires workers for long-­term, open-­ended jobs that can last for years, even a lifetime. It’s also distinct from the Uber-­style “gig economy,” which is designed to take care of extremely short-­term tasks, manageable by one person, typically in less than a day.

With the Hollywood model, ad hoc teams carry out projects that are large and complex, requiring many different people with complementary skills. The Hollywood model is now used to build bridges, design apps or start restaurants.

6. Eradicating homelessness - The problem of homeless people is a massive one for first world economies, not least for the people themselves. 

So this Washington Post profile of homelessness researcher and activist Sam Tsemberis is worth a read. His simple but radical solution of simply providing a home first and asking questions later is actually working in some states in America.

According to academics and advocates, he’s all but solved chronic homelessness. His research, which commands the support of most scholars, has inspired policies across the nation, as well as in the District. The results have been staggering. Late last month, Utah, the latest laboratory for Tsemberis’s’s models, reported it has nearly eradicated chronic homelessness. Phoenix, an earlier test case, eliminated chronic homelessness among veterans. Then New Orleans housed every homeless veteran.

7. The IMF is coming - Australians are a little nervous about their booming housing market. Now they have a bit more to worry about because a team of five IMF experts are coming to Australia in June to kick the tyres on its housing market. Let's hope they don't notice the cheap flights to Auckland and have a quick look at our own little boomlet.

At the end of broad consultation with locals from June 11 to June 25, the IMF will issue a four-page initial assessment and a press conference, ahead of a more detailed full report months later, according to the Weekend AFR. It will recommend whether monetary policy or macro prudential regulation, such as loan-to-valuation caps, higher bank capital or adjusting risk weightings for bank balance sheets, were most appropriate.

The IMF’s investigation of the local property market is a clear sign of just how Australia is getting itself noticed for all the wrong reasons, and just how much of an outlier Australia has become when it comes to house affordability.

8. Bubble? What bubble? 2.0 - Jonno Ingerson at Core Logic has written a useful commentary on the housing market that questions the narrative about a bubble in Auckland. He highlights the role of foreign buyers and why Auckland may not be a bubble while they're still buying. The graphic below is an eyeopener for those outside Auckland and Christchurch.

here are some signs of property speculation in the Auckland market from investors and Chinese buyers. Let’s look at those two groups for a moment.

At the low end of the value range (the bottom 30% of Auckland properties by value) turnover has increased to near all-time highs. The most active group of buyers there are investors who are now picking up 42% of all the sales in this low value bracket. They do so largely at the expense of first home buyers who back in 2006 were buying around 38% of low-end properties but now are just above 26%.

The LVR speed limits have definitely had an effect in this part of the Auckland market. Incidentally, there has been little change in first home buyer turnover at the low end of the market in other parts of the country. The other demand driver in Auckland are the much discussed foreign buyers. There is no decent measure of foreign buyers available anywhere, so getting hard facts on this is difficult.

However the anecdotes support Chinese buyers in particular paying above the odds in Auckland for multiple properties. Auckland property is seen as a safe place to invest their money, but also a great place to live and educate their children. And still much cheaper than Melbourne and Sydney I might add!

9. Where's the liquidity? - All the bond buying by central banks in recent years and tougher regulation of banks acting as market makers (or players) has dried up liquidity in the bond markets at least.

Szu Ping Chan writes about what that might mean for financial markets if (or when if you're that way inclined) the US (ever) puts up interest rates.

Market liquidity, or the ease with which an investor can quickly buy or sell a security without moving its price, has evolved since the financial crisis. Investment banks, which traditionally supported liquidity in times of stress, have been shrinking their activities.

Corporate bond inventories have fallen by 75pc in the US and 50pc in Europe since 2007, according to IIF data. While much of this has been driven by banks unwinding large credit books, regulation has also discouraged them from holding large quantities of bonds that could help cushion violent swings in prices.

Mr Adams said a “dramatic revolution” of the players and risks of market making had also pushed risk “out into the shadows” of non-bank lending.

10. Totally Clarke and Dawe with Stu Pidlaw being quizzed on general knowledge...

(Updated to label Hosking article as number 4.)

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

111 Comments

#8 - In the article on QV, the author claims that the rise in house prices is a reflection on Auckland's rising importance as a financial and services hub:

"My belief is that Auckland values are in part increasing to reflect its major importance as a growing financial and services hub for New Zealand, with strong demand and growth that the rest of the country simply doesn’t have"
.
NZ Banks are 'stream lining' (read: off shoring) as much of their operations as they can. Growing financial hub? The only part of the finance industry that's experiencing a growth spurt, is Compliance.

Up
0

His argument is that it's not a bubble, because apparently bubble only formed without demand, but demand is up so it's not a bubble. The demand he tells us, come from effectively a booming economy coupled with low interest rates. So if we look at previous property bubbles, which formed in an environment of a booming economy and low interest rates, such as Dublin or many parts of the US. Then we can see demand was high, and it wasn't a bubble until after it popped. So it's a pretty orthodox explanation which makes the assumption that there is no bubble unless prices have already crashed, at which point it becomes moot anyway.

Up
0

Apparently it's not a bubble if you don't want it to be one.

Up
0

People were saying the housing bubble in the States wasn't a bubble after it had already burst.

Up
0

Congratulations Bernard - over a month without any climate doom porn in the top ten.

Up
0

...that was until you raised it! closet believer after-all...needs a fix.

Up
0

All of our problems are solved now that Elon Musk has unveiled the "Power Wall" which is a battery that's cost 4x as much as a comparable Lead acid, and will never be recycled (as opposed to lead acid which are the most recycled product on the planet).
http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8525309/tesla-energy-elon-musk-battery…

Up
0

I have had my own doubts about rising sea levels, but since I live at the beach I am seeing first hand the effects.

Talking to a very high profile NZ yachtie the other day and he confirms my own observations. The man high water in the Auckland region has increased from 3.15m to 3.25m in 30 years.

Up
0

That rise has changed the beaches I used to go to as a kid. The dunes are getting eroded away, I also noticed the coastal highway around Kaikoura has been taking a beating lately, carparks are falling into the sea.

Up
0

New Zealand is sinking?

Up
0

Re No 8 What bubble ? :Remember that EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE .

We see an expensive market , but for a Hong Kong buyer he gets a tiny 75m2 apartment in Kowloon Tong through Sotheby's Real Estate for NZ$5,000,000.00 ( HK$25,000,000.00)

He can get 10 Apartments in Auckland for the same amount of money , or five modest houses on the Shore

For the Chinese buyer our properties are so cheap its a joke , and its :-

Safe from Chinese Government 's prying eyes
There is no tax on the profit
There are absolutely no barriers to entry whatsoever
There are no hostile Aussies to contend with
It feels like home without the congestion .....Queen Street could just as well be Nathan Street (HK's Main Street)
Its a no-brainer

Up
0

Well yes everything is relative, I mean compared to Kaikohe a few hours north, prices are just ridiculous, but no, you have to go to the other side of the world to try find an example that makes Auckland look half reasonable. If you compare to relevant factors, such as a historical mean, income multiple, rent multiple you end up with a different conclusion. So the relativity, has differing relevance dependant upon the comparison.

Up
0

Very true Boatman, when I lived in London I considered buying a apartment at a ski resort in Bulgaria. They wanted about 7,000 GBP but if I had of landed in Bulgaria and they asked for 7,700 GBP I would have shrugged and paid the extra because, when you're comparing to the London market, 7,000 GBP is nothing and a $700 increase is change. But to the Bulgarian, that's a massive 10% increase.

People from Hong Kong are looking for somewhere safe to park their money and paying an extra 100k NZD to secure a place in Auckland is change to them.

Up
0

That's because the difference between Bulgaria and London is three orders of magnitude (30x), whereas the difference between Auckland and Hong Kong is only double.

Up
0

Ack vs hong kong, only double in price but orders of magnitude in disposable income.

Up
0

In this case, they have no reason to re-sell so I'll even agree with your "no tax on the profit" point !

Up
0

If you want to hear the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal the Obama administration is hoping to pass, you’ve got to be a member of Congress, and you’ve got to go to classified briefings and leave your staff and cellphone at the door.

If you’re a member who wants to read the text, you’ve got to go to a room in the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center and be handed it one section at a time, watched over as you read, and forced to hand over any notes you make before leaving.

And no matter what, you can’t discuss the details of what you’ve read

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-06/ultra-secrecy-surrounds-barack…

It's a conspiracy against the public.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. ... Adam Smith

Up
0

Yes, the TPPA is one of the most devious pieces of legislation in the past 10 years...
.
We should fight tooth and nail to not let it come to pass, because once it's in it can not be rescinded....

Up
0

Yet its known as devious and not for why its being pushed. Despite that both the major parties support it? one has to ask why?

Up
0

I thought Labour said that they are in principle in favour of FTAs, but want improved public transparency - Select Committee scrutiny, I assume is what they have in mind?.

Up
0

Yes, one certainly has to ask why, and for me, the answer is obvious.
.
Again, from Wikipedia, the section Income Inequality:
"In 2013, Joseph Stiglitz, a Keynesian economist, warned that the TPP presented "grave risks" and "serves the interests of the wealthiest."[14][109] Organized labour in the US argued that the trade deal would largely benefit corporations at the expense of workers in the manufacturing and service industries.[110] The Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Economic and Policy Research argued that the TPP could result in further job losses and declining wages.[111][112]

In 2014, Noam Chomsky warned that the TPP is "designed to carry forward the neoliberal project to maximize profit and domination, and to set the working people in the world in competition with one another so as to lower wages to increase insecurity."[113] Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who opposes fast track, stated that trade agreements like the TPP "have ended up devastating working families and enriching large corporations."[114] Economist Paul Krugman reported, "... I'll be undismayed and even a bit relieved if the T.P.P. just fades away," and said that "... there isn't a compelling case for this deal, from either a global or a national point of view." Krugman also noted the absence of "anything like a political consensus in favor, abroad or at home."[115] Economist Robert Reich contends that the TPP is a "Trojan horse in a global race to the bottom, giving big corporations and Wall Street banks a way to eliminate any and all laws and regulations that get in the way of their profits."[116][117]
.
To summerise: They think they are wealthy, or think this agreement will make them so.

Up
0

The push for a comprehensive international trade agreement which removes the constraints on the activities of multinational corporations dates from the 1960s.

" But back to the 1967 hearing. In the opening statement, before a legion of impressive Senators and Congressmen, Ball attacks the very notion of sovereignty. He goes after the idea that “business decisions” could be “frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations,” and lauds the multinational corporation as the most perfect structure devised for the benefit of mankind. He also foreshadows our modern world by suggesting that commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies should just be and will inevitably be handled by supranational organizations."
http://mattstoller.tumblr.com/post/77315135524/nafta-origins-part-two-t…

Up
0

US Senator, Elizabeth Warren (a Democrat) opposes it;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-05/why-elizabeth-warren-…

In April, she lobbed a new attack at the White House over its refusal to provide details on negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership. “The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top-secret,” she wrote on her website. “We’ve all seen the tricks and traps that corporations hide in the fine print of contracts. We’ve all seen the provisions they slip into legislation to rig the game in their favor. Now just imagine what they have done working behind closed doors with TPP. We can’t keep the American people in the dark.”

Up
0

We are trying but it really feels like you're punching in to mud, sometimes

Up
0

Is it DFTBA ?

Can you please detail for us what's in it thanks

Up
0

You can find out for yourself from what has been leaked, look for ISDs for a bit more info

Up
0

Hey Grant I have a great business deal for you. I can't tell you whats in it but trust me it's in your best interest just sign this blank piece of paper. Really you don't want to sign it? Are you a communist or a Greeny???

Up
0

Personally Peak, I'm for trusting the NZ negotiators - who's signing a blank piece of paper ? I for one fully realise that trade negotiations can't be conducted in the public domain, just like Labour's Chinese FTA wasn't, and I'm very happy with that outcome. Anyone who disagrees with that requirement of all countries involved in the negations is saying they don't want to be in a FTA, something that has been NZ's saviour in the past decade.

Up
0

It's not the trade, it's all the other clauses which make up the BULK of this thing that are about things like Investor State disputes. And do you not, at the very, very least, think that it is right that we should be able to say what should NOT appear in this thing, and trust that it won't. One of the things I do not want to see in it is that if sometime in the future it becomes clear that foreigners owning land here has become demonstrably disadvantageous to us that we are unable to change the rules because of this. It is this business of thinking that future policy, regardless of what we may want further on down the track will be being controlled by this thing.
I say NO unless we know what is in it. I find blind faith is just a step too far for me

Up
0

Oh and it seems the yanks are seeking to be able to change TPPA after the fact. This thing is all about Americans getting and making sure they keep the upper hand in the world and god help anyone who might stand in their way. They have been like that for a very long time and have done nothing in recent years to dissuade me from that view, the TPPA is no different, they elbowed their way in and now they want to run it. The only running I can see is sensible to do is the "like hell" kind

Up
0

Agree however JK is bending over backwards to keep the Americans happy, hence he'll sign if Obama can be bothered to push it. Even if not however it looks like Labour would/will anyway. The crazy thing is with more and more ppl the countries of the world will need our food. Hence we will I think have the upper hand, we just have to play a long game, instead our Pollies will throw away things like Pharmac and RMA just to help our farmers who Congress will block anyway.

Up
0

"our food" Steven? If only!
No, we will all be forced to buy Monsanto's genetically modified food. Even the seeds we want to plant in our own vege gardens will haved to come from Monsanto - we won't be allowed to use our own seeds anymore.
And Monsanto's seeds won't reproduce: we'll have to buy new seeds every year.
That's the kind of thing that scares me about this TPPA.

Up
0

If we sign the TPPA, I dont disagree with you. Just about everyone with a brain says signing it is a mine field for us in terms of "intellectual property" not least of which is parallel importing. "we'll have to buy new seeds every year" which has been happening in the poor countries like Bangladesh I believe almost causing riots, on top of that you also are locked into the correct quantities of Monsanto products which is also scary. I am not so sure that Monsanto can stop us planting our own seeds as long as they have no Monsanto GMO in them but then...

My comment on "our food" is we dont need to get access to markets via the TPPA, the buyers will come to us in due course. So we can have our cake and eat it IMHO.

Up
0

Not quite sure what you mean by your last paragraph Steven. Once we sign that TPPA, we're not allowed to grow our own food any more, so we'll have nothing to export!!

Up
0

Your own seeds aren't certified as consumable for human consumption, nor are there any checks or quality controls in place to ensure the entire food chain (including ground preparation) is cleared, checked, certified by a registered certifier.
Just as you aren't allowed to transport anyone including yourself in a potentially moving vehicle, on your own property, you will not be permitted to use potentially unsafe foods for human consumption for yourself or others. also the risk of cross contamination is also likely. this means growing or supplying produce (by gift or system of barter) is a violation of Food and Safety regulations unless you are properly and regularly inspected.

Remember the same people running this stuff say you're too dumb to wear a helmet unless we put it on your motorbike. And insist "rich dairy farmers" fix all the cracks in the yeard concrete where the cows walk and poo because of said same Food regulations. Just as they stopped us using the same water we've been using for 40 years (despite theoretically it being cleaner after the "Great Fence Off".)

Up
0

As a financial person I bet you are.

Up
0

The reason you can't talk about it, is because it's signing away our sovereignty. Our laws will now have to be approved by business interests. If a company feels our laws infringe upon its ability to churn out a profit they have the right, and the obligation on behalf of shareholders to sue the government. A small business like mine, doesn't have the time, money or inclination to sue anyone, a large multinational does. So our laws will no longer be written for the public good, but for corporate greed.

Up
0

Agree, worse small NZ business (maybe even like yours) could have US corporations lawyers shaking you down for IP "tax".

Up
0

He does have to sign. the government signs for him in secret and he gets arrested/sued if he doesn't obey.

TPPA is a scam of the highest order.

Up
0

Hi Grant,

No, I can't detail what's in it, and that's already the first thing that's wrong. If trade agreements really are for the ultimate good of the population, governments should be falling over themselves to publish the details.
.
I can, however, look for what the leaked documents say (as I suspect, can you). And these leaked documents make for alarming reading.
From Wikipedia:
"Investor–state arbitration[edit]

According to The Nation's interpretation of leaked documents in 2012, countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP's rules, even limiting how governments could spend their tax dollars.[81] As of 2012, US negotiators were pursuing an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, also known as corporate tribunals, which according to The Nation can be used to "attack domestic public interest laws".[81] This mechanism, a common provision in international trade and investment agreements, grants an investor the right to initiate dispute settlement proceedings against a foreign government in their own right under international law. For example, if an investor invests in country "A", a member of a trade treaty, and country A breaches that treaty, then the investor may sue country A's government for the breach.[82] The Australian government's position against investor state dispute settlement has been argued to support the rule of law and national energy security.[83]

On March 26, 2015 WikiLeaks released the TPP's Investment Chapter.[84] According to WikiLeaks, the accord would grant the power to global corporations to sue governments in tribunals organized by the World Bank or the United Nations to obtain taxpayer compensation for loss of expected future profits due to government actions.[85]"
.
As is already happening in Australia, where Phillip Morris is suing the government for its law on plain packaged cigarettes.
I believe Veolia is suing the Egyptian government over its plan to increase its minimum wage.
Germany is being sued by the Swedish Vattenfall over its decision to close its nuclear reactors.
And, the most galling example I could find at present, is the Renco group suing the Peruvian government. The Peruvian government closed a smelting operation which the Renco Group was operating in Peru, because they had delayed environmental improvements. The town where the smelter is operating La Oroya, is listed as one of the most polluted towns in the world, which has proven harmful to its citizens, especially children.
Instead of carrying out the improvements it had agreed to, the company thought its money would be much better spent on suing the government.
.
Are you serious when you say you trust the negotiators?

Up
0

Actually no, I believe the newspapers etc can submit a we want to know due to US transparency laws.

Up
0

Sure, they can, and what they get back is "need to know basis".

Up
0

No I dont agree here. Unless its classified as a military secret they can and do go to court to get the info released, this is why we know as much as we do.

Up
0

No, skudiv is right, the US media and other interested parties get told to sod off when they place FOIA requests with the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR)

http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/04/21/yaleip-watch-effort-to-open-tpp-upda…

"In December 2013, IP-Watch filed its lawsuit to enforce the public’s right of access under the Freedom of Information Act. IP-Watch’s lawsuit prompted USTR to re-review and release additional, less redacted email communications and certain other documents that it had previously withheld—effectively admitting that the agency had for years kept far too much information secret. But the agency continues to refuse to release any documents containing information regarding the TPP’s actual contents, or the ITAC members’ detailed comments on the draft language of the agreement. Most notably, USTR has invoked the national security classification system to withhold any documents that contain U.S. proposals, negotiating positions or draft language for the agreement. USTR has argued that disclosure of such information to the public would harm foreign relations, even though all such material has already been disclosed to the other countries participating in the negotiations."

Any trade deal who's details have to hidden from the general public can not be a good thing.

Up
0

The way I read this is its still before the court? "If IP-Watch prevails in its motion for summary judgment, the public will have much greater opportunity to scrutinize the TPP." ie its still being fought over.

Now I'm not a lawyer but a summary judgement is only asked for and only succeeds if the argument is over-whelming?

Up
0

Both sides have filed for summary judgement, Its legal manoeuvring.

The key point here is that you said "Actually no, I believe the newspapers etc can submit a we want to know due to US transparency laws." then disagreed when skudiv pointed out that asking and getting are two different things.
Key points of that article are that they asked for the information in 2012, and they are still trying to access the information 3 years later. They have been stonewalled and sandbagged by national interest classifications, and unresponsive govt depts. Even if they do eventually win, what is the bet that USTR will only give them the information in the original request? 3+ years out of date.

Those transparency laws are toothless if it takes 3+ years to get information released.

In short, the public is not going to be allowed to know what they are being signed up to until its a done deal. Time to stock up on KY, someone is about to get shafted.

Up
0

Freedom of Information is dead.
.
So is investigative journalism, especially in this country. Actually, it's not quite dead yet, but slowly being killed. Look at what happened to Nicky Hager.

Up
0

yes interesting that the so called "lovers of freedom" such as say whaleoil would seem be happy to see real harm done to ppl who expose their side.

Up
0

The US government is already on record as stating that foreign investments are part of it global interests and for pursuing growth and trade strategies for the US. It also directly stated that Monsanto was one of several US companies leading the field in that development and trade, and that _it_was_in_the_interests_of_the_United_States_of_America_ that such countries are recognised as having the national interests of the US at stake. AND therefore a challenge to one of those companies, is a directly challenge to the interests _and_security_ of the United States and it's Government.

Therefore, the TPPA has already been compromised. The US corporations pushing it are _already_ recognised as "national interests/security", and as such are considered valid secrets by the US government.

Up
0

"national security" and "commercially sensitive", "still under negotiation"

Up
0

TV and journalism has failed because they've largely been reduced to PR spin/ infotainment and lack both credibility and relevance, especially for younger generations.

Up
0

It costs too much to do proper journalism IMHO. Hence what we see is either too shallow or regurgitated PR releases.

Up
0

The cost is reduced access: Anybody who dares ask "difficult" questions gets blacklisted by John Key's press secretary. Journos love to rub shoulders with these people, so they play the game. This is why not even one so called journalist dug into the dirty laundry of Bill English's seedy ties to SCF... They could kiss goodbye any future contact with the man that didn't involve lawyers.

Up
0

Nah it has nothing to do with cost, if people wanted proper journalism then we would get it. People want the crap that passes for television, and that's what we get. People don't want Campbell live, they want NCIS. There are heaps of 'journalists' doing well researched articles on the fringe blogsphere, and they rely on donations, and in some cases gaudy advertising.

"People don't want to hear 'man bites dog', that's not what they know, they want to hear dog bites man. People don't want news, they want olds"

Up
0

People want GMO free food and no TPPA... like with the media, they aren't going to get the important stuff no matter how much they want it. too many vested interests in the bureaucracy.

Up
0

Speak for yourself, I have no problem with eating GMO food, there is no known safety issue with eating GMO food (not in peer-reviewed real science), is just as nutritious and tasty, and generally has less pesticides used on it than overpriced, inefficiently produced organic food.

Up
0

then you are in the minority. Many of the rest of us don't want your contaminant

Up
0

You mistaken about the pesticide use. GMO crops are being sprayed more than any other crop.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bronner/herbicide-insecticide-use_b…

Glyphosate residue accumulate in crops:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

And the jury is still out over whether or not it is carcinogenic.
However, any method of farming and producing food which increases the use of chemical pesticides which 'may or may not' be detrimental to human health, let alone environmental health is to be discouraged.

Up
0

None of those links show that GMO crops are being sprayed more than other crops. Evidence?

How about some real science instead of a couple of blogs and a study (at least its actual science) that shows the maximum level of Glyphosphate residues in Roundup ready soy beans in that study is so ridiculously low (8.8mg/kg) that unless you eat 1/5th of your body weight of soy per DAY you are not likely to ingest enough to have any adverse effects. (Reference dose is 1.75mg/kg body weight).

Also note that the study has been criticised for the conclusions it draws about organic soy being more nutrious, as it does not control for several factors :(I) soybean variety (genetics of the soybeans),
(II) yield level, (III) soil properties, and (IV) fertiliser use.

Here's some peer reviewed published science showing how GMOs reduce pesticide use over conventional crops.

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/11/05/gmo-meta-study-pestici…

22% more food grown, with 37% less pesticide use.. Now thats a good result.

Up
0

More GMO crops are being planted, and the use of herbicides is on the rise. From this article, the reason seems to be that the near complete reliance has created roundup resistant weeds, which require more, and more often, applications of other herbicides.

Also, the genetic literacy project seems to be quite biased in favour of genetic engineering....but that could just be me...

http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

The figures you quote are from a meta analysis of studies that are not so recent. Up until 2003 GMO were hailed as panacea...but now RR weeds are popping up everywhere and require more herbicides.

Up
0

Pragmatist...you do understand what Roundup ready means?.....where the heck do you get your less pesticide used from?
There is plenty of information that refutes your claim of GMO food being cheaper. and more efficient.....

Do you know what a synergistic effect is? And why is the pesticide industry protected from publishing inert ingredients of the labels? Maybe you don't give a sh^t that inert ingredients can include e.g. mercury....

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/roundup-weed-killer-is-…

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/02/04/roundup-g…

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15862083

Up
0

Yes, i do know what roundup ready means, it means one application of glyphosphate will usually kill all the (unwanted) pest plant species, without killing the desired crop species, as opposed to needing several different herbicides to kill different pest species.

A Mercola article isn't worth its weight in toilet paper, the guy is a quack that pedals whatever will make him a quick buck, including $4000 sunbeds, a quote from his site: "Enjoy the health benefits of the sun's UVA and UVB, red light, and infrared energy…" Err, hang on, don't we put on sunscreen to block UVA and UVB to prevent melonoma?? He is anti-vaccination, has been repeatedly warned by the FDA for pedalling amazing cure-alls that dont work. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

As for your third link, Glyphosphate is a herbicide, not a soft drink.. don't drink it!

Up
0

"es, i do know what roundup ready means, it means one application of glyphosphate will usually kill all the (unwanted) pest plant species, without killing the desired crop species, as opposed to needing several different herbicides to kill different pest species."

Then no you don't know what it actually means.

Normally you CANT spray your cereal with the herbicide because it would kill the cereal plant !

Your claim is the GMO means _less_ pesticide/herbicide.

Your claim is clearly wrong because by using the RoundUp Ready strain of cultivar, it means that the cereal WILL be sprayed with the herbicide. Before RR = nil, after RR = >0. That is not less.

The difference is that without RR, selective herbicides and careful timing have to be used to ensure the kill rates are limited to the nuisance plants/pests.
What happens on site, is that with RR such methods don't need to be observed and the owner can just pour on a broadspectrum glyphosate, and it's cheap and plentiful and "safe". so they can buy lots of it from Monsanto and don't need to be particularly careful with it.

that's what it _means_.

[ad: AND what it also means is they have lots of "scientific" reports from your beloved PhD's, so they can't even be held accountable for any damage as the company just says they did their diligence duty by getting reports, and the scientists say they followed correct procedures to make their reports. So even if it DID go all "balls up" (say, like if they linked cancer to smoking cigarettes) they would have very little legal or financial liabiliity, 'cause "science".

Up
0

*Then no you don't know what it actually means.

Normally you CANT spray your cereal with the herbicide because it would kill the cereal plant !*

If you were stupid enough to spray your cereal crop with a non-selective herbicide thats what would happen. Now go read about selective herbicides eg broadleaf herbicides which you can spray on your cereal crops without harming them.

Up
0

sometimes cereal crops are uneven or in a wet year they keep growing and it's getting late. So out comes the sprayer and some glyphosate. Just to prove it to you I provide links. Yes I've worked on farms where this was common practice.

In several north western European countries glyphosate can be applied before crop harvest for weed
control, to enhance ripening on non-determinate crops to reduce crop losses, and to help manage
determinate crops in wet seasons. Different countries have different recommendations for crops but
the common factor is that the bulk grain sample must have dried to a maximum of 30% moisture
content. At this point it is physiologically mature and the grain is filled, so glyphosate will not be
translocated into the grain from the plant. Growers are recommended to use the lowest appropriate
recommended dose for their target use.

In several north western European countries glyphosate can be applied before crop harvest for weed
control, to enhance ripening on non-determinate crops to reduce crop losses, and to help manage
determinate crops in wet seasons. Different countries have different recommendations for crops but
the common factor is that the bulk grain sample must have dried to a maximum of 30% moisture
content. At this point it is physiologically mature and the grain is filled, so glyphosate will not be
translocated into the grain from the plant. Growers are recommended to use the lowest appropriate
recommended dose for their target use.
http://www.glyphosate.eu/system/files/sidebox-files/clarification_of_pr…

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/11/roundup-dumped-crops-right-harve…

Up
0

1) Given the lack of evidence that low residual levels of roundup are harmful to humans, so I'm less than concerned.

2) You do realise that they are doing this to non-roundup ready crops right? Spraying round-up on round-up ready crops will have no effect on the crop ripening. It even says so in the Round application guide eg."If the crop is a Genuity® Roundup Ready®
canola variety, the preharvest application will
not provide adequate drydown of the crop.
However, weed control is uncompromised and
harvest management benefits will also accrue
from green weed drydown."
So if this was supposed to be an anti-GMO point it has backfired on you.

Up
0

1) Given we dont know and can avoid ingesting it its better to err on caution.

Up
0

Given that all the food we eat has been genetically modified by one means or another you should probably avoid food altogether on that basis.

Up
0

Things that will "modify" by selection are a whole lot different from say, splicing genetic material from a fish onto that of oats, something that just would not happen, ever, in nature

Up
0

Modern intensive agriculture has become dependent on large corporate chemical and GM seed companies, who wield huge amounts of political clout.
I don't think it's sustainable and nor do many of my large scale cropping friends in Alberta and California. If you have a choice, buy direct or at least be as selective as you can. While farming has fallen into the dependence on chemicals trap, the processing industry has grabbed it with both hands, it's here that the devil is doing his best.
These are nothing more than my personal observations as I wonder through the ever changing world of agriculture. Unfortunately it's now a heavily indebted world, a lot of farmers can no long make healthy choices and corporates are going to become dominant players in every single field.
This is a clip done by a farmer talking to other farmers in the USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEX654gN3c4

Up
0

Go away Pragmatist, you're embarrassing yourself.

Read about them? already have. Licensed to use them, do use them. Personally, on farms.
Including some use of round-up, but I don't full paddock spray outs or cropping, so I don't use large volumes of glyphosate.

As the manager, license holder, and director of the company is my _job_ to know about them, how they're used, attend the training courses, see that they're used and stored properly and safely, and to stay current.

Up
0

So you were just being totally disingenious before when you stated you can't spray cereal crops with herbicides when you knew you can? Why am I not surprised.

Up
0

I think the pesticide industry has a similar scapegoat as the food industry loophole.

Often "ingedients" (components) have to be declared. But an ingredient is an essential part of the working product (like alcohol in alcoholic beer). If it's a packing or stablising agent like the chemical used to wash the bottles it doesn't have to be disclosed, likewise any processing aids, such as stablisers to stop chemicals in the product interacting with the plant or containers, then those aren't ingredients, they're "processing and storing aids" and don't have to be disclosed.
Also in the food industry they have started listing products at the source. If a really nasty preservative is derived from heavily processing Rosemary with solvents and heat treatments, it will be labelled as "naturally derived Rosemary essence" rather than it's chemical name, if at all.

GMO is less efficient as the soil doesn't naturally support the extra demand for nutrients that are placed on it and few places have suitable conditions for a full yield. (here it is too cool and the light doesn't start growth and maturation early enough). So the places that are favourable for sizeable harvest are usually heavily maintained with artificial inputs to force them to have nutrient and other conditions (eg water, topography). These inputs and the cost to transport and apply them is not low cost.

Up
0

*GMO is less efficient as the soil doesn't naturally support the extra demand for nutrients that are placed on it and few places have suitable conditions for a full yield.*

Are you saying GMO crops are less efficient at turning nutrients into growth/yield, or are you simply admitting that GMO crops do actually have a higher yield per acre?

Up
0

What I'm telling you is you don't get something for nothing.
GMO do not have a higher yield for the nutrients used.

so yes, per _hectare_, they look better _on_paper_. But as many NZ farmers are finding with modern and high sugar grasses, they aren't persistent in the soil and the nutrient demand makes them inefficient (due to damage they do).

That is where the biotech farming is leading the field. We look at what makes the soil a living biomass in it's own right, with it's own nutrient cycles. We aren't "Organic(tm)" so we can use anything safe to promote healthy soil and health soil microflora and microfauna, and since it's not a brand name, we don't need to pay certifiers to get an advertising advantage.

But we also don't use herbicides and pesticides or GMO crops which damage or imbalance the nutrient system. We get _less_yield per hectare _on_paper. But unlike GMO our food is actually good to eat, and we're far less drought/irrigation or fertiliser dependent and require far less piped water and the stock require less nutritional suppliments and very few antibiotics (and unlike organics we can use antibiotics on sick animals rather than just sell them to a traditional style farm, or like the GMO "strip mine" feedlots, just slaughter anything that's not looking peak). which means we're actually _more_ efficient at the conversion process. My Nitrogen cycle at this stage was in the low 20s, and we're about halfway through the transition process on this farm.

Up
0

And then there is this study from NZ.

http://mbio.asm.org/content/6/2/e00009-15

Up
0

Now that is interesting, thanks.

Up
0

Its the volumes being produced that amaze me, I've stopped using the stuff personally.

http://www.ccpia.com.cn/en/info.asp?classid=L1003&newsid=L5010915041504…

Up
0

Holy crap that's bad news for the pasture renewal (sprayout) crowd !
antibiotic resistant eColi strains would be a disaster - I wonder if that's why in Europe and US (where spraying poisons used to be widespread, cheap, and popular) they have such major eColi issues.

Up
0

The thing is freedom of choice. I consider that I should have a choice on what I buy and if I dont want to eat GMO food that should be my right. If you want to eat GMO food that is also your right. My choice is to buy NZ produce grown by NZ farmers where I can and I also buy some organic and free range produce as I think it tastes better and the animals have better lives, eg milk and eggs.

You clearly know nothing about organic food, it has no pesticides or it isnt organic. GMO food can actually potentially have very high levels of pesticides as the GMO crop is optimised to not be effected by specific pesticides. In terms of safety, the case is indeed weak but the jury is out on that.

The thing is to have the right to choose.

Up
0

*You clearly know nothing about organic food, it has no pesticides or it isnt organic.*

Well, that is no surprise, you don't actually know what organic means. You got suckered by big-Organic.

Organic farmers are allowed to use organic pesticides, and the scary thing is, if it isn't on the banned list, they are allowed to use it, it doesn't have to be tested or approved first.

One of the most hilarious outcomes of this is that GMO Bt-Corn is considered evil by all the deluded pro-organic buyers, but Bacillus thuringiensis aka Bt, is an approved organic pesticide. So if the corn makes it itself, its evil and nasty, but if the organic farmer sprays it on his crops, its all cool and dandy.

Up
0

Whats the long term biological impact on eco and bio systems that interact with the Bt-Corn? Clearly there's a short term effect of the pesticide, but I'm suspecting like the rye grass endophytes (a fungus that grows inside, between the cell walls of a living rye grass plant) it has ruminant and human biological effects as well as microbiological ones (not the least of which for the ryegrass, is LSD, the gathering of which produces LSD (water soluble) and ergot poisoning (compounds which aren't water soluble). Historically used in entheogenics (religious drugs: http://www.neurosoup.com/masonry-and-the-mysteries-of-eleusis-revisited… ) . So I'd be extremely careful introducing novel or unnatural combinations into your cereals or foods.

Up
0

An excerpt from the introduction of the 268 page European commission 2010 report on the GMO research they funded. .

" The main conclusion
to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research
projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research,
and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is
that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se
more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.
Another very important conclusion is that today’s biotechnological
research and applications are much more
diverse than they were 25 years ago, which is also reflected
by the current 7th EU Framework Programme."

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_r…
Feel free to trawl through all 268pages if you wish. Funded by the EC, research done by real scientists with real PhDs.

http://www.psmag.com/health/scientific-debate-gm-foods-theyre-safe-66711 also links to statements from WHO, US National Academy of Sciences, AAAS that all basically say there is NO evidence that GMO foods are a risk to human health.

That is the scientific evidence about GMOs.

Follow the source of the anti-GMO FUD, and invariably you end up at someone that makes money selling overpriced organic stuff, or homeopathic remedys or some other quackery, almost guaranteed not to have any relevant qualifications or any idea of what constitutes a well constructed scientific study, let alone actual peer reviewed studies with published data. Mercola being a prime example.

Up
0

Yes and you could even theoretically drink a glass of roundup
and top scientists are on tape spraying people with Agent Orange saying it's safe, and similar PhD's developed and sold DDT for many years..... heck even as late as last year we were using Quaternary Sanistisers in New Zealand milk plants as well as various surfectants on direct contact food surfaces...

Those santisers were sold by those companies. Ecolab, FIL, De-Laval !!!! The have MANY MANY PhD's working for them.

You know what "Pragmatist"?
This dairy farmer...me... was the _only_ one of all those people to run an on-site control test to find if the restricted quat sanitiser or surfectants were present outside of the In Place Cleaning sanitiser that all those experts were pointing at.

YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE?
In 2009 *I* used DCn Nitrate/Nitride Inhibitor _in_the_field_ alongside plots without DCn. My conclusion was that it had no substantial effect.... and even though the company that sold the product _insisted_ that there was _absolutely_ *NO* way that the DCn could get into the milk. *I* rejected it's use, based on (a) it's an inhibitor that is design for soil endurance, (b) plants ingest water-soluble compounds through their root-soil contact, (c) DCn is marginally-to moderately water soluble (company recommends twice seasonal application as it is not soil permanent, (d) Urea, Urease, and Nitrides are highly soluble (Urea 1:1 by weight) in water, (e) once a water soluble compound is in a plant, transpiration and rotting back to soil are the ONLY exit vectors, (f) DCn is designed for persistence therefore it WILL transfer to plant tissue. (g) It is water soluble and binds to Urea/Urease which means it is migatory across the ruminant gut (tests and farmers have fed cows Urea to act as a fertiliser spreading system, it's not good for them but as long as not too high a concentration (you remember Phillipus von Hohenheim (1493ad) ? and plenty of water is provide, it's not too bad either. yet Urea is carried by blood (collected, transported) its primary scrub area is the kidneys but as any one who wears the same clothes for too long can tell you, Urea (an Ammonia related compound) also sweats through the skin, and is testable in milk. DCn binds to Urea/Ammonia, so it is reasonable to be very suspicious that DCn WILL be passable from soil, to plant, to animal, to human food.
The PhD's and all those experts said NO.
I said "yes" and I'm not using it.
No so long ago, big news story, Fonterra milk found to be contaminated with DCn through food chain.

So Thank you Pragmatist. You validate me.
This Kiwi farmer can indeed out predict HUNDREDS of PhD's and big Ag people.

And as I have stated, No GMO in the general food chain. It does not isolate, it's adpation and evolution have not been safely predicted by all those massively wrong PhD's you love so much; PhD's that have been misinformed... no, what's the scientific terminology... unexposed to new pertinent data on the matter (but will change their tune at the drop of a hat if there's some new data and a buck for research in it). To start with (a) many compounds are only recently been identified as having fringe effects on the environment, (b) the SPECIES of bacteria and vegetation THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT INTRODUCING from places that aren't native anywhere (because Introduced species have always been so benefical) and haven't been fully studied in their own (non-existent) native habitat, (c) as per my previous example (endophyte) the effects are not easily predictable and can be quite Chaotic in the field something that NONE of those studies will have tested (as there are NO testing models (or funding, especially in neutral hands) for that kind of research.

So there's your "science" just more mumbo-jumbo with no more real truth to it than the Cardinal's canon, all just sophistry and spot observations.

What proof do I have of my system? Apart from a few thousand years of human and natural survival?
(a) With me there is a choice what you eat, no matter if you're GMO, Organic, biotech(that's me), high input, low inputs.
(b) I've put MY money where my mouth is (literally and figuratively). I did the tests, I did the research, I ran half and half fields, and did notes (yes I even did notes).

Look again at that last (b) Pragmatist.

I'VE _done_ the work. On the Soil, with the animals, with the histories, and gathered the observations.

Just remind me again how much of YOUR "science" have you done? read some papers? some publications with editorial reviews, written to fit a theory or reputation? All nicely laid out and spaced well? Under controlled site testing away from the real operational systems that such things would be exposed to?

Now I ask you, which one of is doing the real _science_? And which of us is practicing the sophistry of Natural Philosophy.

You've got alot of work before others need to take the risk from your poorly supported belief structure "Pragmatist".
PS -do you actually know what a "pragmatist" is? And what role they take IF, WHEN, their theories are proven wrong?? 'cause you really got a pair trying to sell your GMO-BS here

Up
0

Cowboy, there is a push in the wine industry away from glyposate. Lets look at an average Vineyard, it has grass and weeds under the rows it cannot reach with a mower, they spray to make the place look tidy and stop weeds growing up through the canopy and competing with plants.
The problem is the cumulative effect of this over time. Say I'm on reasonable soil, so I grow grass and weeds well, I spray at a rate 4-6 liters a hectare, 4 times a year, some vineyards more, then mow down the center of the rows.
Well 10 years pass and that's a lot of roundup a hectare, many vineyards have been doing it 30 years or more and the resilient ( resistant) weeds become dominant and the spray rep has a a solution, up the rate, he's a salesman after all.
The vineyard manager has staff under him and it's a quiet day and he needs to find work for them, there's a few weeds appearing, place could look untidy and reflect badly on him, so he sends staff out spraying, you know the drill better than me.
So here we are a few decades later and of some vineyards production is starting to decline significantly. No one wants to point the finger, that could land you in court, especially with TPP coming. So we set up an organisation called, Sustainable wine growing.
The reality is that some of these vineyards have enough glyphosate for several lifetimes. With mechanical weeders and better sensors we will control weeds under vines but having worked in areas where constant cultivation took place, I know that will destroy soil structure and you end up with soil more like sand under your vines and some form or erosion.
Then you get into mealy bug control, it's a bastard as its a vector for Leafroller, the best solution is an organophosphate, so we get a points system for chemical use, so the big boys can still use it and be 'sustainable'. I think it's mostly controlled with pyrethroids some synthetic, they are a kill all solution, I don't use them but I'm a little guy. I'm talking out of school here but I'm pretty sure the same goes for most large scale horticulture and pastoral farming. The problem is a corporate or large scale one, they are big they have volume, that means they cannot run it like a family unit. I was involved with one large vineyard and chemical use was a big deal, but it took them 3 days to spray the vineyard ( 3 to 4 tractors)and if it looked like rain they had to spray,it took me a couple of hours so I waited to see if the rain would eventuate. They used a tonne of chemical, it amounted to thousands of dollars a hectare per year.
Our best friend is the EU, they stop a lot of chemical use on NZ vineyards that other markets wouldn't have a problem with.
They were motivated to reduce dependence on glyphosphate, but had a problem with scale and labour costs are high in NZ. The Wine industry is motivated to change, they have made mistakes but I feel there is a genuine wish to improve on past practice, the problem will be with large scale producers with a lot to lose in a bad year.

I'm afraid that as we go more and more corporate, the quality of our food will be compromised like it has in the States. We need inter generational farms that way there is a long term outlook and a genuine connection to the land, not some manager on the way up the ladder, licking butts all over the place.
In the Central valley you can see the resistant plants popping up everywhere, glyphosate resistance will be a big problem if it isn't already.

http://www.winesandvines.com/template.cfm?content=135420&section=news

http://pubs.sciepub.com/aees/1/3/2/index.html

Glyphosate use has gone from 300.000 tonnes to 1.3 million in a few years, the biggest user will be China on its way to be a huge exporter of Ag produce. Spraying Glyphosate on green crops before we eat them is a practice I think should be banned. I was in the UK and it was common practice on the farm I worked on, you sprayed the cereal crops and they ripened all together none of this uneven stuff, well really they died together, but who could tell the difference and that was in the 80's, it's still common practice.

http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_1_intr…

http://www.prweb.com/releases/glyphosate_agrochemical/technical_glyphos…

http://www.agrimoney.com/marketreport/pm--markets-corn-futures-hurt-by-…

Up
0

Check that link out that was provider earlier, oh so safe glyphosate, increases bacterial anti-biotic resistance in eColi, even the PiledHigherandDeeper (PhD) crowd agree.

If the cost of living for the poor was low enough, you could even get some cheap labour to do that semi-skilled work for you. The cost of living just needs to low enough that it makes the job worth doing, while hiring doesn't stop you being price competitive. It's low semi-skill, so not huge investment or commitment to training, it's easy so most folks could do it, dont need to make a career out of it so dont need huge commitment for those doing the job, much better for nz economy, much much better for the environment.

Up
0

from one of your links

You're right about glyphosate not breaking down in the environment too quickly. I worked as an extractionist in an agricultural testing lab for several years, and my main task was testing grains for glyphosate. It was in MOST of the samples I tested, and these were food products being shipped internationally. That's one of the scariest qualities of this particular herbicide - it just hangs around in your driveway, and lawn (and fields) for years, not to mention your liver.
Its frustrating when Monsanto says things like "well, these tests are not at realistic concentrations..." Frustrating because there are whole organs in our bodies that act as filters, which end up accumulating the toxins that the body doesn't know what to do with. The concentration in ones lawn may not be dangerous, but what about the concentration in your liver or kidneys?

Up
0

The other one to wonder about for vineyards is the wood post treatment. Apparently there are enough posts per section that rain leeches the treatment out into the soil in a record-able quantity. So the Q is are the vines and then the grape picking that up. Then mix these chemicals with RR....hmmm sounds a great mix.

Up
0

They will all be steel in the future, new steel posts are good. The question that needs an answer is, what do we do with the old posts, we are not allowed to burn or bury them and its hard to find another solution. Some vineyards have large piles of broken posts they don't know what to do with, and soon they will be huge piles and then massive.

Up
0

*Check that link out that was provider earlier, oh so safe glyphosate, increases bacterial anti-biotic resistance in eColi, even the PiledHigherandDeeper (PhD) crowd agree.*

Did you actually read the full text of that report, or did you read the headline and jump to a conclusion? Roundup increased the effectiveness of some antibiotics, and decreased the effectiveness of others. Interesting, and worth further study, but far from a slam-dunk against roundup...

Up
0

I read the abstract of course (that's what it's for). And checked what they considered to be the causal nature of the result against known issues and activities (bacterial resistance via cell wall opening behaviour). If _you'd_ read it, you would realise that glyphosate WAS mentioned as resistance in eColi (a very common organism, and one in many of our water and food supplies, including in supermarkets, and the different strains of eColi can use plasmid exchange to alter human gut eColi which has good potential for making humans very sick (up to and including dead sick). ... not a good combination with antibiotic resistance (since eColi is a primary mechanism in the gut, which is why your appendix is design to carry a reboot collection of probiotic micro-organisms) ... problem with eColi is it doesn't take much to push it from probiotic to pathogen, even dead bacteria and cell remnants have been known to accomplish that process.

Up
0

As opposed to the likes of Monsanto etc doing what they do for purely altruistic reasons.

Up
0

or indeed any GMO, lots of hype out there but one thing seems to come through GMO doesnt achieve what it claims to and costs on hell of a lot more. Given these there seems to be no case to rush out and use GMO....except if you own shares in Monsato...

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php/news/archive/2015-articles/16124-brazi…

Up
0

Big anything is the problem we have today especially anything big to do with food. I can put up with this car manufacturer or that cell phone maker trying to outdo each other and take the lion's share of a market but big food be it big organic or big gmo or anything else is just plain nasty. When you look at the likes of Monsanto and others taking out patents on natural plants etc then I'm afraid they need cutting down to size. Control of world's food by a few large corporations should be fought tooth and nail by proponents of both gmo and organic foods.

Up
0

Especially as there seems to be little or no advantage to scale

Up
0

Just the TAX one.

Up
0

which is hardly a good reason.

Up
0

I don't think there is any need for us to use GM in NZ, and most people prefer not to eat GM. We have the systems and a market for GM free food. Doesn't it make sense to exploit that?

Up
0

Bernard.
#1... then #6. How about actually putting some information in there. #6 is a perfect example of your post-news world.

Up
0

#1

The last week I spent some time looking on trademe for a particular item in a category and used a keyword to refine that search.

Today I get an email from trademe "helping" me by telling my of a whole bunch of new items that fall into the criteria of my search. There is no facility within that email to turn off such notifications.

I am pissed off with this unsolicited advertising. Keep in mind I sell on trademe so do need to receive notifications pertaining to those.

Edit. I think I have managed to disable this new type of notification by getting into my setting. Still a PITA.

Up
0

#4. I don't know why I bother to read places like Interest.co, stratfor.com and zerohedge, plus the valuable links provided in the comment streams to economic sites around the world, when I could just read Mike Hosking for all the economic advice I need.

Up
0

Then what would you do with the rest of the day :)

Up
0

... you could spend some time in a fine café , where no one tugs pony-tails anymore , and whose owners are indebted to their superb publicity agent , who just so happens to be Mike Hosking's good lady wife ...

Bit of a coincidence there , huh !

Up
0

Not much of a coincidence really, that the ponytail puller would do so at a cafe where he was visiting his friend who owned the cafe. The puller is all about giving business to his mates.

Up
0

#3 is comedy gold from the NZ Herald: The impact of volcanic eruption in Auckland could be catastrophic - a worst-case eruption near the CBD could cause a 47 per cent reduction in gross domestic product.
Apart from the fact that GDP is probably the last thing you would worry about if the CBD blew up in an eruption, disasters almost always increase GDP.

Up
0

Hosking is NZ's biggest idiot, why does the taxpayer fund him to spout off his narrow and biased opinions on TVNZ, this country is starting to resemble Nazi Germany, the only people allowed on the TV in primetime are people who are spuikers for an inept government.

Up
0

the more he speaks, the more I go WOW even stupid people can become rich. he contradicts himself all over the place.

Up
0

Is #2 adjusted for prices of products and services in the relative countries?

Up
0