Editorial December 2002-January 2003:

HELLO everyone. In this final issue for 2002 I first want to wish everyone, and that includes fur people (dogs of course), a very happy Christmas and New Year season.

To start 2003 fresh I want to pass on some information that many of you are unaware of. Many subscribers will not be receiving their email with the easy click-through address, as regularly many are returned to us as undeliverable. They are not delivered because you may have sent us your address with a typographical error of some kind; OR the address you sent is no longer functional; OR your mailbox may be full; OR because your anti-virus is turning away all mail other than recognised mail.

If you have not been receiving your email please assume that something like this has happened. However, all is not lost - you can simply obtain a copy from the magazine archives on the website.

Starting with the March 2003 issue (available from the end of February) we are going back to one magazine every second month so our schedule will be for releases at the end of February, April, June, August, October and December.

Recently I have been shocked by the mercenary nature of MAF NZ and its dealings with the public. I ordered from England some Thornit powder - a simple iodine-based preparation that has been on the market from 1907 and is used for mites, canker and even just to clean the ears of dogs or horses and is far less harmful (almost 100 years and no complaints) and more effective than today's vet chemicals. This is not sold by vets in England - it is not considered a veterinary product - only one person has the sole production rights.

But when the Thornit arrived I received a letter of detainment from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) - apparently it is not on their current list of "approved" products. I spoke to them about product approval and found it had nothing to do with safety or testing - rather that a person or business must "register" it ... at a cost of $5000-$10,000 (MAF never gave me this cost - it was an Aussie vet who gave me that figure and it was for a product already registered in Aussie). This was, it was explained to me, because it was a veterinary product - it had to be, because of the use it would be put to!

To me this is simply a chemist line product as it does NOT come under British veterinary products classification. The manufacturer says that there have been no problems with the product entering NZ previously as others have bought it and not had it seized - they always mark clearly the product name, she said, so there is no question of it 'sneaking' in.

But however angry I felt, the real shocker came last! MAF told me the product MAY be on the exempt list. I immediately perked up and asked her to see if it was on the list for me - as others had imported it with no problem. Her answer was "I can check it for you but it will cost $120.00!"

I couldn't believe it - I asked her to repeat: "Are you telling me that some products are exempt but the list of exemptions is 'a secret' unless someone actually pays you to look it up?"

She confirmed.

Correct me if I am wrong but is it not part of MAF's job to tell people what they can and can't bring in? Is it legal that they have a 'secret' list of exemptions? Is it fair to ask a person importing a product to pay all that money with no guarantee the product is on the exempt list? Is there really a list at all, or is it just a way of gaining money?

If anyone has ever received a copy of this evasive 'list' would they please fax or email a copy to me? I have a really huge desire now to publish the list in its entirety!!! What do you think - is it a rort? Or is it a funds gathering operation? Should any Ministry of Agriculture charge an individual, whatever amount, to look on a list and see if an item is exempt? I would love to hear readers' opinions.

We take this opportunity to wish everyone a wonderful holiday season and a happy and prosperous New Year. - Liz