Mandatory country of origin labelling
Tomorrow I will present my 37 thousand signature petition calling for mandatory country of origin labelling of all fresh and single component food to the Health Select Committee.
It’s hard to believe that both the Labour and National parties oppose something as basic as our right to know where our food comes from. We have country of origin labelling for footwear, clothing and wine - so we can work out where our jandals and tee shirts come from - but not our food. Why on earth not?
Incredibly our food authority the New Zealand Food Safety Authority opposes it- it says it conflicts with our free trade liberalisation policy and could somehow interfere with our export markets!
What nonsense! Most exporters proudly display made in New Zealand on our exports - they say it gives them a competitive advantage. And all our major trading partners have country of origin labelling. So if it doesn’t interfere with their exports, how could it interfere with ours?
NZFSA says country of origin labelling should be left to producers to use as a marketing tool, if they so wish!
Can you believe it! So if it suited a manufacturer or retailer they could have a label, but if it didn’t they need not.
All other forms of labelling are underpinned by regulation - our ingredients and nutrition labels, for example. Country of origin labelling of fresh food should be the same. There’s virtually no cost in point of sale labelling of fresh produce and its simple to implement - just put a label near the cauliflowers.
So let’s get on with it.
July 29th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Yay Sue!!!
July 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Sue
I hope the Parliament take as much notice of this petition as the Greens (and Labour) have taken of the petition in support of repealing the anti smacking legislation.
In other words I hope it ends up in the same bin.
Now if you were serious about democracy I would be in full support however you cannot just have a little bit of democracy or just the bits you like, you either respect the will of the people or you do not.
July 29th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
“Most exporters proudly display made in New Zealand on our exports - they say it gives them a competitive advantage.”
If this is the case, then why do you need to force them to use mandatory Country of Origin labelling? Surely if your wacky idea is so great, every retailer/manufacturer/peddler of goods will be lining up to do it voluntarily.
Or maybe, just maybe, the idea isn’t as good as you think it is.
“Can you believe it! So if it suited a manufacturer or retailer they could have a label, but if it didn’t they need not.”
Imagine that… what a disgusting thought, something being left up to the consumer and the producer… shocking. The thought that people might volutnarily come to an agreement..
July 29th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Mike,
I think you may have misunderstood Sue’s argument. She’s saying that NZ food exporters label because it gives them a competitive advantage - but that those importing food to NZ don’t because it doesn’t i.e that if consumers knew where some of the food was coming from it may change their decision to purchase.
It is precisely because the consumer is being left in the dark that you can’t claim she’s arguing against something “being left up to the consumer”. She is arguing that consumers need information to be able to make those decisions for themselves.
Cheers
July 29th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
37,000 signature petition. Impressive.
What do you think a petition like that means? Would a petition that big influence your thinking in any way? Do you think other politicians should listen?
July 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Collecting fruit box lables is a hobby of mine. Last season I picked up (at the back of our local supermarket) labels from all over the globe and began to wonder how on earth anyone could know how safe any of these fruits were. The potential for harm as a result of practices that can’t be monitored from here seemed huge! Inside of the supermarket, there was no labeling at all to guide customers or help them to chose. I support Sue’s efforts to secure ‘country of origin’ labeling wholeheartedly!
July 29th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
BB said: Now if you were serious about democracy I would be in full support however you cannot just have a little bit of democracy or just the bits you like, you either respect the will of the people or you do not.
Now, that would just turn MPs into automatons who react to whichever way public opinion blows. I think the role of an MP is much more than that - it is to investigate the validity of the reasoning behind various submissions, petitions etc - not just to meekly do what the majority of submitters/petitioners/people polled want.
Real democracy involves not just rubber-stamping public opinion, but leading and analysing it.
July 29th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I just read your rationale for Country of Origin labeling. On the face of it, I think you’ve entirely missed the point. I explain why here: Eat your Greens
July 29th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
So Greenfly, it’s easier to promote the idea that all food from China is unsafe rather than have actual mechanisms in place to ensure that any food from anywhere is healthy? Apart from pandering to the bigotry inherent in these gross generalisations, it seems ironic that we have only just signed a free trade agreement with China and now start to wonder if free trade includes fair trade (admittedly that is Labour’s fault, other than the support the Greens continue to give them).
July 29th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
There is no need to make it *compulsory*. You’ve given no reason, other than you *want* it. Personally, I’d like a note explaining if the produce was picked by people of a certain religious persuasion, whom I do not wish to encourage. Can you “get on with it”?
BTW: Slippery slope validating your bill on the number of signatures, eh. Where’s the consistency in this approach?
July 29th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
BP - it is about giving people the ability to make informed decisions.
If I don’t want to purchase something from a country where I know the workers producing it are paid $5 a day, then I should at least be able to know that was where it was produced so I can make that decision.
Similarly with produce from countries where environmentally unsustainable production methods are used - if I know the country, then I can choose an alternative.
Plus the safety issue greenlt has raised above.
All we’re asking for here is sufficientinformation for people to be able to make informed, rather than uninformed, purchasing decisions.
As for your comment, BP, “I’d like a note explaining if the produce was picked by people of a certain religious persuasion”, yep, I would like to be personally assured I didn’t purchase anything made or produced by members of the Exclusive Brethren. But I’m not going to ask for that assurance to be legislated for, because to do so would be a gross violation of the human rights of EB members.
In that instance, it is my right to know v their human rights to not be discriminated against, and the latter must always prevail.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
If this bill leads to reduced consumption of foods labelled as being from China (for example), then it will encourage the Chinese and the more reputable Chinese producers to put pressure on the less reputable producers to improve their act - or prevent them shipping their c#@$ to us.
Go for it!
Trevor.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
>> In that instance, it is my right to know v their human rights to not be discriminated against, and the latter must always prevail.
Yet you discriminate against a Chinese Company that might pay its workers above market rates, might have an excellent track record on health and safety and have good quality assurance processes. In short, an honourable trading partner. For your labeling campaign to work you need to promote the idea that “all Chinese Companies are bad; all Chinese produce is bad”.
Simple bigotry because it’s too hard to sort out health standards. It’s negative discrimination versus a positive approach - having companies earn a logo of “environmentally friendly to the NZ SP Standard” or “health tested to standard NZXA09 - bureaucratic letter combinations you can trust”
July 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
>>it is about giving people the ability to make informed decisions.
It’s about protectionism and anti-globalisation.
If there is an issue with food safety, then the food should not be stocked full-stop - New Zealand producers included.
Toad, we can insist manufacturers supply us with all manner of information, but we cross a line when we make it compulsory. Where will it end? What race grew the tomato? What political affiliation? It is all information leading to a state of being “informed”. But it is not provided simply because it is irrelevant to most people.
As is origin labelling.
You have a choice. Grow it yourself.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Lets hope this might actually help, the country needs a mandatory COLabel, although should be more than “single component” food, i suggest mandatory webpages with details of which each “component” came from and which pesticides and other sprays where used in that field for the past 50 years.
BigBro you might be on to something with your petition, not only beat our kids sorry smack them. Also smacking your employees for their laziness and maybe change the vows of a civil union to “to have & hold, to smack the bi@ch up, till end of contract period.”
l8sta
July 29th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
BP said You have a choice. Grow it yourself
Largely, I do, although I don’t have a big enough property to grow everything my household needs.
I’d even just like to just know if something was grown locally or imported, so I could make a decision whether to purchase a product that may have a significant carbon footprint from being air-freighted here, as opposed to one that had come a short distance on a train or truck.
I would also like to know for the reasons Trevor29 expressed above.
I would also like to know, if buying beef, that it had not been grown in a country with a BSE infection history.
Etc, etc.
Whatever my reason, why should I find myself in a situation of not knowing where the food came from, and therefore be unable to make an informed decision as to whether to purchase it?
July 29th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Oh and BP also said: It’s about protectionism and anti-globalisation.
If it were about those issues, the proposal would be to ban certain food imports or regulate to restrict food imports that compete with local produce.
It is not. It is simply a proposal to let people know where food comes from, so they can make informed decisions whether to purchase it or not.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Yes, Ekstatek, you’ve obviously paid attention to the reasons people were protesting the change to s59. 390,000 in New Zealand signed a petition so they could beat their children to death. These are obviously the ones too lazy to bother with an abortion. Do you feel safe to go out into the streets? Maybe we could start mandatory labeling of citizens for safety sake. Say, a tattoo on their forehead?
July 29th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
>>why should I find myself in a situation of not knowing where the food came from
The same reason we don’t know what religion the growers were. For most people, such information is irrelevant. If you want it, then shop somewhere that provides such information.
>>It is not. It is simply a proposal to let people know where food comes from,
Repeating it won’t make it true.
The message is clear. Local = good, China = bad.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Actually, BP, Local-Good, China (or USA, or Iraq, or Chile etc)=Bad is agood idea, unless, of course, it can be produced in China and transported here, and with less of a carbon footprint than would occur from producing it here if that is practicable.
ZenTiger & Ekstayek - the resort to sarcasm would indicate you have run out of rational arguments.
The compliance costs to business of doing this are minimal. With a bit of lead-in time so there is no necessity to discard or add to already produced labeling, it’s probably about 10 minutes of a graphic designer’s time. So what are the practical problems?
Or are they all ideological - that you really don’t want people to be able to know where their food is produced?
July 29th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
>> It is simply a proposal to let people know where food comes from
It’s a demand to make origin of food labeling mandatory.
The reasons cited are to enable consumers to make informed decisions of one sort or another (usually health, environment, wages). However, different companies can still have different policies within countries, and different shipping and storage methods will prevail even if you get the best organic apples from Norway.
It’s not necessarily the best way to achieve the stated goal, and it still relies on the consumer knowing all there is to know about Shrimps and Prawns coming from Thailand, Chicken from Vietnam, Tomatoes from Australia and Bananas from Ecuador.
The market is already responding with labels on many products identifying the importers address, with growers advertising “organic” or “barn laid” or “spca approved” etc. The Greens push to identify “buy Kiwi” could suit the ardent that refuse to buy anything else.
We could establish certification standards that importers and locals alike aspire to meet in order to make the food more attractive - one that perhaps included random testing and verification of quality. That’s far better than “China Bad, Dunedin Good”. Besides, most of Dunedin have apparently relocated to China anyway.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
ZenTiger - In my view, the greatest benefit to labeling is that whatever your thoughts about any particular place of origin or practices there, you are able to make a more informed choice when you buy. It might be that the ‘made in NZ’ lable encourages you to pass pover a particular food stuff, if you know that it is grown/raised in an unsafe way. You might for example, prefer low-spray Chinese orcharding to New Zealand practices (if that is in fact the case). My feeling is that knowledge is power and brings independence and responsibility.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
ZenTiger - the resort to sarcasm would indicate you have run out of rational arguments.
Rubbish - I was simply taking time out to appropriately label the previous comment by Ek as failing to meet any standards of rational discourse. Don’t blame the label (my comment) on the product (Ek’s comment)
>> The compliance costs to business of doing this are minimal. With a bit of lead-in time so there is no necessity to discard or add to already produced labeling, it’s probably about 10 minutes of a graphic designer’s time. So what are the practical problems?
Or are they all ideological - that you really don’t want people to be able to know where their food is produced?
My reaction stems from the fact that the Greens Fact sheet uses health issues to justify country of origin labeling. Frankly, I think its next to useless and misleading. Look at this from the fact sheet:
>> 40% of pig meat on sale in New Zealand is imported. About 30% (7,726 tonnes in 2006) comes from Canada; some pig herds in Canada are contaminated with the superbug bacteria MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus). Pigs in Australia are fed a growth hormone that is not permitted here - last year we imported 10,232 tonnes of pig meat from Australia. Pigs in China have been fed the asthma medication clenbuterol to make them leaner - last year we imported 104 tonnes of preserved pig meat, such as ham, from China.
Well, there is the issue that only “some” of the meat might meet these conditions, and you’d do your best to scare all consumers into avoiding it all, even if the Canadian company is say, an organic specialist. And who is an expert on pig meat sources anyway? You see a label saying “Manitoba Pig” and you expect the customer to know that that’s damn good bacon, but stay clear of Ontario Pork Chops?
If the stuff is illegal, or dangerous, then surely we should insist this stuff be declared, with random testing and turning shipments back and importers losing their import license or whatever. Or even better, developing a local market for “clean food” that earns a certification label.
I pay extra for eggs from happy hens. I wouldn’t make the same decision based on if a chicken lived in Lower Hutt or Masterton. It’s not the location, it’s the company and their practices.
I’m far more interested in knowing that I am eating healthy food, and appreciate that on 90% of the food I buy now, there are labels identifying the maker, the importer and the ingredients. So I presume you are aiming this at vegetables, fruits and “fresh” meat. Things that currently do not have a label.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Is there any proposal to put “contains mercury” in big writing on all CFL units?
People might want to make an “informed” choice that anything with mercury should be left outside of their homes. We’ll leave it up to them to research the quantities of mercury, how it vaporises and how many should be installed in the kids bedrooms.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
ZenTiger - every CFL that is installed actually reduces the amount of mercury going into the waste stream - even if (perish the thought) they all went into landfill, which of course they won’t).
The reason is that thermal elecricity generation (coal, particularly) emits mercury as a waste product. Moving to CFLs, with consequent reduction in coal fored generation, will result in far less mercury entering the environment than would happen if we stick with the old inefficient incandescents.
If you are worried about kids smashing them, you cn always install halogens, which while not quite as energy efficient as CFLs, will still meet the new energy standards.
In any case, the amount of mercury in one CFL is about 1% of the standard amalgam filling that most parents still allow their children to have in their teeth. Gotta get it into perspective, ZT.
All free mercury in the environment is bad, but CFLs, especially, but not essentially, with proper disposal, will actually reduce, rather than increase, that.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Thanks toad, all interesting. But my tongue in cheek point was that I’m simply demanding the “truth” be told about CFL’s so consumers can make an informed choice, just as you want to make an ‘informed’ choice on bacon by disregarding all Canadian sourced pig. Naturally, some consumers might over-react to the large MERCURY sign on the CFL and make their informed choice, much to the annoyance of the Green camp.
And there’s even less mercury when one uses incandescent bulbs mixed with halogens in a solar powered house - so where’s the benefit in banning them in that situation?
Although, if the latest reports are anything to go by, then vaporised mercury in a CFL is far more dangerous than the solid mercury in amalgam (which I thought had been discontinued). Anyway, that’s a side issue and one that will no doubt be covered in a different post.
Anyway, back to this post. This might be one of those strange, and rare situations where I tentatively support the broad aim behind the Green’s sentiment!
But I actually think that CoOL doesn’t go far enough and is therefore potentially a bad piece of legislation:
*why not the same standards of labeling that all other products have?
* sends the wrong message (all Foreign Food bad)
* doesn’t actually improve health standards
* seems aimed at making just Kiwi businesses do this.
Just to be clear on the last point - this law change requires would require imports to be labeled in some way does it? It wouldn’t require each individual item to be labeled, just a label on the box or on distinct packaging (say, a meat tray)?
I would also be interested in reading any rebuttals to the valid points the NZFSA made when it opposed this Bill: NZFSA says CoOL unCool.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I actually agree withe the greens on this one .
I want to know where my food comes from so the same morons who told me mercury CFL’s are safe don’t sell me shite food full of poison.
I simply have no confidence in our regulatory authorities to gurantee the safety of imported food.
When science and politics become entwined the safety of people is in question.
The “science” says CFL bulbs are a stupid dangerous idea, the politics says they are saving the planet.
When the confusion over “safe” organic chemicals is so rampant, how do we know whether organic food is safe to eat?
I don’t want to eat something grown and packaged in Bejing smog or eat “organic” food full of toxins from some backwater hippie out fit.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:26 am
bp, If you are familiar with the Theory of the Perfect Free Market and it’s relevance to efficient global free trade then you will have no trouble understanding the necessity for CoOL.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:09 am
ZenTiger said: Thanks toad, all interesting. But my tongue in cheek point was that I’m simply demanding the “truth� be told about CFL’s so consumers can make an informed choice, just as you want to make an ‘informed’ choice on bacon by disregarding all Canadian sourced pig.
Fair enough ZT. I’ve just looked at the packaging on a spare CFL bulb sitting around in my office. While it says “Conforms to EN 60968 Safety Standard. Conforms to AS/NZS CISPR 15″ I acknowledge that most shoppers won’t have a clue what that means and won’t be carrying their laptops with them while shopping to look it up. There is no specific mention of mercury, and I agree that there should be if shoppers are to make informed choices.
Interestingly, though, the CFL packaging states “Made in China from local and imported materials”. Yet food that is imported from China doesn’t have to say anything about where it comes from.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Kevyn,
I see no need for compulsion. I don’t think origin tells me much of value, for reasons Gerrit outlines.
There will always be information asymmetry, even if the label was a mile long. Most people simply do not require a high level of information to make a decision to buy an apple.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
just out of curiosity which is it in your case?
July 30th, 2008 at 11:41 am
saying a food should not be sold at all if it is a unsafe is unrealistic. suppose we were to consider the question “are soy products safe?” - we could debate it until the cows come home.
in fact nutrition science seems to be an area salient for the inability of the experts to agree or to hold the same position from one moment to the next. one minute a given food group is the worst poison imaginable & we should all avoid it, next thing we’re told it’s good for us & we need more!
simply trusting administrators to sort it all out for us is not an option - we ought to be able to make our own choice even though some will get it wrong.
as for globalization - individuals should not be deprived of the right to choose in this matter either, even if their viewpoint is not your viewpoint.
as for religions, we do have a right to know if the company is affiliated with a particular religion, or has a hiring policy based on religion. if it is o.k. for that company to prefer people of religion x when making their expenditure decisions, then it is o.k. for the consumer too. as for listing on the packet the religions of all the workers, that would obviously be daft when there is no preferential policy nor company afilliation.
it is also unrealistic to say we can excersize choice by simply avoiding any products which don’t have the labelling. country of origin labelling is not prevalent enough to give that much choice.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
“So… it’s easier to promote the idea that all food from China is unsafe rather than have actual mechanisms in place to ensure that any food from anywhere is healthy? ”
Much easier. Unless we somehow employ enough trusted and accountable inspectors to check all food sourced from China and have them report their findings and what they consider may or may not be harmful. We could do that, but it would cost the taxpyer heaps.
Alternatively we can have a label that says, in effect “this food was produced withinn the jurisdiction of a certain government and you can decide if you trust that jurisdiction to produce this particular product safely”. Comparing this to labelling products with the religion of the producer is silly. The world is divided up into jurisdictions based on nation-states, not on religions.
July 30th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Sam, what about a requirement then just to have a label indicating if a food source is imported, full stop? This adds costs to the importer, (and therefore makes NZ costs lower in comparison) and people can decide if they trust NZ food more than that foreign garbage (I didn’t know Australian Tomatoes were toxic, nor Canadian Bacon. Having lived in both countries, I’m probably poisoned to the max. Who do I sue?).
As for random inspections, why would that necessarily cost the tax payer? The importer might have to certify something is healthy and pay for an import license that covers the costs of random inspections. Produce failing health checks would be turned back and the license revoked and a new license purchased. That would at least improve safety of high risk items like chicken.
July 30th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
The world is divided up into jurisdictions based on nation-states, not on religions.
That is so ancient. Now, it’s either Halal or it isn’t
July 30th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
PS: We already inspect for (eg) insects, borer, animal product and general contamination. It’s not as if this is a new and novel concept. We already charge on import inspections - I had a full inspection from MAF (or whatever they call themselves now) when I shipped my personal effects back from Australia.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:33 am
I helped collect some of those signatures. In actively seeking signatures by asking and talking to people in all sorts of places, public and private, I found not one single person who refused to sign on the basis that they DID NOT want to know where their food came from.
After reading all the above posts carefully, I have not been persuaded by any of the arguments put forward, that such labeling is a bad idea.
I am very sympathetic to the idea that it does not go half far enough. Each package of food, whatever it is, should say clearly where if originated from in my opinion, and I can see no logical reason why this is a bad idea.
Safety checks on all food wherever it comes from must be a good idea, along with suitable penalties for infringement. Where is the problem. Don’t we all want to be assured that food we purchase from ANYONE else has a good chance of being safe to eat.
Putting up objections that it is’ too costly’, or would ‘discriminate against a trading partner’, are plain silly. Why should they not be proud to announce to all that the product was made, grown, processed, etc in …….land. As far as having voluntary origin labeling, what about those who chose not to label for whatever reason, you would end up with a flawed system that would not be trusted by the consumer.
If for example, all children’s toys were unlabeled ( country of origin), and there was an outbreak of arsenic poisoning of children traced back to say paint on toys. Would there not be an immediate call for labeling. It’s an issue of traceability, in the case of a problem. To me it’s the issue of, if there is a problem with a product, there should be obvious accountability, traceable back from the consumer to the producer.
Surely food is the most important consumer product and all consumers have a right to the maximum possible information.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:10 am
cyberspace just swallowed my post ?????
July 31st, 2008 at 9:12 am
It has just appeared magically !
July 31st, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I have been told by experts all my life that certain things are fine.
I just lived long enough to be around when it was all proven false.
I want the right to do my own research.
I want to know where it came from & what’s in it.
What I can’t know about, I won’t use.
Thank you Sue (& helpers) for all your hard work.
Good Luck