Consumer Right to Know Bill - National & Labour Party speeches

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Sue Kedgley's Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. The National Party certainly does promote choice and freedom, and we certainly encourage the right of consumers to know what is in their food. What we do not agree with, however, is the purpose of this bill, which is to require the Government to introduce a comprehensive labelling system in New Zealand. We know that in-depth research around the world clearly shows that consumers want to know whether food is safe, nutritious, and of high quality, and what its cost is.

In actual fact, the origin of where food comes from is possibly quite misleading. Just looking at the number of campylobacter-notified cases for New Zealand between 1996 and 2005, we can see that it went up from 7,600 in 1996 to 13,835 last year. The quality of our food clearly varies tremendously, and really it is the quality we want to know about. I think it is also important to realise that New Zealand has very comprehensive food labelling legislation in action as we speak. I thought it was appropriate and worthwhile to bring the packets from my breakfast this morning, because they do indeed illustrate the fact that since 2002, when we put in —

Hon Mark Burton: You can't have your breakfast in here.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: — no, not the breakfast; just the packages — comprehensive labelling in New Zealand, at the cost of about $1 billion to Australia and New Zealand, the requirements for that were very extensive. Just looking at the packaging of the honey I had the other morning, I can see what is required these days. It is mandatory for the manufacturer to state its name and where it comes from, and the manufacturer can also voluntarily display a freephone number — as is done by most manufacturers in New Zealand — so that it can be traced.

Secondly, I can see that extensive ingredient labelling is required in New Zealand. Members should look at the honey carton's nutrition information — its content in terms of energy, protein, total and saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, and minerals. Over and above that, there is very extensive barcoding information. That is not just in relation to the honey; it is also there for the Vogel's bread. Mr Klisser, whom I used to know very well, brought that excellent brand in. Again, I say that labelling requirements in New Zealand are extensive. I also have here the excellent muesli with fruit from the Mayor of Auckland, Mr Hubbard.

One of the things that I think is often overlooked by the Greens is the fact that any manufacturer in New Zealand does have the choice to label, if that manufacturer wants to. I absolutely commend New Zealand's National Heart Foundation for its tick. One can go easily into supermarkets, see the tick, and be reassured that the evidence base behind the nutritious value of the food, and its quality, is substantial. I think that it is indeed one of the great qualities of New Zealand that we have choice, and it is really fortunate that the very onerous requirements of compulsory labelling are not as total as Sue Kedgley would require.

Much to my surprise, Sue sent me a letter from Foodstuffs, which she told me was supportive of her bill. Well, I would like to read a little bit of the letter. It states: "We generally support measures to provide consumers with product information, with the proviso that the information is actually useful to consumers, feasible for food suppliers to provide, and the costs imposed on business are not disproportionate to the usefulness of the information." The letter goes on to state: "In relation to country of origin, while Pam's" — one of their labels — "already comply with the Australian country-of-origin labelling, we have never supported a mandatory approach to labelling for processed foods, because we believe statements like 'Made from local and imported ingredients', which is required in Australia, are virtually meaningless. On the other hand, we accept that origin labelling for individual ingredients would be hugely complex and expensive to implement. This is compounded by the fact that suppliers frequently change the source of ingredients, for many reasons — for example, seasonal supply — but tend to change product labels only once every 3 to 4 years. The cost of frequent label changes would be prohibitively expensive."

This bill that Sue Kedgley has brought to the House has some very perplexing parts to it. For instance, in the part relating to GM food and feed, she promotes the thought that packaged food derived from GM food, or containing an ingredient derived from GM food, must be labelled as such — lowering the threshold from 1 percent to 0.5 percent. GM content will either be safe or unsafe. Lowering the threshold from 1 percent to 0.5 percent carries absolutely no virtue whatsoever in terms of whether the food is safe, which is one of the basic requirements that most consumers are concerned about.

I go back to the topic of country-of origin-labelling. I concede that Sue Kedgley also sent me a letter from the Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand, which was signed by Peter Silcock, the chief executive. I do have a degree of sympathy for the thought that fresh food and vegetables and fresh fish, as in Australia, could easily be labelled with the country of origin. I think that Peter Silcock says that in-store point of sale tags are already used throughout the industry to indicate the name of the product and price. His letter states: "Simply adding the country of origin of the product to the tag would be a very simple task and would add no or very minimal cost." It may be that that part could be explored by this Parliament at a later date.

But I go back, once again, to the fundamental consumer concern about food. Consumers are interested in whether food is safe, whether it is nutritious, and whether it has quality. I remind Ms Kedgley that if she is buying mussels down in Nelson again, she should remember that those mussels, if they are left for a few days, could easily have something like listeriosis or campylobacter in them — whether they are from Nelson, New Zealand, Tasmania, or China. When Ms Kedgley shows us some garlic from China and says that 80 percent of China's water is not safe, I believe she is making a very incautious statement. Again, if the garlic arrived in New Zealand, we would be concerned that it was safe, and that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry controls and biosecurity measures required to ensure that those viruses were knocked off, were indeed in place.

Coming from Port Waikato, an area famous throughout New Zealand and the world for its fresh produce, I know that the traceability requirements of our magnificent fresh onions are absolutely extensive, if they are to be sold successfully in Sainsbury's, over there in London. But that chain is not so concerned about country-of origin-labelling. It absolutely concedes that country-of-origin labelling should not be made mandatory, and that New Zealand manufacturers should have the choice about whether they adopt it and how they do so.
________________________________________________________________________________

MARYAN STREET (Labour): I wish to speak to the Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. The Labour Party is opposing this bill. We oppose it on a couple of grounds and I will make those clear as we go along. The key purpose of the bill is to address the labelling of food, particularly in respect of GM-derived food or GM-derived ingredients, country of origin, and method of production.

There are some central points to this. Setting up a system to verify a food product requires a multilayered approach covering point of production, point of manufacture, point of export, etc. We have in our system currently the Fair Trading Act and Consumer Guarantees Act, which are, generally, consumer protection laws that require traders and manufacturers to be able to verify any claims they make of food they produce and sell. In New Zealand we have gone for general verification procedures, redress around those procedures, and strong food safety provisions. What we require of anyone selling food in New Zealand is that it is safe. Our concern is that every New Zealander has access to safe, nutritious, affordable food. A lot of public health and safety information is currently mandated for foods, including allergenic ingredients for the top eight products that cause allergies, use-by dates, nutrition information, and the contact details of the manufacturer in New Zealand or Australia, or the importer. Even more information is often available by contacting the manufacturer should a consumer want to pursue any particular concerns.

However, this bill is not about better nutrition. Food needs to enter the market place as safe and once it is in the market, it is too late. That is why we have pre-market assessment for foods, such as additives, processing aids, novel foods, and GM foods. We have heard quite a lot recently from the submitters to the Health Committee's obesity and diabetes inquiry that labelling is already problematic. In fact, it is quite frequently —

Dr Wayne Mapp: Which way are you voting?

MARYAN STREET: I have said that we are opposing the bill. Labelling is already problematic. Sometimes it is said that one needs a degree in chemistry or physics to read or interpret labels.

The second point I wish to address is the issue of country-of-origin labelling. Historically, New Zealand has not supported the concept of a mandatory country-of-origin standard for the following reasons. Country-of-origin labelling is primarily a marketing tool that should be employed by food suppliers on the basis of commercial decision-making. It is clear from a very recent report on cost-benefit analysis conducted by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that there was nothing to be added to the case for country-of-origin labelling. It identified the costs of country-of-origin labelling for industry that are likely to be passed on to consumers. It notes that the increased burden of compliance costs will fall more heavily on New Zealand food suppliers than Australian suppliers, but it was not able to quantify benefits.

It would be inconsistent and potentially damaging to New Zealand's international trade interests if New Zealand were to oppose mandatory country-of-origin labelling internationally — as we have done in relation, for example, to United States and Canadian requirements for meat — while adopting it domestically. When I have been shopping overseas the discovery that the beans came from Kenya and the dates came from Egypt has not influenced my purchase of food. The key point in food available to the consumer in New Zealand is that it is fresh and it meets the New Zealand food standards we have in place already.