Food labels could hurt NZ exports
Kiwis want to know where their food comes from but groups representing local producers say taking too broad a brush to the issue could damage export relationships and increase costs for consumers.
A Consumer NZ survey last year found 71 per cent of New Zealanders wanted mandatory Country of Origin Labelling (CoOL) for fruit and vegetables.
However, many organisations representing primary producers are firmly against the rules extending to other foods.
Beef+Lamb NZ, Federated Farmers, and Seafood NZ, as well as dairy giant Fonterra, all made submissions opposing the Consumers Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill in its original form.
That would have required ‘‘all single component food’’ to display country of origin labels. Under a revised version released last week, coverage would be limited to single types of fruit, vegetables, meat, fish or seafood which have been minimally processed.
Foods like fresh tomatoes, frozen sliced beans and minced beef would require country of origin labels.
Nuts, seeds and grains, tinned fruit and vegetables, mixed frozen vegetables, crumbed fish fillets, marinated meats, dried fruit, and cured meats would not.
The trade implications of mandatory labelling were of particular concern to industry groups, as the vast majority of New Zealand’s red meat and dairy products were exported.
Around 95 per cent of dairy, 90 per cent of lamb and 80 per cent of beef headed offshore, much of it competing in markets which were heavily protected or subsidised in favour of local producers.
Many of those markets also used CoOL as a protectionist measure to discourage consumers from buying imported products, including from New Zealand.
Meat and dairy exporters had opposed those measures in export markets for the past two decades and there was concern their efforts would be undermined if New Zealand introduced mandatory labelling.
Federated Farmers national president and international trade spokeswoman Katie Milne said the revised bill appeared to be more in line with what the organisation thought was reasonable.
‘‘It doesn’t look like there are the trade implications there were with the first version and that’s what this is, a trade issue,’’ Milne said. ‘‘It’s not a food safety issue because we already have food safety laws covering all that.’’
Limiting CoOL requirements to single ingredient products meant if overseas markets moved to match New Zealand legislation, the country’s multibillion-dollar dairy industry was less likely to be significantly impacted, Milne said.
‘‘There are a lot of dairy products that need small amounts of other ingredients which aren’t available in New Zealand,’’ Milne said.
‘‘If you’re labelling everything with an additive, you’re running the risk of not being able to call those New Zealand products, when the bulk of it is New Zealand milk.’’
Milne said New Zealand farmers should be proud of what they produced and Federated Farmers’ opposition to wider CoOL was about keeping international markets as open as possible, not a reluctance to label exports ‘‘Made in New Zealand’’.
‘‘I totally get it if there’s a sense that it’s contradictory to the message farmers have been getting but it’s not a statement on the quality of what they produce,’’ Milne said.
‘‘Our farmers are exporting some of the best dairy and meat in the world and they should be proud of that.
‘‘But we can’t have it both ways. We can’t just say we’re OK with country of origin labelling when it suits us, we have to have consistency with these things.’’
New Zealand Special Agricultural Trade Envoy Mike Petersen agreed CoOL was a ‘‘hugely complicated’’ issue but said consumers, producers and processors needed to get their heads around it.
‘‘It’s a really, really sound concept, it’s just not as simple as either side would have us believe,’’ he said.