Truth in labelling

The Green Party of New Zealand wants to have compulsory country-of-origin labelling of all “single component” food (things like meat, fruit and vegetables and seafood. Predictably, there is strident opposition from the food industry.

According to the New Zealand Herald article on this, nearly 1.5 million tonnes of food are imported into New Zealand annually, which last year included 149,462 tonnes of fruit, 32,207 tonnes of meat, and 39,996 tonnes of vegetables.

Federated Farmers food safety spokesman Frank Brenmuhl told the Herald that labelling would increase the cost of food. Yes, well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? According to the Herald:

Mr Brenmuhl said the Greens were very careful about what they did not tell people— "such as how much it will cost to implement".

Really? They’re that careful, are they? As careful as the industry is? Again according to the Herald, apparently quoting Frank indirectly:

There was also a problem getting accuracy in the labelling when foods could include ingredients from many different sources.

Pardon? Does Frank mean to suggest that food just shows up in New Zealand and they have no idea what comes from where? That idea is scary in itself.

The Green’s safe food spokeswoman, Sue Kedgley, said:

"There are a multitude of reasons New Zealanders want to know where their food comes from… Some people want to support local producers, others like to avoid food from countries with poor safety records."

Who could argue with that—apart from Frank? Well, the government, for one, which considers this a matter for business, not government, even though few businesses want to provide that information.

The Herald ends their article with a curious thing. It says:

"The Herald bought five food products at random yesterday to check country of origin labelling. Packaging on all five stated clearly where the product was made—two in Australia, one in New Zealand from local and imported ingredients, one in California and one in Italy.

So? It could just as easily have been that none of them showed country of origin. What difference does this “test” make—unless the intent is to show that the Green’s proposal is unnecessary? I always check the label for country of origin, and I often choose which product to buy based on that information. I can assure the Herald that there are many, many products sold with no country-of-origin listed on the label.

Maybe we need labelling in politics—and media, too.

Update 11/08/07: Foodstuffs, New Zealand's largest supermarket chain (and it's NZ-owned) has announced that it will put country of origin labels on all single-ingredient foods it sells due to "customer pressure". The NZ Herald

"Foodstuffs NZ hopes to have the new labelling policy fully implemented by December for its stores nationwide. It will apply to fruit, vegetables, meat and seafood sold in Pak 'N Save, New World, Write Price, Shoprite supermarkets and Four Square stores. It will not apply to processed foods, which often have more than one ingredient."

According to the article, Australian-owned Progressive Enterprises, the second-largest supermarket operator…

"…has a policy of using country of origin labels on fresh fruit and vegetables imports. It has no plans for now to spread the policy to meat and seafood."

In my own experience at a Progressive store, fruit and vegetables are only sometimes labelled.

Apparently the market is delivering what the politicians would not. Again.