Eating sovereignty

There’s a controversy in New Zealand over the imminent requirement that bread be artificially fortified with folic acid. It’s intended to help reduce birth defects, but critics argue that the possible risks to other people are too great. To me, the larger issue has nothing to do with that.

First the health side: Women who get additional folic acid before pregnancy and in the early stages have a greatly reduced chance of birth defects in their babies. So, proponents argue that artificially adding folic acid to bread will mean women will get it for the critical period, and that will lead to between four and fourteen fewer birth defects each year. However, a woman would have to eat 11 slices of bread per day to get enough folic acid.

If it helps, why not, right? There’s a growing body of evidence that excess folic acid causes other health problems, including encouraging the growth of cancers, especially of the prostate and colon. The science is worrying enough that the UK and Ireland have suspended plans to require that folic acid be added to their bread.

Why not New Zealand? The answer lies in New Zealand’s sometimes troubled economic relationship with Australia.

New Zealand and Australia have joint food standards, something that is, for the most part, a hugely great idea: It essentially turns the two countries into one market for most—but not all—food. The problem is that when New Zealand disagrees with a standard, it must nevertheless obey Australia’s wishes.

Or, at least, that’s the line being delivered by Food Safety Minister Kate Wilkinson who says she’ll ask the authority for a review—a month after the regulations go into effect. Why doesn’t she just suspend the rule pending a review? Because the Authority has established the rule, and Must Be Obeyed.

Really? Then why is organic bread exempt in New Zealand, but not in Australia? And in any case, why should Australia—which has ten votes on the authority to our one—be able to dictate food policy for this country?

Australia ignores rules and treaties when it suits their domestic political needs: They continue to ban New Zealand apples because of an hysterical fear of fire blight (actually, it’s fear of competition). Australia and New Zealand were to be a single domestic air travel market—New Zealand obeys the agreement, Australia flatly refused to (fear of competition again). And there’s the famous case of New Zealand pies being rejected by Australia because they contained too much meat. So, Australia clearly doesn’t value its international agreements as much as New Zealand does.

However, if New Zealand feels that a food standard poses a potential risk to the health and well-being of New Zealanders, this country has every right to act, whether Australia likes it or not. I have no idea whether adding folic acid is a threat, but surely we—as a sovereign nation—have the right to decide that for ourselves.

From September, those who want to avoid “medicated bread”, as some call it, will have to buy organic or, apparently, bread that doesn’t have wheat flour. It would be much simpler—and cheaper for ordinary New Zealanders—if this government stood up for its own people and delay the new rule until questions about its safety can be resolved.