Wilkinson Kate: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4024] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 National will not be supporting the Consumers Right to Know (Food Information) Bill not because we do not believe that the consumer has a right to know in relation to food labelling but because New Zealand’s food standards and law already provide a comprehensive labelling and information system. I support totally accurate and informative labelling. As a person who has always had a food allergy labelling is particularly important to me but labelling should be science based and evidence based ensuring proper food safety rather than emotion based. 
The bill requires country-of-origin labelling but already we must provide on labels the company’s name and address and we have an 0800 consumer line for any inquiries. Furthermore in the bill interestingly enough if there is more than one ingredient it is sufficient to have a statement to the effect that the food is made from ingredients imported into the country or from local and imported ingredients. So we are none the wiser as to where the food came from in the first place. It is absolutely meaningless to say food is made from ingredients imported into the country or from local and imported ingredients. It is also a costly exercise and that cost would be handed down to consumers. But for what benefit? 
How do the provisions of this country-of-origin labelling measure actually satisfy the demands of consumers who insist that they have a right to know where their food comes from? They do not. Yet if it is truly important for a consumer for example to buy only New Zealand pork then the consumer should not buy pork that is not labelled as being New Zealand pork. The consumer has the choice of what pork to buy and what pork not to buy and the consumer has the right to ask where the pork comes from. If consumers are misled they have remedies available under the Fair Trading Act. We do not need to have a duplication of laws. 
There is provision in the bill for food derived from GM or containing an ingredient derived from GM to be labelled as such lowering the threshold from the current 1 percent to 0.5 percent. The honourable member Sue Kedgley has conceded that firstly no manufacturer can guarantee any product as GM-free and secondly she would consider increasing the threshold to 1 percent anyway. We already have a 1 percent threshold and it is mischievous for Mrs Kedgley to ask lobbyists to confirm that they want to know whether there is any GE ingredient in food when she knows full well that that is unrealistic and she herself concedes that no manufacturer can guarantee any product as being GE-free. 
The bill also deals with the labelling of eggs requiring that they be labelled as coming from free-range barn-raised or caged hens. I know that many people will not buy eggs produced by battery hens and certainly that is their choice. Others do not care and some believe that free-range eggs are not as safe or as hygienic as eggs from battery hens. Whatever side of the argument one takes it is surely a simple matter for those producers who have free-range eggs to label them as such market them as such and sell them as such and consumers can then duly make their choice. 
We are certainly against the mislabelling of food and certainly in favour of high food-safety standards but we have the existing protections already in place. We have the Fair Trading Act which prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct. We have the Food Act and the Food Standards Code. We have the remedies. We are not against proper labelling—we have it. We are not against consumers’ right to know what is in their food but we have that too. What we are against is unnecessary unworkable legislation that would impose unnecessary costs on consumers. That is exactly what this bill would do. Our objection is not about taking away consumers’ right to ask or about taking away their right to choose. It is about being sensible and not imposing unnecessary costs on consumers because of an idealistic viewpoint. 
We oppose this bill. It is not in the best interests of consumers at all. It would be an extra cost an extra burden on them. Consumers do have the right to know. They already have it: they have the right to ask and they have the right to decline any product that they are not certain about. National will not be supporting the bill.