Street Maryan: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
Street Maryan: Consumer's Right to Know (Food Information) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:632;Page:4021] 
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.