Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:634;Page:5491] 
4.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What evidence if any has he received with respect to the concept of food miles that suggests the further food has to travel to the market the worse its impact on the environment? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 The evidence I have seen totally debunks the concept that the distance food travels provides any meaningful measure of the amount of energy used in its production and its impact on the environment. A study just produced by Lincoln University looks at the total energy use and carbon dioxide emissions associated with farm production and transport to the United Kingdom. It concludes that for our major export products the energy used in production and transport of New Zealand products is a fraction of the energy used for equivalent goods produced in the United Kingdom. 
Dianne Yates 
: Can the Minister give some specific examples of the relative energy use involved in equivalent products from either country? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes the United Kingdom for example uses twice as much energy per tonne of milk solids produced than New Zealand uses even taking into account the transport of those goods over 11000 miles. The energy used in producing lamb in the United Kingdom is four times higher than the energy used by New Zealand lamb producers even taking transport into account and for apples the New Zealand energy costs for production are 60 percent of those in the United Kingdom including the energy used in transport. That is why when we get this sort of advertising campaign in the United Kingdom—which is an attack on New Zealand products as not being environmentally sound—it is just so much rubbish. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that shipping uses less energy than many other forms of transport what role does the Minister expect to play in the development of a maritime action strategy following the Government’s apparent favourable response to the draft maritime transport strategy presented by the New Zealand Shipping Federation to the Minister of Transport given that sea transportation is essential to the trade of this island nation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Obviously the overwhelming bulk of New Zealand export produce is taken to the market by sea. The question that the member asked is in the responsibility of my colleague and benchmate the Minister of Transport but I am more than happy to be involved in any relevant activities. 
Sue Kedgley 
: If the Government is going to counter the growing international concern about food miles by arguing that New Zealanders are much more energy-efficient farmers will the Government—as part of that campaign—be encouraging farmers to convert to organic agriculture which is considerably more energy efficient than conventional farming given that a tiny 0.24 percent of our agricultural land is in organic farming; if not why not? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Obviously organic products have their place in our export trade and some of them do very well. Equally clearly it is not practicable for the vast majority of New Zealand production to be organic. But I would like to tell the member that on current production techniques in each of our major export products to the United Kingdom the amount of energy utilised in both producing and transporting the goods to that market is only a fraction of the energy utilised in producing the same goods in the United Kingdom. I would hope that the Green Party and environmental groups would stand out against the sort of nonsense being portrayed in Europe and in the United Kingdom that misrepresents that fact to consumers. 
Dianne Yates 
: Why then has this question of food miles become an issue? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It has become an issue because if it is left unchallenged given our geographic location the food miles concept has the potential to threaten our food and beverage exports to the United Kingdom and to Europe—and of course a third of our food and beverage exports go to Europe. The question of food miles is being made an issue by some European producers and non-governmental organisations that have a vested interest in protectionism. New Zealand exports have been singled out as being bad for the environment in the sort of advertising campaign that I have shown to the House. That is why the studies carried out by Lincoln University which are done on an objective and scientific basis are so important; they actually demonstrate that New Zealand production is more environmentally friendly. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister accept that his argument around looking at the full embodied energy costs although something to be commended actually continues to leave New Zealand agricultural exporters at risk until New Zealand properly addresses the reality that New Zealand farming is relying on increasing amounts of energy and other imports particularly into dairy farming in many areas because of a massive drive towards intensification; issues that were raised so effectively by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in his report  
Growing for Good: Intensive Farming sustainability and New Zealand’s environment 
? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think our producers will always be looking for ways of producing in both more energy-efficient ways and more environmentally sensitive ways. That does not deny the fact that right now our agricultural production is produced in a more environmentally sensitive and far more energy-efficient manner than most of the countries that we are exporting to notwithstanding the distance that we have to transport our produce to the market. [ 
Interruption 
] If Gerry Brownlee wants to ask a question maybe he could be invited to take to his feet and do it formally rather than informally. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that if we had country-of-origin labelling of New Zealand food New Zealanders would be able to make sure they were buying locally produced energy-efficient New Zealand food; and why therefore did his Government veto a Food Standards Australia New Zealand - mandatory country-of-origin food labelling system which would have enabled New Zealanders to work out whether the food they are buying has been produced in an energy-efficient way in New Zealand or has travelled from the other side of the world and been produced in a much more energy-inefficient way as the Minister has been discussing? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the member has missed the point of what I was saying. Actually the distance— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: We all did. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Well if the member had listened then perhaps he would not have missed it. The point the member needs to take into account is that transportation costs for a product when it reaches its final market are only a small percentage of the overall energy costs. If we want an efficient way of measuring environmental impact we have to take into account all of those factors. New Zealand produce of course when it goes to the market is labelled as being made in New Zealand because we are proud of our overall clean and green image in the world. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister seems to have misunderstood my question. I was asking why we did not have mandatory country-of-origin labelling in New Zealand. We may very well have some exporters labelling their food as being from New Zealand but he did not seek to answer my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister—at great length actually—addressed his answers to the questions. I remind both those who ask questions and those who answer them that the Standing Orders do request that that is done succinctly. The Minister did address that question.