Government stands back from country-of-origin labelling

Industry groups have welcomed a Government decision not to force manufacturers and retailers to label imported foods with their country of origin.

New Australian rules mean that produce exported across the Tasman will have to be labelled as "made in New Zealand", but there will be no similar requirement for foods imported here.

"Country of origin labelling (Cool) should be a commercial decision for businesses, rather than a matter for the Government," Food Safety Minister Annette King said yesterday.

Meat & Wool New Zealand chief executive Mark Jeffries said the Government had made a common sense decision.

He said food manufacturers who saw some advantage in such labelling were already doing it voluntarily. But a mandatory system would just add unnecessary costs with little benefit for consumers.

"These requirements can get complicated when there is a mixture of different ingredients, or parts of ingredients, from different origins."

The US had postponed the introduction of similar labelling rules for meat because of the huge costs involved.

Australia has adopted measures which were suggested by the transtasman food regulator Food Standards Australia New Zealand. A report by the NZ Institute of Economic Research to Food Standards said any benefits of country-of-origin labelling would have been negligible. In New Zealand, the re-labelling costs alone were likely to be in the order of $60 million in the first year and could have been as high as $110 million.

The report concluded that there was little evidence of general consumer value in terms of people being willing to pay for information on the country-of-origin labelling.

The Food and Grocery Council said the focus for labelling should remain on food safety.

Executive director Brenda Cuttress said there was no link between food safety and country of origin.

Fonterra and Federated Farmers have also applauded the decision.

The federation's food safety spokesman, Frank Brenmuhl, said: 'The imposition of mandatory country-of-origin labelling would have amounted to nothing more than a crude form of protectionism.

"'New Zealand has consistently opposed other countries' attempts to impose country-of-origin labelling for food and would have looked hypocritical if we had agreed to bring it here."

But Green Party politicians - who are promoting a "Buy NZ-Made" campaign - said consumers had a right to know whether they were eating garlic grown in New Zealand or China.

Greens' safe-food spokeswoman Sue Kedgley said the Government had put its free trade agenda ahead of consumers' rights.

The only food that requires an origin on its label in New Zealand is wine.