“Made from imported and local ingredients”
We import about 1.5 million tonnes of food every year from many different countries – including fresh foods such as fish, meat, fruit and vegetables. For example we import lettuces from
For instance last year we imported 1,839 tonnes of garlic from China. This has helped to decimate New Zealand’s once thriving garlic growing industry. Meanwhile the tomatoes we import from Australia are dipped in the toxic insecticide dimethoate but New Zealand tomatoes aren’t. Dimethoate cannot be removed by washing and has been linked to disruption of reproductive function, chromosomal aberrations and immune system damage.
Here’s a list of reasons you might want to know where your food came from: health, environment, nutrition, safety, buy local, ethics, personal preference, taste.So, no wonder then that Sue Kedgley was able to collect 39,000 signatures on her Consumers Right to Know Country of Origin Labelling petition that she presented to Parliament today.Â
I’ll leave commenters to draw up a list of why you might want to hide this information from consumers.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I note in the house today that Lianne Dalziel rightly pointed out that labeling is not a food safety issue.
Why are the Greens obfuscating this issue?
If food is not safe, it shouldn’t be on our shelves, local, imported, or otherwise. If people want labels, then the market will move to provide them. If New Zealand producers cannot supply garlic at an acceptable price, then then adapt or do something else.
If compulsory compliance increases the price of food, and I’ve yet to hear an argument demonstrating it will not, and the is no safety benefit, then what is the point?
December 6th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I’ve yet to hear an argument that mandatory CoOL will increase food prices.
I don’t believe that changes to labels or slightly increased admin time can possibly increase food costs. Are there any other costs? Can you explain why you think it will increase costs?
December 6th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
“environment, nutrition…buy local, ethics, personal preference, taste”?
1) I would guess that labelling is not a safety issue in processed goods, as yes, unsafe stuff shouldnt be on our shelves. BUT as frog pointed out, we don’t have a definite ability to discriminate between ‘toxic’ aussie tomatoes and our own. Obviously knowing what chemicals were sprayed on produce requires MORE knowledge, but such knowledge is useless if we can’t act on it.
2) Do overseas suppliers (part of the ‘market’) have an interest in fighting such moves so we can’t knowlingly choose NZ made over THEIR product? I mean how ‘obfuscating’ is the phrase “imported and local”?
3) I saw on the news today that a number of NZ food associations - the horticultural one, and the pork one at least from what I remember - were very supportive of such a move. Not sure if processed goods manufacturers are so keen.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
How can extra compliance not increase prices? When does adding an extra process not increase prices?
Where will it end? We could have a guide-book attached to each tomato. You’d be fully informed, but would you really be better off, especially given the fact your tomato now costs $5.35?
December 6th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Here’s another one “Only made from natural ingredients”
December 6th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
What extra process is being added Peter? Some admin person spending a couple of days in Excel? A graphic designer adding a few extra words to a file when they are editing it anyway?
Presumably the law would have a phase-in period allowing manufacturers to only change the labels when they were doing it anyway.
And manufacturers already have to keep track of ingredients and nutritional info so they are already set up for such admin for each product and this is such an easy addition to that admin.
I maintain they can easily absorb such miniscule costs.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Did you know?
that our growers also want CoOL: NZ Fruitgrowers Federation, NZ Vegetable & Potato Growers Federation, and the NZ Berryfruit Growers Federation, representing 7000 commercial fruit and veggie growers throughout New Zealand, all support consumers’ right to know where their food comes from.
http://www.greens.org.nz/food-revolution/coolfood.asp
December 6th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Fantastic idea.
Interesting that even the most progressive of enterprises, and the most free of marketeers, don’t think that the consumer should have the right to choose.
Of course the cost is minimal; it’s already mandatory in the EU and some states in the USA IIRC. The reason they object is that they DON’T want you to know. Knowledge being power and all.
Heavens, you might start to question the wisdom of buying cheap toxic shite from supermarkets.
December 7th, 2007 at 7:29 am
We usually shop at Pak n Sav and New World. These stores are now labelling their fresh fruit and veg ‘NZ grown”. I thank them. I greatly prefer to buy NZ produced in order to support local producers.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Australian studies showed it would cost $394 million as the implementation costs of food labelling changes, adding 2% to the weekly grocery bill. It estimates on-going compliance costs in the order of $55 million a year.
All this stuff adds up.
Anyway, isn;t there a flaw in your argument? If the cost is negligible, and the move is supported by NZ Fruitgrowers Federation, NZ Vegetable & Potato Growers etc, why don’t they just do it? Why wait government to make it compulsory?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Well they probably DO do it! Its just that they want the ones who DON’T grow/manufacture in NZ to do the same!
December 7th, 2007 at 8:48 am
>>Its just that they want the ones who DON’T grow/manufacture in NZ to do the same!
Why should they care, unless it raises their productions costs?
If all the NZ produce is voluntarily labeled, and it costs nothing, then everyone wins, don’t they?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I think it comes back to “made from local and imported ingredients” again.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:06 am
To say labeling is not a food safety issue assumes that the food authorities in NZ have a clue what is safe.
Personally I wouldn’t trust the NZ government to tell me when it is safe to cross the road. No way on a complex issue like food.
I’m not even sure that labeling would help. There isn’t really any enforcement on this issue.
If you want safe food, grow it yourself or buy certified organic. Everything else, Russian roulette.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:19 am
>>I think it comes back to “made from local and imported ingredients� again.
I’m don’t know what that has to do with my point.
>>safe food grow it yourself or buy certified organic
Why do you assume either option is “safe”? There are many naturally occurring toxins.
Where are the figures on increased hospital admissions due to unsafe food?
C’mon - we all know the driver behind this proposal - trade protection and anti-globalisation. It’s got nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with food miles.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Would it be a problem if it was about food miles? It relates very well to the ‘buy NZ made’ campaign thread too, which is more of a social/economic argument. Not ‘protection’ either if nothing is being prohibited or taxed, as it is a ‘choice’ argument (a non-tariff barrier at worst). Local food would be fresher too.
The ’safe’ thing Emerald is talking about (presumably) is the incremental increases in chemicals in our bodies that result from eating some foods. I don’t know any examples apart what frog mentioned with the tomatoes, and from the mercury levels in fish, although fish don’t really have a country.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
>>Would it be a problem if it was about food miles?
It would be more honest.
It’s a form of protectionism, using patriotism and xenophobia. “Chinese food = bad, local = good”. The British farmers are big into this, of course. Follow this to its logical conclusion. “New Zealand Lamb = bad, Local Lamb = Good”. They’re doing this now.
Yet, we all know the food miles argument is bunk. The total carbon footprint is the important metric.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Well obviously food miles is a part of it, but I don’t think that means you can discount all the other reasons.
All the campaign does is exhort people to buy NZ made - it doesn’t take a xenophobic position! No one is saying any food is ‘bad’, but there are a variety of reasons that people want country of origin labels - whether one is a ‘gourmet’, doesnt like the way animals are treated in a particular part of the world (or the way people are treated), or maybe they prefer the quality of australian mangoes over mexican ones.
Yes I think there was something about the strawberries that are ‘flown’ to the UK too, when it was really just by boat, or we don’t export them to the UK, or something. I dont even know what foods ARE flown, so im not sure there is as much potential there for confusion as maybe is implied. Until we get to the total carbon footprint. Sigh.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Oh and another ‘buy local’ reason would be to support one’s community (if you were at a farmers market it is a lot easier, as there is a lot more personal interaction).
December 7th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I know why people want to buy from a certain area. I see nothing wrong with this, and I do it myself. However, this is surely a marketing issue? If the local producer sees a demand, then they will go out of their way to ensure their produce is labeled “kiwi grown”.
This process does not need to be compulsory. If it costs nothing, as you say, then they should do it today.
Problem solved. No hot air or wasteful bureaucracy required.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
“Australian studies showed it would cost $394 million as the implementation costs of food labelling changes, adding 2% to the weekly grocery bill.”
Don’t believe a word of it, but if that is true, could we ban changes in packaging as an unfair hidden cost to the consumer?
Saying “if it’s unhealthy it shouldn’t be on the shelves” is fine if you are a fan of big government and nanny statism. You can happily leave it to the government to ban tobacco, chips, alcohol, meat pies, McDonald’s and anything else the government decides, in it’s wisdom, is bad for us.
Some of us like making our own decisions, and might decide to indulge in the odd meat pie now and then, and at other times choose the healthy option. We can’t do this if we aren’t fully informed, and a knowledge of where food is produced is part of this.
For example, I might be keen to avoid food produced in China because I don’t trust the Chinese authorities to enforce whatever health standards exist (on the grounds that China’s government isn’t exactly known for being open and honest and takes action to prevent independent observation of its practices). Should China change its policy and let journos from other countries snoop around freely, I might change my mind.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
>>Don’t believe a word of it,
You don’t need to believe it. Provide a study that shows otherwise.
If you think it costs nothing - and no one has yet provided evidence to back this up - then your “problem” can be solved today, no legislation required. New Zealand manufacturers can implement it immediately. Anything not labelled “New Zealand” is obviously not from New Zealand.
I think you’ll find the reason they don’t do this is because it does push costs up.
And there’s the Xenophobia again. Japan claims that their food imports from China are higher quality than from the US and Europe. 99.5% compliance. I wonder what they thought of New Zealand produce?
I’m not saying labeling isn’t useful. I’m saying it is a marketing issue, and if consumers demand it, the manufacturers will supply it.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
the reason they don’t do it is because they want to be able to include ingredients they guess people don’t want. it would be a way of forcing them to improve quality.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
“Australian studies showed it would cost $394 million”
Oh c’mon. If you say something like that you have to provide a reference or you have zero credibility. What’s your source for this claim?
“if you think it costs nothing - no one has yet provided evidence to back this up”
No-one has yet provided evidence that there will be compliance costs. You certainly haven’t. You could have made up those Australian studies.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
>>provide a reference
Don’t you socialists use big-nasty-capitalist Google? Try harder.
Of course there are costs. Extra process equals extra cost. Did you miss introduction to economics at high school?
While you’re at it, try Google-ing this: “cost-benefit analysis conducted by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research…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”.
But the biggest cost, by far, is in terms of international trade:
“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”
If everyone adopts a “Buy Local” attitude, there goes our primary exports. How are you going to pay for your social meddling then?
December 7th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Sounds like it would be up to the people to make the choice of what they buy.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Indeed. And if they buy the food miles argument, we’ll be able to afford fewer teachers, doctors and social workers.
Better to put our best foot forward….rather than shooting it off.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
BP
There’s a couple of things about this. The first one is that I want to know. I will decide what I decide but I should have access to the information or they might be feeding me soylent green next.
Second thing is, if we know, they must also know.
Third thing…. if we have carbon pricing built into food prices the food-miles argument goes away.
Fourth thing - If the world decides not to buy the food we produce and we decide similar things with respect to their production… do our children win?
There’s more… but my eyes are falling….
…
..
…….
December 8th, 2007 at 6:08 am
I don’t mind if a piece of fruit costs a few extra cents, if it helps me pick out food that’s less likely to have adverse health consequences. Or I might hear about animal cruelty in the preparation of meat, eggs, or dairy products in a foreign country. At the moment I can’t make an informed decision about these issues unless a product is deliberately branded, and usually only highly processed food is branded.
It also allows me to make aninformed choice between supporting our largely more efficient local growers and farmers, and between overseas providers where their product is better quality or cheaper.
I also see it as very weird that we’ve previously opposed this type of labelling internationally. I’ve often heard offhand comments from overseas friends I met on the internet about how New Zealand exports great food. Seems to me like it could be used as sort of deliberate branding, rather than hurting our interests. Especially if we’re diligent on letting the world know that most of the time, our products are actually that much more efficient that they still beat out local food in carbon footprint after shipping.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Bluepeter, my point about own grown or certified organic is that in both cases you know what went into the food or the rules it was grown under. And in the case of certified organic these rules are enforced, hard!
This argument about costs is a bit silly.
Any company that sells in to Europe already has to do proper labeling. Maybe export of processed food would be easier if NZ and Aust manufacturers had to comply with world standard labeling.
300 million is about 1% of the annual food market for Aus/NZ. Not bad as a one off cost, even if it is true.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Interestingly, Woolworths Australia already does country of origin labeling to the best of their ability. The irony is that they sometimes don’t know the exact origin or processing of all their products because this information is not compulsory. They wish it was, because it’s costing them more to begin to filter these unknowns out of their product line than it does to change the shelf label with the new information, something they have to do anyway. Their sustainability program prefers locally grown food over imports, not just because of food miles but in order to support local industry, etc, etc.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
It begs the question - if you claim that consumers want it, and that origin labeling doesn’t add cost, then the New Zealand manufacturers should do it tomorrow. They’d gain competitive advantage.
If this is not happening, then ask which of your assumptions are wrong.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Your argument is that manufacturers know their market and are driven by logic. mmmmmmm.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Are you saying manufacturers and growers are ignorant? They’re backing this labeling.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
BP
The assumption you missed…
The assumption that someone in this business in New Zealand will lead.
If Woolworth’s brought the Aussie policy to NZ, would more people shop there? I would shop there more than I do now. Even though the store is twice as far away as the P&S. Even though the prices were a bit higher.
The problem BP, is that nobody is doing it therefore NOBODY has a competitive advantage either way, and nobody has an incentive to try it… cause they don’t know who’d get the advantage (if there is one).
This isn’t exactly unheard of… its a stalemate that both side are enjoying because they don’t have to do anything.
We know that successful business tends to abhor changes. They are successful with things as they are, changing risks that. Legislating a change like this takes away the risk. Everyone has to do it, therefore nobody gets an advantage.
Your answer is an assertion that the market will act efficiently. This market however, does not act at all. it does not act to create demand and it does not supply anything “on speculation” except for toys in season. So no demand can be felt… there’s no difference from one store to the next.
respectfully
bj
December 8th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I’m not sure you’re serious, but in case you are, I think the premise that producers won’t compete is ridiculous.
The very reason New Zealand producers are supporting this initiative is they know it will hamper their imported competition by creating a soft trade barrier, backed by marketing campaigns they don’t need to pay for i.e. Buy NZ Made. Xenophobia is rife in this country.
As I’ve said, if people demand labels, they’ll get them. Given the numbers that signed the petition, there is clearly little demand.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
“Don’t you socialists use big-nasty-capitalist Google? Try harder.”
(1) I’m not a socialist. (2) I don’t consider Google to be nasty capitalists, they are a model of good capitalism since they consider the environment and treat their employees well. (3) You brought the “research” up, so you should link to it. Providing quotes and then patronisingly telling people to Google to find out where they come from is just plain arrogance and rudeness.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
“Of course there are costs. Extra process equals extra cost. Did you miss introduction to economics at high school?”
I never said that there would not be additional costs to manufacturers. I said that the additional costs are so miniscule that manufacturers will easily be able to absorb the costs and will not have to pass them onto consumers.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:18 am
http://canada.eharvest.com/cool/index.asp
>>manufacturers will easily be able to absorb the costs and will not have to >>pass them onto consumers.
I’m sure they’ll take note of your suggestion. /sarcasm
December 9th, 2007 at 11:53 am
BP
Your assumption that anyone in THIS NZ business does anything new unless a cattle prod is used on their rump is astonishing.
Given that my use of the word had little to do with producers and much to do with the stores in which goods are sold, I am happy to correct the misunderstanding.
NZ producers are rightly proud of the fact of their originating something of value. Getting that fact to the consumer in every instance however, requires a certain amount of determination on the part of the consumer. Stores do not label that well at all (though I observe that P&S is doing better)…. and the market inertia is immense. I want CoOL labeling. Whether it impairs our sales overseas or not. I go out of my way to find NZ made things. I dislike how difficult it can be.
respectfullt BJ
December 9th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
# Ari Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 6:08 am
“I also see it as very weird that we’ve previously opposed this type of labelling internationally. I’ve often heard offhand comments from overseas friends I met on the internet about how New Zealand exports great food. Seems to me like it could be used as sort of deliberate branding, rather than hurting our interests.”
Fonterra are producing more and more milk outside New Zealand. It may be that they want to use New Zealand for branding purposes, but actually sell dairy products from other countries as well and hopw people assume it’s from New Zealand. In that case, Country of Origin Labelling would lead to them being found out.
Another allegation I’ve heard is that some New Zealand companies are actually selling New Zealand produce as foreign produce to get around import quotas.
Either way, New Zealand companies that oppose country of origin labelling internationally are likely to be trying to fool someone.
December 9th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
If the food is safe then there is no specific information the supermarkets should have to provide.
If you bigots are concerned about the nationality of the growers, their religion, their ethnicity, their sexuality etc, then that is *your* problem. Start your own supermarket and put all the labelling you want on the stuff you sell. That way you can buy only goods made by white Christian heterosexuals in the south island, or whatever it is you choose.
I’m serious. You have the freedom to do this, to open your own supermarket for rednecks.
Yet for some reason you choose not to: you choose instead to impose yet more regulation and cost on the rest of us by forcing other people to supply just the specific extra information that, for whatever reason, interests you.
It’s scary just how quick you people are to reach for the power of the state to impose your wishes on everyone else.
December 9th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Anybody remember the ‘Iceland’ effect in the UK over GM food?
Nobody was bothering to offer non-GM food in the UK 10 years ago, there was ‘no demand’. The food chain ‘Iceland’ banned GMOs from their products and doubled their market share in a couple of months. They basically forced all UK supermarkets to ban GMOs in thier own brands. It turned out that consumers really didn’t want ‘mucked about with’ food after all.
Anytime someone says that supermarkets know what their customers want just say “Iceland”.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Thanks for posting a link to that US cost estimation. The full study is:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/ls0216.htm
Also in that US study they said that 2 million food producers, 100,000 processors and distributors and 31,000 retail stores would be affected and multiplying all those assumptions out they came to a total cost of $2 billion which sounds huge but remember this is the US and.
the admin time necessary is very small, and this cost estimate is based entirely on costing the hourly rate of the people doing the admin, but in the real world it would be staff who are employed already who will be doing the admin which they can easily fit in (an hour a month!) with their other duties. I can’t imagine that any food producer would have to hire extra staff or pay any one more money to do the admin work. So really the $2 billion figure is very unrealistic.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Also they separate the cost into setup costs and ongoing - set-up costs could be reduced if the ministry responsible provided sample record-keeping systems to businesses. Kinda like for the introduction of STV the dept internal affairs provided vote counting software to all the returning officers.
The complete assumptions in the US study.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
A quick NZ version … just dividing by 300/4 (population) and 0.779302 (currency):
Primary producers - 26666 - develop time 1 day - ongoing 1 hour per month - @ $20 per hour.
total develop $4.1 million + total ongoing $6.2 million = $10.4 million.
Food Handlers (including packers, processors, importers, wholesalers, and distributors) - 1333 - develop time 2 days - ongoing 1 hour per week - @ $40 per hour.
total develop $0.8 million + total ongoing $2.7 million = $3.5 million.
Retailers - 413 - develop time 5 days - ongoing 1 hour per day - @ $50 per hour.
total develop $0.6 million + total ongoing $5.8 million = $6.5 million.
Total Cost: $20 million.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
You might benefit greatly MW, by not making shit up…
December 10th, 2007 at 1:01 am
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/04/0080501
What will your kids be eating when the sh!t finally hits the fan?
Slightly off topic but… what the heck
December 10th, 2007 at 3:17 am
kahikatea - thanks for the followup! Another wonderful example of how corporate interests, even of companies that are often friendly to New Zealand, can get in the way of what’s best for consumers and producers here.
Mouldwarp - Nobody wants to discriminate about the nationality of a product without a reason. Even “supporting local business” can be a legitimate reason. Globalisation has costs and people have a right to choose in their shopping habits whether they support it or not, even ignoring things like regional health issues, laxer food standards in certain countries, etc… Keep in mind that not all health and safety checks keep unhealthy food out of our supermarkets.
Bluepeter - I find it interesting that you think that businesses will always automatically realise when a better strategy exists and utilise it! Free market theory doesn’t even account for imperfect knowledge or irrationality at all, let alone from producers, so if that’s where you’re getting this idea that if CoOL was good it would already be implemented, I suggest you reconsider. Trying out new strategies can be very risky for businesses, especially ones like supermarkets that already live on slim profit margins. They’re only going to implement a strategy if they’re very sure of it, either from analysis or from repeated consumer pressure.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Ari,
- “Nobody wants to discriminate about the nationality of a product without a reason. Even “supporting local businessâ€? can be a legitimate reason. Globalisation has costs and people have a right to choose in their shopping habits whether they support it or not”
They are certainly free to discriminate in any way they see fit, I agree; be their reasons noble or despicable, informed or ignorant. That’s what freedom means.
However, there are an *endless* number of ways that people can and do discriminate; some of which you will agree with, and others you won’t.
Why do people have a “perfect right” to the information that just happens to concern you, but not an equal right to a vast mass of other details, such as I mentioned before?
Why do you think that supermarkets should be forced to provide the information that *you* are interested in and yet which does not interest many others in the slightest? Given the endless concerns and prejudices of you and everyone else, why is it that yours - and only yours - should be imposed by force by the state?
The free market will reveal if there is genuine demand for this information and, just as importantly, how much people are prepared to pay for it. Given that you people are talking about threatening supermarkets with state violence if they don’t start providing you with this information on the labels, I’d say that there is not a great deal of interest in this issue (because, whilst it’s easy to make all the right noises when responding to opinion polls, the free market makes people put their money where their mouth is).
I think it fair to say that profit-driven supermarkets have a far better idea of what people want than either you or I, so we should probably stop with the nonsense about how they are leaving money on the table because they are too scared to innovate.
As I said before, you have a “perfect right” to start your own shop and provide whatever information you wish on the label. And that is where your rights end.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Mouldwarp
That’s a heck of a lot better. Thanks.
I don’t know what drives the supermarkets to not support change… but the market isn’t the perfectly efficient engine you expect it to be. It can have problems with local minima and inertia… and it needs to be prodded sometimes.
However, even on a very local level, I have always wanted to know where produce comes from . Corn sold on Long-Island for instance, is different from corn from Iowa…. you may not believe it but I can taste the difference. I can’t see it, and I can’t smell it, but I can definitely taste it. Now I can’t really tell Iowa from Kansas, but I really do want to know where it comes from.
I don’t trust a lot of foodstuffs coming from China. I don’t trust the toys, how can I trust the foods? This is a safety issue. Antifreeze in toothpaste… lead in paint… what was it in the cat food?
Maybe, if enough people ask, one of the market chains will break with the others and we’ll see a choice in the market. As long as there is no break, there is no market signal to be heeded. That’s the inertial reference.
The question of “if it is safe” isn’t answerable. There’s no entity guaranteeing THAT for many overseas products. Your argument is weakened by the lack of reliability of that knowledge.
IF carbon pricing were properly pushed into every part of the food supply chain AND there was some way to be sure that all food, no matter where it was from, was safe, I’d accept that CoOL wasn’t needed.
Neither of those assumptions/assertions are true. The supermarkets may need a nudge before any of them will move, but if all markets are equally regulated none gains an advantage by changing or not-changing. Easier on them. Standardization is also a desireable outcome. What each market says about CoOL is going to look different to consumers and comparing apples with apples allows competition between the markets to make a difference. .
respectfully
BJ
December 12th, 2007 at 9:36 am
“Or I might hear about animal cruelty in the preparation of meat, eggs, or dairy products in a foreign country.”
Sorry to disillusion you but there is an incredible level of cruelty in animal products in our own supposedly caring country. In fact, European animal products would probably have been produced with a modicum less cruelty than New Zealand made. For example, in New Zealand, the following cruel practices are quite legal (see the Codes of Welfare at http://www.maf.govt.nz)
1. Keeping pigs in sow stalls and farrowing crates. These are so small the pigs cannot even turn around. When millionaire pork board boss Colin Kay was caught using stall that breached the law, MAF conveniently changed the law for him, instead of prosecuting. Sow stalls and farrowing crates are being phased out in some European countries and some US states
2. Battery hens. Illegal in Switzerland, Finland, Sweden and being phased out in the EC. Here the Egg producers federation have been lobbying government to keep us in the dark ages.
3. Broiler chickens. Up to 40% of these are in acute pain from lamenesss in the last week of their life according to a recent NZ study (compared with about 25% in Europe - still disgusting but better than our abyssmal record)
4. Dairy. Calves are separated from their mothers at birth. Causes grief for mother and baby. Dairy cows are worked harder than a cyclist at the tour de France according to scientist Mark Fisher, and they are slaughtered after 3 lactations.
5. Sheep. Mulesing (slicing the buttocks) is legal in NZ and Australia. Not performed in Europe.