by frog
This is something a bit ironic. Here in New Zealand we are not allowed to know where our food comes from because it could undermine our trading ambitions. Yet the country we harbour the most lust and ambition to trade with, and with whom we are about to enter trade negotiations, has just bought into force a federal law requiring country of origin labelling on food. Yup, yesterday the United States had its first day under a new law requiring supermarkets and large food retailers to label foods with their country of origin so consumers could know where it came from.
Covered by the new rules: ground beef, chicken, pork, veal, steak, lamb and goat, along with fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables, macadamia nuts, pecans and peanuts.
And it looks like Americans are getting ready for a possible trade agreement with us too:
“If you know that peppers from Mexico might have salmonella, then maybe you would say, ‘I want to buy peppers from California.’ Or maybe you would want to know that your food has a smaller carbon footprint. You can buy apples from Washington instead of New Zealand.”
Consumer groups there are unhappy that the law does not go far enough. For instance it exempts many processed foods such as spam. That’s definitely not far enough, but at least it’s somewhere.
Published in Society & Culture by frog on Wed, October 1st, 2008
Tags: country of origin, Food, food labelling, United States
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
“You can buy apples from Washington instead of New Zealand”
It’s blatant protectionism from the producers under the guise of consumer choice.
Guess they’re learning a few tricks from the EEC….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“It’s blatant protectionism from producers under the guise of consumer choice.”
Nope, it’s just informed consumers exercising personal choice, no “guise” at all. If an American consumer chooses to buy American apples because of concerns about food miles or just to buy American, then good on them.
Just as I would like to be equally well informed so I can buy New Zealand for whichever reasons I choose – food safety, food miles, or just because I like to support New Zealand producers whenever I can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, it’s just about being informed, then.
How about providing information on the race of people that made the food? Their religious beliefs? Who decides what information is made compulsory, and what isn’t? If there is enough market demand for location labelling, then won’t producers just provide this information?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No, that would make the label too large
But once you know the country of origin, chances are you’ll already know the answers to those other questions if they’re important to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“How about providing information on the race of people that made the food? Their religious beliefs? ”
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record… Giving people information about the country a product is made in is a simple way of telling them: “This was made in this jurisdiction where these rules, standards and levels of enforcement odf said rules apply”.
It has no relation to religion or ethnicity. “Made in China” doesn’t tell me whether something was made by a muslim, Christian, Confucian or atheist, or whether they are Mongolian, Uigher, Bai, Han or Kirgihiz.
Nations are legal constructs (unless you are from a Marxist Leninist or similar school of thought and believe them to be natural formations).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
*Some* people demand to know where the food comes from, which is fine, but I don’t see why that should be made compolsory. Extra compliance and red-tape, not to mention supply chain issues, raises costs.
Wandering through the supermarket, I note that *a lot* of origin labeling already occurs. For example, I only buy tinned Roma tomatoes from Italy as the NZ varieties are usually too watery for Italian sauces.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)