NZ regulatory body welcomed
Either some opponents were being disingenuous, or we didn’t do a good enough job of getting our position on the TTGA and dietary supplements across (or a bit of both). Politicians, bloggers and commentators alike crowed about the huge hypocrisy of Sue K wanting testing and regulations on frivolous things, like, say, food safety or genetic modification, while at the same time calling for a Wild West/free market approach to natural health products.
Except that it was already policy, and Sue has advocated for more than seven years for a robust New Zealand based regulatory system. Now an industry grouping called the NZ Health Trust have issued a joint position statement to push the idea along. Sue’s release welcoming the move is here.
Bookmark to:
August 15th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I think people saw the compulsory origin labeling campaign as being politically motivated, rather than motivated by concerns about food safety or health.
Saw through it, in other words.
August 20th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Not around here they don’t - I’ve had only positive feedback (and lots of signatures) about COOL.
On the regulation of dietary supplements - I think that the fact we have policy for robust local legislation was not well promoted as part of the campaign. It’s unfortunate that the positive and educative side of our campaigns is often overlooked (as it was in the Vote 16 and Section 59 ones as well) - not easy to make soundbites from or to put across.
Some media are being disingenuous too, but we make good targets because it is hard to make the complex very simple.
PEL is being cynical about Green motives, a not untypical response from those who get most of their information from the daily media
August 20th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
>>PEL is being cynical about Green motives, a not untypical response from those who get most of their information from the daily media
How presumptuous. In reality, I get my information exclusively from Communist Weekly.
Still haven’t heard one good reason why origin labeling *needs* to be compulsory?
The food is either safe, or it shouldn’t be on the shelves at all.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
PEL
Compulsory = Everyone has to do the same thing and endures the same costs.
Non-Compulsory=We can do this cheaper by not doing it at all.
Market price advantage=Lack of information to consumers.
respectfully
BJ
August 20th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Why should “everyone endure the same costs” to benefit the few? - and I question the actual benefit provided.
Again, if the issue is food safety, then the product from New Zealand, China, Australia, Belgium, France, Samoa….should not be on the shelves. At all.
So what is the real issue here, as if I didn’t know….