The Primary Production Committee has examined the Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill and recommends that it be passed with the amendments shown.

The Consumer’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill is a Member’s bill that was introduced in the 51st Parliament in the name of Steffan Browning, MP. It was adopted by Gareth Hughes, MP in the 52nd Parliament.

The bill seeks to provide a mandatory labelling system that provides consumers with accurate information about the country of origin of single component foods. This would enable them to make informed decisions about their food purchases.

The requirements would apply to packaged or unpackaged food or food products that contain only one type of vegetable, fruit, meat, seafood, nut, grain, seed, or oil. The foods could contain water, sugar or its substitutes, salt, or other ingredients used in preserving, colouring, or flavouring.

The bill would require information about the country of origin of the single component food to be displayed at the point of sale. The information could be contained on a label or connected with the food or food product.

The bill would create offences for false or misleading labelling on packaged food or displays, with fines of up to $10,000 for individuals and $50,000 for organisations.

This commentary covers the main amendments we recommend to the bill as introduced. We do not discuss minor, technical, or consequential amendments.

Section 27 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 allows regulations to be made that prescribe consumer information standards for goods or services.

Rather than creating a permanent standalone Act for a single issue, we consider that the requirements of this bill should be contained in a consumer information standard under section 27 of the Fair Trading Act. This would avoid the confusion of having the legal requirements for country of origin labelling for consumer goods spread across several Acts. It would also give access to the existing enforcement regime under the Act.

We therefore recommend that all provisions of the bill be deleted, excluding the title, commencement, and purpose clauses. In their place, we propose a requirement for the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend that regulations be made under the Fair Trading Act, which we discuss below.

Clause 5 of the bill as introduced specifies the principles that apply to decisions made and actions taken under the legislation. We recommend replacing this clause to set out the principles and requirements for the new consumer information standard.

We recommend inserting new clause 5(1), which would require the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs to recommend that regulations be made under section 27 of the Fair Trading Act. The regulations would prescribe a consumer information standard for disclosing a regulated food’s country or place of origin.

We consider that the precise details of the scope of the labelling regime should be covered when the regulations are drafted. However, we recommend inserting clause 5(2) to require that the Minister be satisfied that the consumer information standard:

• requires the country or place of origin of a regulated food to be disclosed by referring to where it was grown, caught, or raised, rather than simply where it was packaged or processed

• commences 6 months after the date of its notification in the Gazette (for fresh foods)

• does not apply to frozen foods until 18 months after the commencement of the standard.

This different timeframe recognises that frozen foods are often sold packaged and have a longer shelf life and so allows time for the transition to the new regime.

We recommend inserting clause 5(3) to specify the foods to which the regulations apply.

We discussed several options for foods that could be included in the regulations. They were:

• fresh, minimally processed foods

• foods that contain exactly one specified ingredient

• foods with a specified ingredient that comprises over 50 percent of the food.

To adopt a scheme that is the simplest to implement with the least costs, and to avoid confusion around definitions, we recommend that the labelling regime should apply only to single ingredient foods that are fresh or frozen and unprocessed or minimally processed. Examples of minimal processing include being cut, filleted, or minced.

We have decided to specifically incorporate cured pork products within the definition of this bill to provide certainty to consumers that these products would be approved under the tests in this bill.

Clauses 6 and 7 of the bill as introduced specify that all packaged or unpackaged food on sale in New Zealand must identify the country of origin. We consider this definition very broad, and believe it could result in restaurants, takeaway shops, school canteens, and fundraisers needing to include the origin of regulated foods.

We recommend that the labelling regime should apply only to food for retail sale, with the exceptions noted above. This would mean that food sold by food retailers would be covered, but other types of food businesses, such as restaurants or takeaways shops, would not be.

We sought advice about whether our proposed regime, covering single ingredient, minimally processed, fresh or frozen foods, would be consistent with New Zealand’s international trade obligations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s (MFAT) preliminary advice is that it would be possible to implement the proposed regime in a way that is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations. If this proposal progresses, MFAT would work with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Ministry for Primary Industries to ensure that the regulations were consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations.

Clause 3 of the bill as introduced sets out the purpose of the legislation. It provides for a simple, mandatory labelling system that gives consumers accurate information about the origin of foods to help them make informed decisions. While retaining this clause, we recommend removing the reference to “labelling”. We consider that the requirements for how the origin of a food is disclosed should be set out in regulations. This could include information provided on labels on products or signage associated with the sale of products.

We recommend inserting new clause 5(4) to allow the Minister to exclude any food from the regulations if compliance would be unduly onerous or would not help consumers to make informed decisions about the food. An example would be a small amount of product sold at a roadside stall, where it is obvious that it is grown at that place. This exclusion would not apply to larger produce stalls selling, for example, fruit and vegetables that included some imported products.

We considered whether other foods, such as nuts, grains, seeds, and oils, should be included in the regulations. We recommend inserting new clause 5(8) to make it clear that the bill does not limit the Minister’s existing ability to recommend additional requirements under the Fair Trading Act. This could include other types of food outside the scope of foods covered by the bill. We received advice that the Minister has the ability to add any product under regulation to those covered under this bill.

Under clause 2 of the bill as introduced, the legislation would commence 6 months after the date of Royal assent. We recommend amending this clause so that it came into force on the day after the date of Royal assent. This would enable the regulation-drafting process to begin.

We recommend inserting new clause 5(6) to require the Minister to recommend the regulations no later than 18 months after the commencement of the legislation. At that point, our proposed new clause 6 would then repeal this legislation.