Food and produce labelling continues to be a massively important battleground. At stake isn’t just animal welfare, but every aspect of food production in our society, and the attendant impact on our health and well-being.
There is no good excuse for opposition to effective labelling. Companies fight it solely because they know their customers would be unhappy if they were better informed.
Sue Kedgley’s bill to enforce a labelling regime detailing GE ingredients in food was voted down in Parliament yesterday night.
Labour and National joined forces to defeat it 99-20 on its first reading, despite the Green Party MP saying it was supported by the vast majority of consumers.
Under the bill, GE ingredients and GE-derived ingredients would have to be shown on food labels, as well as the country of origin of all food items.
Dammit.
(My awareness of the happenings at Parliament courtesy No Right Turn.)
Wow. O_o
I was rather hoping that NZ political parties weren’t going to be so overtly selfish with their votes.
This is the problem with representative democracy: we don’t get to choose how our country is run, we only get to choose which self-interested monkeys run our country.
Country of origin is something I feel would be particularly good to have on our foods.
As opposed to if we had direct democracy in which case there would be no self-interested monkeys?
Also, just by the by, just because someone votes against a bill designed to deal with a pressing need, it doesn’t mean they don’t want to deal with the pressing need, or that they’re being selfish. Sometimes it means the opposite.
This is purely hypothetical with respect to the bill we’re talking about. I’ve only browsed it, and I don’t know the motives of the MPs who voted against it. It is possible that some may have thought it wasn’t adequate for the task, and that another bill would have a better chance of doing the job.
It isn’t enough for legislation to be “right on”. It has to be coherent and enforcable. A badly designed bill in respect of food labelling, no matter how well-intentioned, could have the effect of seriously fvcking over the consumers it is intended to protect.
Andrew: points noted, but the comments of both big parties explicitly reject the premise of better food labelling. Read the NZPA link for a sample.
John Ralston Saul, in ‘The Collapse of Globalism’ (2005, Penguin), on the creation of the WTO and its implications for top-level decisionmaking:
“Food could be treated as only secondarily something that goes into our stomachs. That we might wish to decide the makeup of what we eat could be dismissed as an interference with the primary question of competing agricultural industries. National health and food rules could be – and quickly were -treated as protectionist interference. All of the questions related to labelling, sources, genetics, insecticides, herbicides and fertilizers might be of primary concern to citizens, but they would be only secondarily of concern to the WTO. Food was a matter of competition and trade.”
And one of the reasons put forward for not having compulsory food labelling is that it’s a barrier to trade. Requirements that we put on food entering our country, such as labelling, that are not required interntaionally by Codex are considered to be barriers to trade. Codex is kind of at the heart of the food labelling regulation.
The other interesting thing that I’ve picked up is that many key organisations including WTO, Codex and NZFSA do not consider most food labelling to be a food ‘safety’ issue. Country of origin labelling is seen as something that consumers might want but not as being related to food safety. (i.e. you might want to not buy products from China for political resaons, but that’s not a food safety issue). And Hello! don’t you know that GE is safe? So, therefore GE labelling is also not a food safety issue. However, I think that even if they were framed as ‘consumer’s rights to information’ issues they’d still fall over because of the issue with Codex and being barriers to trade.
And, in my opinion, one of NZ’s largest issues is that it’s Food Safety Authority sits under the umbrella of MAF rather than Health and has the dual purposes of promoting trade and protecting health. These two purposes are often in direct conflict with each other and promoting trade seems to take precedence over promoting health, largely because that is what MAF is good at. In contrast the UK’s Food Standards Agency has the sole purpose of protecting health and is an indepdendent agency. If you’re going to start anywhere with keeping an eye on food in NZ, I’d start with a lobby for an independent food safety agency that has a sole focus on protecting health and the interests of consumers and that could add a balance to the trade interests.
Check this out for NZFSA’s position on country of origin labelling:
http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/consumers/food-safety-topics/country-of-origin/index.htm
See: all about trade and markets: not a food safet issue.
Cal: yeah, “barrier to trade” – nice one. Reminds me of Canada and asbestos.
It’s a long and complex story, but basically the US passed regulations to phase out asbestos because of its highly toxic properties. Canada challenged this ban because it violated the US-Canada Free Trade agreement. Result? The ban was overturned.
Later, France banned asbestos for the same reason. Canada immediately petitioned the WTO to have the ban overturned, on the grounds that it violated free trade rules. This time the WTO upheld the ban, but they made it clear that this was an exception to free trade rules. The difference was that France did not have a specific free trade agreement with Canada.
Why do we want free trade deals again, exactly?
Andrew: my snark is at career politicians whose interests are their own well being, not the country’s. Obviously everyone is a self-interested monkey to a greater or lesser degree, but our current democratic system almost guarantees that the most selfish will rule.
As Morgue points out, the problem isn’t specifics in the bill, it’s that the major parties oppose food labelling point blank. I believe that they are not operating out of the country’s best interests.
Morgue: the NZPA link you give me doesn’t show that the big parties “explicitly reject the premise of better food labelling”, unless you mean that in the same way one might say “I literally died”.
Pearce: can you show who voted according to their own well-being, and those who voted according to the country’s?
Cal: good point about NZFSA. While there isn’t a guarantee that Government and its officials will see eye to eye, it’s probably a sign that the NZSFA’s view reflects the policy advice being given the Government.
Whomever: still haven’t finished reading the bill. Still don’t have an opinion on whether my own interest in seeing better food labelling would be met by the proposals in this bill for it.
As you said “There is no good excuse for opposition to effective labelling”. This doesn’t presuppose that Kedgley’s bill would have created it. I’m still hesitant to say that it wouldn’t, but I’m also wary of conflating the desire with its realisation.
Andrew: I’m talking general trends rather than specific voting. After all I can’t look into anyone’s head, nor do I have access to the diaries of any politicians.
Let me put it this way, without specific reference to the issue at hand: Phil Goff consistently votes for harsher penalties for crime. Phil Goff is neither stupid nor ignorant, and he knows all about the research which demonstrates that there is no correlation between increasing penalties and decreasing crime.
However, there are VOTES in increasing penalties, there is PUBLICITY in increasing penalties. Most importantly, when Goff was Minister of Justice he was always going on tv to be queried on what he was doing to curb crime.
Rather than addressing this complex problem rationally and actually attempting to do something to prevent crime, which would require long-term solutions that are very difficult to turn into sound bites, Goff chose the “harsher penalties” line every time. He knows damn well that it doesn’t work in practice, but he also knows that certain segments of the population will automatically applaud him for “sticking it to the crims”.
He also knows damn well that any actual solution would require years of research and a lot of money. Rather than going down this road, which would benefit our entire society in the long run, he goes for a non-solution that makes people happy in the short term and allows him to keep his job.
Obviously I am simplifying the matter, but that’s it in a nutshell: what sort of politician is going to vote for something that’s likely to make their own life more difficult, even if it’s going to benefit society at large?
Just to be clear – I’m not saying that I think it’s a barrier to trade, or that even if it is a barrier to traded that that is a good reason to not have food labelling. I’m saying that that is the argument run by food and trade agencies nationally and internationally and that any move to require food labelling would have to somehow overcome this argument.
Andrew: From the NZPA article:
“Labour MPs said regulations already existed which ensured food was safe, and allergenic substances had to be on labels. The Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Protection Act ensured producers complied… National agreed…”
This seems to me like an explicit rejection of better food labelling. Better food labelling of any kind is unnecessary because there are other regulations and acts covering the only relevant issues. I can’t parse this any other way, and even if you can, surely you’d be reaching to do so?
But that’s a side issue. Your approach to the question is what interests me.
Frankly, I am completely unable to see merit in giving the benefit of the doubt.
Refusing to draw (operational, not absolute) conclusions about member positions from member votes is a completely useless tactic. It surrenders all conclusions in order to avoid the (necessarily small) possibility of an erroneous conclusion.
Cal: sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you meant that. It was more of a general response to the idea that trade is the most important thing around.
Btw, my info about why Phil Goff votes the way he does on harsher penalties came from Brian Edwards, who was Helen Clark’s PR manager at the time, so I figure he’d know a thing or two.
Pearce: You’re specifically talking about representative democracy, where the public has representatives to do its will, rather than doing its will itself. The difference, as you point out, is that the public only gets to choose the representative, but not what the representative might do. Now, if a politician does whatever the public will might be (tougher penalties etc), that’s self-interest? Is this correct?
Obviously there isn’t a single “public” or “public will”, but a representative at least represents those who chose this person as a representative, and if this person does what those people want (choose, vote for), then they’re getting more say in the running of the country than if the representative did something that is not what they want (choose, vote for) on the grounds that it’s in their interest.
For the sake of argument I’m neither confirming nor denying that thesis, nor saying it’s yours unless you also say so.
Morgue: First, the side-issue: I think we quibble over the meaning of the word “explicit”.
Also, since you’re having difficulty parsing the
quote, I’d like to know what you think of the two parts you removed.
First, where Maryan Street (Lab) that “Labelling is already problematic. Sometimes, it is said, one needs a degree in chemistry or physics to interpret labels”.
The part you quote would seem very certain, but I believe that is because you remove the bits that interfere with your certainty. To me, the first omission could be either the statement of an apologist for the status quo or a potential reformist. I don’t know because I don’t believe that NZPA article gives enough information. I could find out, of course, and I can draw provisional suppositions on which to act. But conclusions are for concluding with. I don’t need to operate reductively in a field that isn’t as reductive as my own imagination.
The second and less significant omission is where “National” (speaker unidentified) says they agreed, “and said Ms Kedgley’s regime would be costly for producers.” Which suggests something Labour did not say.
Next, my approach to “the question”.
Well, to start with, “the benefit of the doubt”? I don’t think I am giving that, but by the same token, I see you oppose it to “conclusions” whether “operational” or “absolute”. I wonder at your need to conclude, whether or not that conclusion is “operational”. More to the point, when you say “It surrenders all conclusions in order to avoid the (necessarily small) possibility of an erroneous conclusion” it really begs the question whether “conclusions” were ever the issue – that I am placed in a position where I am drawing a conclusion, and then surrendering this position. This smacks of the old canard “if you aren’t for me, you’re against me.”
One other thing I find confused in that paragraph: you say that refusing to draw conclusions (whatever sort) is “a completely useless tactic”. Tactic to what? Of what? Can you finish the sentence? It may be explicit to you, but I’d like to know what you imagine my tactics to be in aid of, so that I can see how you evaluated what makes a tactic useless or useful.
But now that this is raised, I want to return to where I started. Perhaps this will answer some of your questions about the “merits” of my “approach” to the question (some of your difficulty, I suspect, is because you’re reading my answer as one to your question, not mine). I bring this up yet again because I don’t believe you have in any way responded to this point.
I repeat these lines: “It isn’t enough for legislation to be ‘right on’. It has to be coherent and enforcable. A badly designed bill in respect of food labelling, no matter how well-intentioned, could have the effect of seriously fvcking over the consumers it is intended to protect.” And “I’m also wary of conflating the desire with its realisation”.
Perhaps this time it will help address what was concerning me if I give you concrete examples:
Foremost in my mind is the 2001 amendments to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. This, I believe, constitutes a legal risk to precisely those people it was designed to protect, and gives added legal clout to those it was trying to protect them from. It is poorly done, but at the time it earned support from people who were hoping for something more like the Civil Union Act 2004. This is exactly what I mean by “it isn’t enough for legislation to be ‘right on’.”
Another example might be the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, which has taken ten years to get near to fully implemented. This (aside from any other issue) makes it a nightmare to enforce, not only for those who’re expected to comply with it (with the best will in the world, it is difficult to comply with something if you have difficulty understanding it), but also those who’re expected to enforce it.
What possible concerns could I have about a food labelling bill, while still wanting better food labelling? Well, think back on that meretricious advert for butter from a few years ago, where the screen was divided into columns, one for butter ingredients, one for margarine. The margarine colum showed a chemical breakdown of the product, while the butter column said “milk, salt”. I can imagine similar problems (information can be used to bewilder). I can also imagine problems similar to those of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act – depending on how the requirements are set out, it may be that it won’t be the dodgy companies who’re affected, if they’re big enough to absorb the cost of compliance, while it may be the small-enterprise organic produce companies who struggle to afford it. Likewise (and this is something that I did try to explore while reading the bill), what happens if the bill’s definitions are questionably ambiguous? If, for example, GE is defined too loosely or emotively, we could wind up in a situation where either everything or nothing (of any particular food-type – I’m thinking of maize, but fill in whatever you like) is GE, in which case there is no gain for the consumer, and added compliance costs for producers; and with something like maize, it may well be the producers of real GE who’re better able to absorb those wasted compliance costs.
Andrew: David Lange once told me that he felt his job as a politician was not to do what people wanted him to do, but to do the right thing to the best of his abilities. He used as an example the legalization of homosexuality, which he claimed would never have passed if put to the popular vote but which he believed to be the right thing. In other words, he believed he was elected to act in his country’s interests, not merely to be our proxy.
This is not the same thing at all as being elected to do the will of the people, and for all his faults (and he had many) David is widely regarded as one of our best leaders. That’s what politicians should be doing, in my opinion: they should be leading. Not following public opinion or trends for the sake of votes, or for vested interests, or whatever.
At the same time they need to listen to their constituents and figure out which ideas are workable and which are not, and to ensure that they really are representing our best interests.
It’s a fine line and a tough job, but hey – no one is forced to go into politics.
Pearce: so far I don’t believe I have said that I disagree with (or agree with, or anything with) Lange’s position. Rather, I have been trying to critique your first statement about the flaw in representative democracy. And by bringing Lange’s far more reflective considerations of the process of democracy into the debate, I think you show its weakness.
Morgue, PS to last post: if you still have difficulty with my “useless tactic”, I recommend that you read Foucault’s “What Is Enlightenment?” in “Essential Works of Michel Foucault vol.1: Ethics”. This contrasts the ideas of “critique” and “judgement”. I do not necessarily endorse his viewpoint, but it should at least offer you an interesting approach to methods of thinking. Since Foucault tends to be a scare-word, I’ll quote the opening paragraph – it’s only partly relevant to the current discussion, but might make it seem fun to read:
“Today when a periodical asks its readers a question, it does so in order to collect opinions on some subject about which everyone has an opinion already; there is not much likelihood of learning anything new. In the eighteenth century, editors preferred to question the public on programmes that did not yet have solutions. I do not know whether or not that practice was more effective; it was unquestionably more entertaining.”
Hey Andrew,
I think my use of the word ‘tactic’ is key to our disconnect. We can talk about what might be going on forever, but talk doesn’t get us anywhere until it starts affecting behaviour. (Or, information isn’t information unless it operates on a system in some way.)
I’ll be concrete in order to better convey what I’m saying. I now have come to a conclusion that the two major parties are opposed to better food labelling. This will affect my future behaviour and my understanding of the two major parties. (It might be an erroneous conclusion, for all the reasons you note.)
Whereas you, if I read you right, have not formed any such judgement about the two major parties. This means your future behaviour will remain unaffected by what you know about the way the parties voted.
You’ve rounded the information value of the voting down to ‘0’, because it can be multiply explained; I’ve rounded the information value up to ‘1’ because I choose to discount explanations other than the obvious.
I understand fully your concerns about the need for legislation to be *good* legislation. But this aspect of your point isn’t relevant to our disconnect. The issue is whether there is a likely alternative explanation to the voting behaviour of the parties, not what that explanation might be.
Your tactic (and it is a tactical response to knowledge about the world) doesn’t seem useful to me. You could apply the same analytical doubt to every single bill that ever goes to vote, and never draw any conclusions about the parties from voting at all. This is what I mean by ‘surrendering all conclusions’.
I like Foucault, btw, although I haven’t read the work in question. 🙂
(Also, re: the bits excised from the NZPA quote: I don’t think they moderate the bald statement I quoted in any way, merely add some emotive context and (in National’s case) a further concern. That’s precisely why I chopped them out.)
Andrew: That might be why you’re having trouble; critiquing a sarcastic quip as if it’s a political statement isn’t terribly useful. To me its “weakness” is merely that its humour failed.
My critique of representative democracy is, I fear, quite unsophisticated. Basically: In my experience, both in politics and in business, people who are good at capturing power and influence are usually more interested in retaining that power than they are in wielding it in an altruistic fashion.
A sarcastic quip can still be a political statement – think of the crap level of quip/discourse/meaningless statement that the National party indulged in with it’s billboard campaign in the last election -e.g Iwi/Kiwi etc.
Hey Nonny Moose: just because a sarcastic quip can be a political statement, doesn’t mean it’s worth assigning any actual value to. cf. National party bill-boreds.
Also, holding something said by an Oxford debate winner up against something said by a bearded freak on someone else’s blog is not exactly a fair comparison. 😉