Horticulture NZ and the NZ Food and Grocery Council are worried that the government's proposed Food Bill may have unintended consequences.The bill, which passed first reading in June, aims to provide a risk-based regulatory regime to manage food safety an
Horticulture NZ and the NZ Food and Grocery Council are worried that the government’s proposed Food Bill may have unintended consequences.
The bill, which passed first reading in June, aims to provide a risk-based regulatory regime to manage food safety and suitability issues, improve business certainty and minimise compliance costs.
It would replace the Food Act of 1981 if passed into law.
But several industry groups told the primary production select committee yesterday that the new legislation may actually increase compliance costs.
Horticulture NZ chief executive Peter Silcock recognised the need for a new law.
The Food Bill would provide a crucial base for government-to-government negotiations on food safety requirements for imports – a pressing issue, particularly in the Asean region.
Horticulture NZ’s concern is that the bill fails to recognise existing third-party assurance programmes – and would duplicate existing requirements and costs.
Additional compliance costs for growers alone could be as high as $7.63 million.
The dairy industry is not facing the same compliance cost issue, as the bill recognises processes that exist under previous legislation, such as the 1999 Animal Products Act (APA).
Fonterra fully supports the bill – provided that APA continues to be recognised.
Horticulture NZ would like its own standards, put in place voluntarily rather than under existing regulations, added to the list of existing processes and standards that can be recognised by the bill.
NZ Food and Grocery Council chief executive Katherine Rich supports the bill in principle - but also raised compliance cost concerns.
She told the committee that the bill’s proposed penalty increases are set too high.
The Food Bill proposes fines starting at about $50,000 for individuals and up to $500,000 for a body corporate.
Penalties under the current law range between $3000 and $5000.
The risk, Ms Rich explained, is that errors will arise “from time to time” even if a business maintains top-notch food production standards and employees.
“For small businesses, half a million dollars is not just punitive but could potentially destroy that business ... there’s a better balance to be struck there.”
She also recommended that a more simplified register of importers be put in than that currently proposed by the bill, again to avoid undue compliance costs.
The select committee's report on the bill is due early next year.
