Anusha
Bradley, Investigative Reporter
The
government is considering signing up to Trans-Tasman rules
on baby formula – after rejecting them amid industry
lobbying.
This potential policy shift follows a change
of heart from formula companies, including major players
Danone and The a2 Milk Company, who had previously
campaigned against the standards.
These companies now
support opting in to the regulations and have dropped all
opposition to restricting specialist formulas to pharmacies
– one of the major sticking points during the standards’
drafting.
The proposed standards, developed by Food
Standards Australia New Zealand over more than a decade, aim
to update 20-year-old regulations and tighten rules on
misleading product claims.
New Zealand initially opted
out, citing concerns over potential harm to its $2 billion
annual infant formula exports.
An RNZ investigation revealed
extensive lobbying by a handful of formula companies,
who argued the changes would negatively impact their exports
and profits, and would threaten their continued presence in
New Zealand.
The companies, led by Danone and a2,
bombarded senior ministers with emails, letters, surveys and
even legal advice, as well as having at least six meetings
with Food
Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard in the six months leading up
to the decision late last year.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
Alongside the
proposal to restrict “medical” formula sales to pharmacies,
the companies also disagreed with changes that would have
prevented them from being able to list ingredients or milk
protein fractions on the front labels of formula
tins.
Following New Zealand’s decision to opt out of
the joint standards, the government announced it would look
at creating its own standards.
But the Ministry for
Primary Industries is now looking at how it can join back in
and negotiate an exemption with Australia on the labelling
restrictions that formula companies opposed, RNZ
understands.
In an interview, Hoggard declined to
confirm what options were on the table, or if he backed a
move to join the standards with Australia.
“I need to
be discussing this not only with Australia, but also
potentially with Cabinet. Those are discussions I want to
have face to face with people, not via the media.
“For
me, where I want to get to is a place where we are utilising
the best of that standard, whether or not we copy and paste
it or we’re able to modify it and get back in.
“My
preference is to just provide certainty to the industry as
to where we are going forward from here.”
Infant
Nutrition Council chief executive Jonathan Chew said its 36
members, which included Danone and a2, wanted the government
to opt back in.
“Members all agree that it is the best
outcome if the New Zealand government was prepared to follow
through with that option, acknowledging that it requires
negotiation with the Australian government.
“Then if
option one fails, that leaves plan b,” Chew said, referring
to the government’s original plan of creating a New Zealand
standard under the Food Act.
Opting in with an
exemption for the labelling issues was always the industry’s
preference, Chew said, but this could not be achieved last
year.
“A quirk in the FSANZ process prevented that
from happening. New Zealand, to get a modification, has to
raise the issue before the final proposal is presented. But
you’re not necessarily going to know if you need a
modification until the final proposal comes
out.”
Hoggard said he did not get advice on this
process until it was too late.
Chew said there were
now concerns Australia could try and prevent imports of New
Zealand formula that did not comply with the new standards
once they came into force in 2030.
For more than 15
years, the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement has
allowed goods imported into either country to be legally
sold without meeting the other country’s
requirements.
Only a small number of high-risk
products, such as firearms and hazardous substances are
exempt.
But in January, the Australian government
re-categorised imported infant formula products as “medium
to high risk”.
It was the first time formula imports
had been given this rating but it was enough to make Danone
concerned.
Danone declined to be interviewed, but in a
statement, it said such a move might restrict free trade
between New Zealand and Australia.
“This early action
may restrict free trade between New Zealand and Australia,”
Danone director Maria Venetoulis said.
She questioned
whether trade restrictions would be realistic given products
labelled for New Zealand or export markets would be
compositionally identical to products labelled for
Australia.
“The food safety risk for both products
should be the same.”
In the meantime, the “best
option” is for New Zealand to opt in to the standards with a
modification for the labelling issues.
It had called
for the government to opt out of the scheme last year,
because at that time a modification could not be guaranteed,
Venetoulis said.
Opposition to specialist formulas
dropped
Meanwhile, formula companies no longer
opposed restricting the sale of medical purpose formulas to
pharmacies only, Chew said.
“This is not a live issue
anymore. The industry has decided the issues around
labelling are more important and that’s been the
focus.”
Under the proposal, special medical purpose
formulas, such as those for colic, reflux or lactose-free,
would be taken off supermarket shelves and could only be
bought from pharmacies or from health
professionals.
Danone and the INC argued this would
severely restrict access to these products for rural
families and could lead to some special formulas – which
were mostly imported – from being
discontinued.
Australian academic Julie Smith, who
researches the lobbying activities of infant formula
companies, said Danone and a2 Milk dominated the specialised
medical formulas market in New Zealand, but had probably
realised they would be able to sell their products through
online pharmacies instead.
She also questioned the
likelihood of New Zealand getting a modification to the
labelling standards if it were to opt back in.
“If
it’s evidence-based, then zero chance, because it’s been
well established that this promotion of products is
effective in marketing formulas and affecting parents’
decisions.
“But if it comes down to industry power
over officials and ministers, then I’d say the chances are
very good,” the Australian National University professor
said.
“It’s a problem for our democracy when our
health policies and what’s going into our babies mouths is
not determined by evidence about what’s good for them, it’s
determined by marketing.
“People will be shocked if
they realise just how much of what we eat is determined by
that sort of lobbying.”
Labour’s food safety
spokesperson Rachel Brooking said it was “worth trying” to
opt back into the standards with Australia.
“An opt
out can cause confusions with the different labels between
countries. But if a standalone standard is needed for New
Zealand, then it does need to be based on infant safety
rather than the economics of what companies are maybe
saying.”
New Zealand’s public broadcaster, providing comprehensive NZ news and current affairs, specialist audio features and documentaries.
Radio New Zealand is a Crown entity established under the Radio New Zealand Act 1995. Radio New Zealand News are vital elements in our programming, providing impartial news and information to New Zealanders every day. Radio New Zealand (RNZ) provides listeners with exciting and independent radio programmes in accordance with the Radio New Zealand Charter.
