Buying locally

It will not have gone unnoticed that two of the countries expected to survive the global monetary crisis relatively securely are China and India, whose economies many experts are confidently predicting will become the dominating forces in the 21st century.

In this country, that dominance is represented for most people by the "made in China" notation on a great many of the products and clothing they buy, for the free market policies followed here by successive governments since the late 1980s has meant, inevitably, that market forces have determined much of our manufacturing industry must be located offshore.

Thus have jobs, businesses, and in many cases profits, been exported, in return for a wider and greater volume of less expensive imports and the creation of many new businesses and jobs by which they are sold.

There is an argument, growing in strength, that New Zealand should, as far as possible, return to a situation where as much as possible in the way of goods and food should be made here.

The "Buy New Zealand Made" campaign is an example based largely on issues of national sentiment and manufacturing quality.

The Green Party has for some years also advocated policies designed to "regain control of our food supply for a healthy nation in an oil constrained world" and has made this a central plank of its election campaign this year.

Buying locally will certainly be good for the economy, especially when local manufacturing is not reliant on taxpayer-funded subsidies to disguise inefficiencies.

Another aspect of the Greens' policy is to have mandatory country-of origin-labelling so that consumers can know where the 1.8 million tonnes of food imported every year comes from.

The Clark Government's position has been to deny such labelling because it claims it does not serve a food safety purpose.

Since all food for sale here must meet regulatory standards, a label that advises the country of origin of the whole food, or of each or some of the ingredients, would not in itself provide information on the safety of the food, it has said.

In this it is supported by the Food Safety Authority, whose mandate includes the provision of reliable information for consumers on food issues.

Curiously, however, the Government supports voluntary country-of-origin labelling as a "service to consumers".

The National Party in Parliament joined Labour in opposing a Green Party-sponsored petition of 39,000 signatures seeking country-of-origin labelling to be disclosed on fresh fruit, vegetables, meat, and fish.

Of the other parties contesting the election, New Zealand First believes the public has every right to know where food comes from before purchasing it, the Progressive Party is opposed to genetically modified food, and the Maori Party, United Future, and Act New Zealand do not appear to have specific policies.

What is inconsistent about the opposition to country-of-origin food labelling is that the rationale of New Zealand food exporters in claiming the benefits from the "clean, green" imagery ensures New Zealand-produced food is so-labelled, with few exceptions.

The "Made in New Zealand" is a proud and valuable label indeed.

Yet in this country it is far easier to find out where your shirt was made than where your breakfast originated.

Country-of-origin labelling is required in Australia but may merely state "made from domestic and imported products", which is not a lot of help for consumers desiring to know more.

Under British and European laws, manufacturers do not have to put the country-of-origin on food labels.

America recently tightened its country-of-origin food labelling requirements, but there are still many exceptions.

Our anxious middle class raises fears about food every time a new contamination scandal arises, the most recent being the melamine-tainted milk in China.

But it does not really matter why consumers decide to buy or not to buy food for there could be any number of reasons, rational and irrational, and they may have nothing whatever to do with food safety.

Some people, for instance, want to ensure the food they eat has the least possible "carbon footprint".

They should be able to make informed decisions about their purchases, whatever they may be, without difficulty, and if there is an extra national economic benefit, so much the better.