Australian ministers reject NZ request for review of infant formula labelling requirement

Thursday, 25 July 2024

Danone had warned stricter rules on the labelling of infant formula could put NZ jobs at risk by hampering exports to China and South-East Asia.

Australian food ministers have declined a New Zealand request to review labelling requirements in a new trans-Tasman standard for infant formula that has been 11 years in the making.

The decision means the countries may go separate ways on the issue.

Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (Fsanz) has developed a new standard for infant formula which includes rules that further limit the types of statements that manufacturers can make about their products on their packaging.

French multinational Danone warned on Sunday that it might need to stop manufacturing infant formula in New Zealand under the proposal, which it likened to a requirement to “white-label” infant formula in plain packaging.

It warned that could cost the country 441 jobs and $1 billion in annual exports.

Danone’s Sydney-based director of legal compliance, Maria Venetoulis, had argued Fsanz’s code would in effect prohibit manufacturers from telling consumers about “innovations” and the advances Danone had made in its products.

Food ministers from both countries met in Australia on Thursday to discuss the standard.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Food Minister Andrew Hoggard had made clear ahead of the meeting that the Government would seek a review of the labelling rules, with Hoggard making clear its objection to Fsanz’s proposal was primarily economic.

But a communiqué issued on Thursday evening by the food ministers group, which is chaired by Australian federal assistant health minister Ged Kearney, said it had agreed not to request Fsanz review the standard.

Food Minister Andrew Hoggard has failed in his bid to seek a review, but New Zealand has the option of ‘opting out’.

“New Zealand noted that due to concerns New Zealand will be considering their option to opt out of the standard,” the communiqué stated.

Some health experts had suggested the Government should not have raised objections.

Dr Gergely Toldi, a neonatologist and senior lecturer at Auckland Unversity’s Liggins Institute, said the original trans-Tasman standard made sense.

“I think formula milk and formula products do have a place in society. But there are questionable marketing practices that we as a speciality don’t agree with or support,” he said.

Jonathan Chew, chief executive of the Infant Nutrition Council, which represents businesses involved in the formula industry, said it was pleased the Government had signalled its intent to seek a specific New Zealand “modification” to the labelling rules.

“Australia can promote and protect breastfeeding without demonising infant formula or those parents who need it,” he said in a statement.

Speaking to The Post shortly before the ministerial communiqué, Chew said that if Australia and New Zealand did go different ways on labelling, that could cause some complications.

Australia was one of the many markets to which New Zealand exported infant formula, so a divergence in their standards would “not be ideal”, he said.

“New Zealand is a significant exporter of infant formula generally, and some goes into the Australian market. Other New Zealand businesses have operations in Australia where they do local manufacturing.”

The devil would be in the detail of how any modification to the standard, if there was one, was drafted, Chew said.

He believed any issues could potentially be handled by New Zealand manufacturers continuing to export infant formula to Australia and labelling it there.

That hadn’t been a good option for the Chinese export market given Chinese consumers were looking for the New Zealand label specifically, because they had put a premium on that, he said.