New Zealand opts out of adopting a joint Australia-New Zealand infant formula standard due to disagreements over labelling requirements, maintaining its current regulations while working on a local standard. The decision has sparked varied reactions from industry and public health advocates.
New Zealand has decided to opt out of adopting a joint infant formula standard, developed with Australia, as announced by Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard. This decision, reached after extensive discussions and reviews, marks a significant shift in the country’s regulatory approach to infant formula.
Background on the New Standard
The proposed joint standard, developed by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ), aimed to modernize regulations governing infant formula, which have been in place for over two decades. The new standards included stricter controls on product claims and proposed removing specialized formulas from supermarket shelves, limiting their availability to pharmacies or through healthcare professionals. This approach was designed to align with international codes that promote breastfeeding and restrict marketing claims about added benefits, addressing growing concerns over formula marketing practices.
Decision to Opt Out
Minister Hoggard stated that after consulting with Cabinet, New Zealand decided not to adopt the new standards due to disagreements over specific labelling requirements. New Zealand had sought modifications to the proposed standards, particularly regarding restrictions on labelling, which they felt were not suitable for the local context. With these concerns unresolved, New Zealand will continue to follow its existing standards while working towards a tailored New Zealand standard over the next five years. This decision reflects New Zealand’s intent to preserve flexibility in its regulatory framework to better suit local industry needs and consumer preferences.
Industry Reactions
The decision was met with mixed reactions from industry stakeholders. Danone, which owns the Aptamil and Karicare brands, supported the decision, citing concerns that the new standards could jeopardies their operations in New Zealand and negatively impact the attractiveness of New Zealand’s export products. Danone’s Maria Venetoulis praised the decision for protecting consumer access to important information and specialized formulas in supermarkets. She highlighted that the new standards could have led to a reduction in consumer choice and increased operational challenges for manufacturers.
Conversely, the New Zealand College of Midwives expressed disappointment. They had supported the new standards, believing they would provide more accurate information about infant formula and prevent misleading marketing claims. The College argued that the current system allows misleading product claims, which can result in inappropriate purchases by parents and caregivers. They emphasized that the new standards were intended to improve public health by ensuring that marketing practices align with international best practices and provide consumers with clearer, evidence-based information.
Political Support and Criticism
Labor Leader Chris Hipkins supported the decision to opt out, suggesting that it highlighted risks associated with adopting Australia’s regulatory regime without sufficient local adaptation. He argued that the decision underscored the need for New Zealand to maintain its regulatory autonomy to best address local needs and conditions. Hipkins emphasized the importance of crafting regulations that balance international harmonization with domestic priorities.
New Zealand’s decision to opt out of the joint Australia-New Zealand infant formula standard reflects the complexities of balancing international regulatory harmonization with local requirements. While the move has been welcomed by some industry players, it has also sparked debate about the implications for consumer information and public health. The Government remains committed to refining its approach to food safety and standards to ensure both consumer protection and industry viability, while addressing local needs and concerns. This decision underscores the ongoing dialogue between maintaining global standards and accommodating regional specifics in regulatory practices.
