Ever so slowly, people across the globe (in Western societies, at least) have been waking up to the fact that "the government" doesn't protect their interests to anything like the degree they have long-assumed it does, and most especially when it comes to issues such as the ingredients in the food products that are permitted to enter the market.
But like so many subjects where transparency is often hard-won, it's part of a much broader issue that's akin to the proverbial peeling back of the many layers of an onion.
One of those layers beyond food labeling
per se, is the language and terminology used
on the labels . . . the issue being that highly deceptive names are historically, routinely and persistently used by food processors and manufacturers
(actually, not just food, either)
to bamboozle the consumer and/or to lull them into a false sense of security.
And unfortunately, as high-profile environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy
(a current runner in the U.S. Presidential elections race) explains in
this prime time Fox News segment (with an extremely daring host), in the case of many highly health-damaging ingredients, a name is given to them that, contrary to their actual and very negative impacts, gives consumers the impression these components are actually healthy.
Why You CANNOT Trust Government Regulatory Agencies to 'Have Your Back', As A Consumer
This is precisely
why consumers simply cannot
assume government agencies "have their back". The reality is, the more the health-conscious consumer digs into the hornet's nest of vested interests and revolving doors between Big Ag, Big Food, and government regulatory agencies, the more it becomes evident that "the back" those agencies "have" is the back of the commercial interests, not "the people".
Is New Zealand's government agency regulatory scene any different? I've done no deep dive (or any dive, YET) into the matter . . . but suffice to ask this question:
Why
would it be?
The
below Fox News / RFK Jr segment represents a highly worthwhile investment of 7 minutes and 5 seconds of your time.
One thing I would particularly like to highlight from the segment is the deceptive use of the descriptor,
"natural flavour". I've known since the 1990s that this is a real demon in disguise. I was alerted to it by the horse's mouth
(I use that term, in this instance, with great respect)
of Australian food technology.
I "went out on my own" (in marketing communications consulting) as quite a young sprout, and managed to score, as a client, Australia's largest beverages producer and related foods mega-conglomerate, Berrivale Orchards Ltd (far more commonly known in the marketplace by its umbrella brand name, Berri Fruit Juices).
"Jordan, there's NO SUCH THING as a 'natural' additive!" (Chief food tech, to me, during my time servicing Australia's largest beverages manufacturer)
One day, in a private conversation centred around my health-consciousness re additives and my stated preference for products containing only "natural flavours", BVO's
(as the company was referred to in internal communications)
chief scientist / head of food technology confided in me: "Jordan, there is NO SUCH THING as a 'natural' additive. If it's ADDED to a product, it's a CHEMICAL. There's no difference between just 'flavour' and 'natural flavour' on a label. They're ALL CHEMICALS."
I've never forgotten, and I've never since (knowingly) bought a THING with "natural flavour" or any "flavour" listed on the ingredients. Although I have certainly thrown a fair few products into the garbage, that I HAVE bought, and I'm sure they DID have flavour additives and didn't list them in the ingredients.
And just before I close my commentary and let you get to the
below 7-minute and 5-second Fox News / RFK Jr segment, just so you can see the deceptiveness of the food and beverage manufacturing industry, here's an action that got leveled at Berrivale by the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission back in September of 1996, relating to alleged misleading labeling:
BVO's premium brand,
The Daily Juice Company, was positioned in the market as "fresh-squeezed daily". Its front labels sung it out, as did its multi-million dollar national advertising and promotional campaigns. Yeah, well - as the ACCC discovered - a good proportion of that "fresh-squeezed, daily" juice was actually
reconstituted
juice (not the same thing by a looong shot). I'd seen the "reconstituting" thereof during my factory visits to the company's South Australian Riverland-located primary manufacturing plant . . . and it wasn't a particularly healthy-looking sight - IMHO.
So you get the point. When it comes to food labeling, it's not only an issue of making sure food is labeled - but making sure it's not labeled deceptively. Which
it is in very many cases . . . and the manufacturers, marketers, and not-very-neutral government regulatory "watchdogs", are NOT there to have YOUR back. Believe me. As lauded environmental lawyer
(first and foremost, before being a politician),
Robert Kennedy Jr, explains in this fast-paced, with examples, segment:
