NZ butter in dioxin scare

["Jackie Hunt Christensen" <jchristensen@iatp.org>]

>From the June 10th The Press, in New Zealand
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
> 
>  NZ butter in dioxin scare New Zealand's butter trade has been dragged
>into the European dioxin scare, prompting warnings that a $250 million
>export trade could be damaged. 
>The Dairy Board has been forced to remove its Anchor brand spreadable
>butter from shop shelves in Britain because it is made in Belgium, which is
>at the centre of a food scare that has caused dairy and meat products to be
>pulled from supermarkets throughout the world. 
>
>New Zealand has banned animal products imported from Belgium, France, and
>the Netherlands. Ministry of Health spokesman Bob Boyd said products
>containing significant amounts of pork, poultry, dairy produce, egg, and
>beef from the affected countries would be held by the Ministry of
>Agriculture and Forestry until they were proved to be safe. 
>
>The dioxin is believed to have spread to animal feed through contaminated
>fat from a Belgian processing company run by Lucien Verkest and his son,
Jan. 
>
>The Dairy Board has made spreadable butter using Belgian milk fat for three
>years in a bid to keep the door open to a lucrative British market while it
>fights a European Trade Commission ruling that spreadable butter is not
>real butter. 
>
>Europe has tripled the tariffs on the product, prompting the board to cut
>production or face a $15 million loss. 
>
>Dairy Board chief executive Neville Martin said yesterday that the board
>would immediately restock British shelves with New Zealand-made spreadable
>butter, despite the risk of incurring huge tariffs. Mr Martin said the
>latest row was an unexpected blow. "There is a massive irony in the whole
>thing. We should not have been in this position. The butter ought to have
>been made in New Zealand," he said. 
>
>He denied that sourcing products from Belgium had been a mistake, however.
>"We would have either had to walk away from the market or pay a gigantic
>(tariff) bill." 
>
>No dioxin had been found in any Anchor product sourced from Belgium. The
>board would take every step to protect the industry from harm, Mr Martin
>said. 
>
>Christchurch MP and Green Party co-leader Rod Donald accused the board of
>being caught "with its pants down". New Zealand's whole clean, green,
>export image was in danger of being damaged by a foreign product wrapped in
>a New Zealand label, he said. "They should have stuck with the New Zealand
>product and paid the extra tariffs," Mr Donald said. "People won't trust
>the Anchor brand any more." 
>
>New Zealand Dairy Foods has been quick to distance local spreadable butter
>from the board's UK product. "All of our spreadable butter is made from
>pure, fresh New Zealand cream," marketing manager Kevin Bowler said. 
>
>The dioxin scare is the latest in a series of blows for dairy farmers and
>the butter-export trade since the commission first ruled in November 1996
>that spreadable butter could not be included under New Zealand's
>butter-export agreements. 
>
>After a series of appeals to the commission failed, the Government
>complained to the World Trade Organisation. That action was suspended in
>April when the commission indicated it wanted to resume negotiations. 
>
>In April 1997 events took a dramatic turn when British Customs agents
>arrested the entire London-based hierarchy of the board on fraud charges.
>The board successfully fought the charges and won a further High Court case
>involving British Customs, which is now under appeal. 
>
>This year customs froze the board's British assets, claiming it owed $834
>million in unpaid butter and cheese import duties. The board has admitted
>the row has cost it millions of dollars and severely damaged its sales. 
>
>Mid-Canterbury Dairy Farmers' chairman Alister Body said farmers did not
>blame the Dairy Board for what had happened. "It's come back to haunt them,
>but I don't blame them," he said. Trade Minister Lockwood Smith ducked
>questions yesterday, claiming the matter was a health concern, not a trade
>issue.