A proposed standard for nutrition claims in New Zealand and Australia is being opposed by an industry group.

Yes, I know, that's hardly news. After seeing the US food industry insist on no more than voluntary guidelines and then using tens of millions and all its other muscle to defeat those, it's clear that the industry will truck no curb, no matter how innocuous.

Which is not to say the Australia/New Zealand proposal is innocuous; that's not my point here. I wanted to highlight how the industry frontman, Geoffrey Annison, stated the objection, as paraphrased by foodprocessing.com.au: "the proposed changes will stifle innovation, threaten jobs and jeopardise the future viability of the food industry."

I'll skip over the first two in service to brevity, but that third part is too juicy. The food industry might go out of business if these standards are imposed! Has any industry ever had a more certain long-term value proposition? Annison's statement is audacious, if not completely corrupt.

For the record, here's the proposal:

It would “not prescribe the exact wording of claims; however, any health claims must refer to the property of the food, the health effect and the population group (if applicable), and the health effect must be considered in the context of a healthy and varied diet. [Complete text here.]”

Again, I don't say I'm for the proposal, or than no curb on the food industry could go too far. I'm saying that when you suggest that a regulation would scuttle an industry that meets a survival need, you've gone too far, and I can't believe anything you say.