Need help making sense of your food safety documents? Explore AFVA’s food safety and quality consulting or contact AFVA to discuss the scope of support.
Checked 18 October 2026. New Zealand Food Safety is consulting on proposed changes to the Simply Safe & Suitable template Food Control Plan and its related Food Notice. The consultation closes at 11:59 p.m. on 15 November 2026. Check the official MPI consultation page for current documents and submission instructions.
To prepare useful feedback, identify the exact proposal, explain what happens in your business, provide a relevant example or evidence, and state the change you suggest. A short, specific response can be more useful than a broad statement that the plan is too complicated. This guide helps you organise that response; it does not replace MPI’s submission instructions.
Consultation is not implementation. Draft Version 7 contains proposals for comment. Do not stop checks, remove records or change your operating controls solely because a draft suggests a different approach. Continue following the requirements that currently apply to your business and its registered plan.
On this page
- What is being consulted on?
- Build a small document index
- Turn an observation into useful feedback
- Choose the topics that affect your operation
- Prepare and submit your response
- Common mistakes to avoid
- Where AFVA can help
- Frequently asked questions
What is being consulted on?
MPI’s consultation documents compare proposed Version 7 with the current Version 6 template. The discussion paper describes a smaller common base, separate specialist procedures, less duplication, clearer wording and changes to record keeping. The consultation also considers the template’s scope, design and related Food Notice.
These are different questions. A document may be easier to read but still leave an operator unsure which specialist card applies. A proposed reduction in routine records may sound useful but need clearer explanation of the checks and evidence that remain. Your feedback can address those practical distinctions without assuming that any proposal is already settled.
Current position
Use the plan and requirements that currently apply to your business. A consultation draft does not itself authorise an operating change.
Proposal being reviewed
Draft Version 7 and the proposed Food Notice changes are open for comment. Refer to the exact document, card and section.
Business feedback
Explain the effect on your operation, distinguish evidence from opinion, and suggest a workable improvement.
The 8 October 2026 MPI discussion paper explains the proposals and includes questions to consider. Read that context alongside the draft material rather than responding only to a headline about simpler paperwork.
Build a small document index
Before several people review the documents, agree which files you are using. MPI’s consultation page links the discussion paper, draft prerequisite and specialist cards marked 39.00007, a proposed design, and related current documents. Keep a small index with the title, version, date accessed and the sections you reviewed.
- Use the discussion paper to understand the reasons for the changes and the consultation questions.
- Use the relevant draft cards to identify the actual wording on which you want to comment.
- Compare the draft with the version your business currently uses; name both versions in your notes.
- Keep proposed content and proposed design observations separate when they concern different issues.
- Return to the official page before submitting, so your response uses the current consultation files and instructions.
This index is an administrative recommendation, not a prescribed MPI form. It helps avoid a response that criticises wording from an older consultation or leaves the reviewer unable to locate your concern.
Turn an observation into useful feedback
MPI welcomes comments tied to specific proposals, with supporting reasons, data and examples. Use one short feedback entry for each distinct issue. The following structure is an AFVA preparation checklist, not an official submission form.
Proposal reference
Name the document, version, card, page or consultation question. Make the relevant wording easy to locate.
Business context
Describe the relevant activity, staff responsibilities and circumstances. Avoid unnecessary personal or commercially sensitive detail.
Observation and evidence
Explain what was unclear or difficult. Add a relevant document example, measured information or a clearly labelled opinion.
Suggested improvement
State the clarification, wording change, guidance or alternative you recommend, and explain why it would help.
Illustrative example: unclear navigation
Hypothetical example, not an AFVA client case: a café team reviewing a draft card cannot tell whether a supporting instruction belongs in the common base or a specialist procedure. Useful feedback would identify the two references, describe the task the team was trying to complete, explain the ambiguity and suggest a cross-reference or clearer heading.
That is more useful than saying “the whole template is confusing”. It also avoids claiming that every café has the same problem. If you have not tested a proposed format with staff, say that your comment is a desk review rather than a demonstrated operational result.
Keep measurements and opinions distinct
If you describe time or cost, explain how you obtained the figure and what it includes. Do not invent a daily burden or extrapolate one observation to all food businesses. An opinion can still be valuable: label it as an opinion and explain the reasoning. Remove customer names and unrelated personal information from supporting examples where possible.
Choose the topics that affect your operation
You do not need to write equally detailed comments on every part of the draft. Start with the procedures your team uses and the questions where you can provide a clear example. MPI’s discussion paper asks about matters including missing information, specialist procedures, guidance, hazard visibility, design, terminology, scope, records and transition.
- Clarity: can a person identify the action, who is responsible and where to find supporting information?
- Specialist procedures: is it clear which activity a card covers and how it relates to the common base?
- Records and checks: does the proposal explain the distinction between doing a check and recording the result? Comment on the draft; do not treat a proposed record reduction as permission to stop current records.
- Design and language: point to an exact heading, term, layout or cross-reference that helps or hinders understanding.
- Scope and transition: explain the practical effect a proposal could have on your operation, including any uncertainty you need MPI to clarify.
The discussion paper proposes an 18-month transition measured from publication of a future Notice and asks whether that period is sufficient. This is a proposal, not a current deadline calculated from the consultation closing date. If transition matters to your business, describe the preparation steps and lead time behind your view.
Prepare and submit your response
Bring the individual comments together into a consistent response. Identify whether each point is the organisation’s agreed position, an individual observation or a question requiring clarification. Appoint someone to check that examples support the point being made and that the final file contains the intended version.
- Check the official deadline and submission route again.
- Include the name, title where applicable, organisation where applicable, address and contact details requested in the discussion paper.
- Give each comment a specific proposal reference and a clear suggested outcome.
- Check numbers, document names and supporting examples; remove unsupported claims.
- Identify any particular information you wish withheld and explain the grounds, rather than relying on an automatic email confidentiality footer.
- Keep a copy of the submitted response and any acknowledgement for your own administration.
MPI’s page offers an online form and an email route to foodactinfo@mpi.govt.nz. It encourages using the linked submission template. Follow the current official submission instructions and links when sending your response. Keeping your own copy is a practical recommendation here, not a claim about a statutory retention period.
Read MPI’s information about publication and the Official Information Act before attaching sensitive material. Its discussion paper says submissions may be released unless there are grounds for withholding information, and that an automatic IT confidentiality disclaimer alone is not treated as grounds. A withholding request is considered by MPI; it does not guarantee confidentiality.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Treating proposals as current rules: keep feedback preparation separate from changes to the operating plan.
- Sending broad criticism without a reference: identify the card, section or question and the particular difficulty.
- Claiming unmeasured savings or burden: use supported figures or label estimates and explain the assumptions.
- Confusing the closing date with an implementation date: the consultation deadline is for feedback.
- Assuming a confidentiality footer settles disclosure: follow MPI’s instructions and identify specific grounds where relevant.
- Writing only about presentation: if a layout issue affects understanding, describe the task and the information a reader needs to find.
Where AFVA can help
AFVA’s published MPI food safety compliance support and consulting services include assistance with practical documentation and procedures. A review of your current documents can help you organise questions and identify where clearer wording or supporting guidance would be useful. Confirm the proposed work and scope with AFVA before engaging support.
Consulting support is distinct from MPI’s policy decisions and from registration or verification. This article does not promise that AFVA will represent your business in the consultation or secure a particular outcome. Contact AFVA about reviewing your documents and practical next steps.
Frequently asked questions
When does the consultation close?
The official MPI page checked on 18 October 2026 gives 11:59 p.m. on 15 November 2026. Check that page again before submitting in case the instructions change.
Can I start using the draft record-keeping approach now?
Do not change checks or records solely on the strength of a consultation draft. Continue meeting the requirements currently applicable to your business and its plan; seek clarification from the relevant authority if your position is uncertain.
Do I need to comment on every question?
Focus on proposals where you can provide useful, specific feedback. Follow the official form’s instructions, and make clear which questions or document sections your comments address.
What evidence is useful?
A clearly described example, relevant document reference or measured observation can support a point. Explain its context and limits, and distinguish it from an opinion or estimate.
Is the proposed 18-month transition already running?
The discussion paper proposes a transition starting from publication of a future Notice. It is not an implementation period that starts at the consultation deadline.
Can I assume my submission will stay confidential?
No. Read MPI’s disclosure information, identify any specific material you seek to withhold and explain the grounds. MPI considers the request; confidentiality is not automatic.
Official sources and currency
Prepared using MPI’s consultation page and New Zealand Food Safety Discussion Paper 2026/06, dated 8 October 2026, accessed on 18 October 2026. The official links above are the starting point for current documents and submission instructions.
General information: this article is an administrative guide to preparing consultation feedback. It is not legal advice, an interpretation of every proposed technical control, or permission to change your current food safety obligations. Check current MPI information and obtain advice suited to your operation.
Need Practical Food Safety Support for Your Business?
Contact us for free initial guidance. We provide practical, plain-English food safety support for New Zealand food businesses across all service areas.
This article provides general information only and is not a substitute for professional advice specific to your situation. Contact us for guidance based on your actual food activities and requirements.