Soil & Health Association of NZ Logo

The rise, reasoning, and role of Soil & Health Association of NZ

/in ,

Historian and Soil & Health NZ’s councillor, Matt Morris, chronicles the
genesis of Soil & Health Association of NZ Inc., and the impact we have
made on organics in New Zealand.

We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.

The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand (publisher of OrganicNZ) formed in 1941 as the New Zealand Humic Compost Club. Since then, the organisation has changed its name several times, always responding to the issues of the day and the need to stay relevant. It became the Organic Compost Club in the 1950s, the Soil Association in 1970, and finally the Soil & Health Association of NZ in 1987. Of course, it is likely the name will change again in the future, certainly the organisation is undergoing significant change right now.

But when we think about the future of Soil & Health NZ, it can be helpful to understand more about the past. What were the key drivers behind the formation of this organisation, and is there anything we can learn from them? To understand this, we really need to look at least as far back as the 1920s, if not further. In brief, a number of matters were causing significant concern in New Zealand (Pākehā) society, and throughout the British Empire after the traumatic years of World War One. People had gained the idea that the world was fragile.

This fragility was characterised in numerous ways, chief among them being a belief that the declining birth rate was a reflection of declining virility: the idea of ‘racial degeneration’. Suspected causes of this included that food quality had declined. At the same time, it was becoming all too clear that farming practices were, in some places, leading not only to extensive biodiversity loss, but also to soil erosion.

During this period, Sir Albert Howard, Director of the Institute of Plant Industry in India, perfected the Indore compost heap – a scientific advance of considerable importance in India. His initial findings were published in his The Waste Products of Agriculture (1931) and reiterated in more popular form in An Agricultural Testament (1943). His publications reached a wide international audience and unquestionably influenced discourse in New Zealand. His work was paired with Robert McCarrison’s claims about causes of apparently perfect health in the Hunza people by G.T. Wrench in his The Wheel of Health: A study of the Hunza people and the keys to health (1938). Howard continued to join the dots between declining human health and declining soil fertility, while his solution – compost – would correct both of these and stabilise eroding soils as well.

In New Zealand, a dentist by the name of Dr Guy Chapman founded the Food Reform Society in 1922, looking to improve the eating habits of New Zealanders. The following year, Forest and Bird began its activities – focused initially on forest loss and its impact on native fauna. While the aims of these two organisations may seem dissimilar, during the 1930s they started to coalesce around the same theme: soil health.

The subject of soil health, and particularly soil erosion, became topical during this time in New Zealand as in the rest of the Empire. The Esk Valley floods of 1938 resulted in excessive and devastating silting in the valley, followed by ‘dust bowl’ conditions the following year. This stimulated much cause for reflection: forest clearance for farming had wreaked havoc – a situation that had been predicted back in 1913 by the Royal Commission on Forestry led by ecologist Leonard Cockayne. Forest and Bird’s publications included content on soil erosion and Lance McCaskill, a mouthpiece for the organisation, promoted this message more widely during the 1940s.

It is little surprise, then, that someone in New Zealand would want to promote Albert Howard’s innovation. That person was Guy Chapman, who had founded the New Zealand Food Reform Society, and who, since then, had also formed the New Zealand Women’s Food Value League (1937). And it is also little wonder that his New Zealand Humic Compost Club would draw in avid Forest and Birders, like Yeo Tresillian Shand whose pamphlet The Crime Against the Land was a kind of Bible for the early composters.

The timing was also incredibly consequential for the longevity of the new movement. In 1941, the British Empire was losing the war – Dunkirk had just happened (1940) and German physical prowess was contrasted against pasty, unhealthy looking Brits. The eugenicist obsession in Germany prior to the war – captured in the phrase Blood and Soil – was seen as one reason for their success in dominating Europe so quickly once war broke out.

More importantly, the New Zealand Government predicted possible food shortages on the Home Front, given so much primary production was being redirected to supporting American troops stationed in the Pacific. This resulted in a range of measures, including the Dig for Victory campaign, which encouraged householders to grow their own food. But the war also meant imported phosphatic fertilisers were not available; the logical result being the promotion of composting as a way to build a physical virile population by ensuring home-grown veggies and fruit would be nutritionally sound. Guy Chapman became the national chair of the Dig for Victory campaign, and the Government produced official gardening guides that promoted Albert Howard-style hot compost heaps. It may seem extraordinary to us now that the Soil & Health NZ’s origins involved such a high level of Government endorsement – even leading a government programme – but without this history it is quite possible that the movement would have died out not long after the war ended in 1945. While Albert Howard had hoped his compost would reform farming throughout the Empire, actually his message was mostly picked up by home gardeners who ensured his enduring legacy.

At some point in the 1950s, the Compost Club changed its name to the New Zealand Organic Compost Society. The word ‘organic’ in this context was at the time something of an innovation. The name change hinted at a key change in the movement – from being ‘compost-minded’ to being ‘chemical-free’. The post war period was awash with new chemical products and messages about ‘scientific’ and labour-saving approaches to gardening that the composters naturally reacted against.

In 1970, the New Zealand Organic Compost Society changed its name to the Soil Association, drawing a direct connection with the British organisation of the same name, founded in 1946 by Eve Balfour, author of The Living Soil (1943), who was also Patron of the New Zealand organisation.

By now the earlier openness of the movement had closed down somewhat: organic and chemical gardeners found it difficult to see eye to eye. However, this horticultural cold war started to thaw somewhat in the early 1980s when it became apparent that organic farming was gaining traction internationally. At this time, the Soil Association’s focus shifted from being a series of organic gardening clubs to promoting a vision for a commercial organic farming sector. It may be a surprise to learn that Federated Farmers were the first organisation to bring together practitioners and researchers of organic farming. Perhaps it is a bigger surprise to learn that it is far from clear whether the certification programme we now know as BioGro would have got off the ground without this early support from Federated Farmers and significant input into the wider organic movement from the then National Government and the neo-liberal Fourth Labour Government that followed.

A critical figure at this time was Bob Crowder, whose Biological Husbandry Unit (BHU) (founded on a micro scale in 1977) at Lincoln University provided research and demonstration muscle not previously available in this country. Neither should we forget Chris and Jenny May, who along with Dave Woods (and Bob) really got BioGro off the ground, or Perry Spiller who worked tirelessly to bring in much needed funding to extend the impact of the organisation. For example, Project Gro (Giving to Research in Organics) raised over $50,000 for the BHU alone, and funded an Association Education Officer.

By the late 1990s, Soil & Health NZ turned to protecting this still young commercial organic sector from the spectre of genetically modified organisms, as well as the ongoing risks of spray drift from conventional farms and other chemical users. Meriel Watts (author of The Poisoning of New Zealand, 1984) was appointed Association Director, while Brendan Hoare became President in 1998. In 1999, the Green Party developed a confidence and supply arrangement with the Labour Government and Soil & Health NZ won contracts to establish new initiatives funded through that agreement. One of those ultimately became the certification organisation OrganicFarmNZ, while another focused on developing edible gardening in the school curriculum. Once again, the organisation had official backing.

Not much later, Soil & Health NZ spearheaded the Organic Federation of New Zealand, which later became Organics Aotearoa New Zealand – a peak sector group that could liaise directly with the Government on behalf of member organisations. An outcome of this collaboration is the Organic Products and Production Act, which became law in 2023. Once again, Soil & Health NZ played its part in representing the interests of consumers and small growers in the consultations.

What lessons can be learned when we review our own history? One is that our core message – that human health depends on soil health – never gets old. It is as relevant now as it was in 1941. Another is that Soil & Health NZ has had some tremendous successes. It is incredible to think that composting has become an embedded practice for so many directly due to the hard work of those early compost advocates. We have supported the creation of organic certification programmes underpinning our organics industry and our lobbying has been successful in keeping GMOs out of New Zealand’s environment. Our work has led directly to the Organic Products and Production Act, enshrining key principles of the sector in law.

But above all, it is the hard work and generosity of our passionate members and volunteers that stands out in this incredible, rich history. We have the power to continue making an important and much-needed impact in our country, so, if you’re not already, now is the time to get involved! Please join us in Wellington at the Organic Futures Symposium, the OrganicNZ Awards, and of course our critical Special General Meeting.

Cooking with oil – which one is good for you?

/in , ,
Trans or saturated, polyunsaturated, or monosaturated? What’s the difference between cold-pressed and virgin, light and refined? Paula Sharp smooths out the choices of what is best for our bodies in terms of oils and fats.
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.

To GE or not to GE?

/in , , ,
We are at a critical point in decision-making about releasing genetically engineered organisms into New Zealand’s environment. Philippa Jamieson outlines some of the potential risks and benefits of our options.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.

The battle for the future of food

/in , , ,
Jon Carapiet outlines why the push for automatic acceptance of unproven technologies that have the potential to irreversibly contaminate our food and environment (aka GE) is the wrong direction.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.

Governmental plans to liberalise regulation of genetic engineering in Aotearoa New Zealand has implications for consumers and our export markets.

The push for GE is part of the international industry lobbying for more technology in agriculture. GE, AI, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology are converging. Advocates for the ‘end of farming’ are even calling for cellular lab-based food to entirely replace agriculture, purportedly to save the planet.

Public concern around genetic engineering is expressed politically and in people’s preferences which have defined today’s consumer landscape.

Politicians and lobbyists who say that strict regulation of GE is preventing innovation have forgotten the role of the consumer. They repeat old hopes for GE ryegrass, even after Newsroom published a history of failed trials on its website last year, and ignore previous field trials including 4000 GM sheep which were terminated in 2003 when the company PPL went bankrupt, and AgResearch’s GE cows reported by the NZ Herald in 2010 to be suffering cruel deformities.

The central question is: To what extent will the coalition government favour the commercial interests of the biotechnology industry over those of the environment and the public good?

National Party policy is to move regulation to a new agency under The Ministry of Business Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE) with automatic acceptance of GE products once approved by two OECD countries, and a much easier path to commercial release.

But what’s most important for regulation in the public interest is missing.

There is no mention of the importance of the Precautionary Principle for environmental protection. No requirement for commercial insurance or liability on users of GE that cause harm. No ethical framework to prevent cruelty to animals or guide the future. No mention of Māori or Waitangi Treaty principles.
And there is no mention of how the new regime will protect organic growers (or even industrialised growers) from GE contamination.

These missing pieces must be priorities for legislation.

Organic agriculture provides authentic sustainability and real climate action that people are looking for.
Research by Kantar Consulting shows New Zealand has what the world wants. “Consumers want more control and to reconnect with nature,” said researcher Dan Robertson-Jones.

The market demand for GE-free is growing.

Growth for non-GMO food is projected to reach US$144,322 million in 2031. Consumers in China and India are driving up demand for non-GMO food products.

Consumers want gene edited foods to be regulated and labelled, with 75 percent of US consumers and 80 percent of UK consumers supporting traceability for New Genomic Techniques (NGTs).
Exporters and the coalition government must take heed.

Consumer trust is vital. Leading brands have committed to avoid GE ingredients in response.
IFOAM standards exclude use of GE and build trust in the sector through certification of organics. Mandatory labelling of GE food in supermarkets has allowed consumers to influence the market.
Both major supermarkets have a GE-free policy for house-brands, including Countdown’s Own, Macro (Woolworths), and Pams (Foodstuffs).

Fonterra has a non-GMO policy but is open to GE and investing in lab-grown meat.

The science debate.

The EU Commission proposes deregulation of NGTs, against the wishes of consumers.
This is opposed by EU Ministers of the Environment who strongly support the Precautionary Principle and traceability.

Independent scientists with expertise in issues of GE safety and the environment have warned against deregulation.

Expert advice from scientists who are independent of the biotechnology industry is important. The commercial pressures in business and academia for Intellectual Property (IP) bring potential conflicts of interest in the debate.

There is a strong global lobby for cellular agriculture, synthetic biology, and GE.

In the conversation about GE we should expect more public relations hype, promises for the future, and criticism of the Precautionary Principle for ‘stopping progress’. The scientific rationale for precaution will be smeared as fearmongering. It’s already happening.

WePlanet, which campaigns for nuclear power, GE and cellular agriculture, organised an open letter signed by 34 Nobel prize winners and others.

It says the EU must “reject the darkness of anti-science fearmongering and look instead towards the light of prosperity and progress” by deregulating New Genomic Techniques.

The industry pipeline for GE shows why it is of the utmost importance for regulation to protect people and the environment.

Friends of the Earth (FOE) warn of the impending risks of commercial release of GE microbes as biotechnology companies develop GE bacteria, viruses, and fungi for use in agriculture.

Environmental groups are sounding the alarm for bees and pollinators after the US EPA approved the first sprayable pesticides using ‘RNA interference’ in the field.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says research is needed into the alleged benefits for sustainability and safety of lab-grown food which remain speculative.

We must value existing natural diversity and regenerative organic systems as real action on climate change and against biodiversity loss. The biotechnology industry should not define the future of food.

(Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons, Alan Lieftin – GE free march Auckland 2003)

Jon Carapiet is a consumer advocate, researcher, writer, and photographer who has followed the GE debate for over two decades. He regularly comments in the media about Brand New Zealand, the advantages of non-GMO and organic production, and for regulation of new technology in the public interest. Prior to the 2023 election, he published a series of blogs on GE and the future of food, available at  www.TheDailyBlog.co.nz. He is a Trustee for Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (PSGR) www.psgr.org.nz, and the national spokesman for community group GE-Free NZ www.gefree.org.nz.

The benefits of Vitamin Sea

/in , ,
As we chase modern life, do we forget the powerful and potent benefits of nature? Simply going to the beach can have profound effects. Zara Adcock explains how the surf, sand, and sun affects our spiritual, mental, and physical health.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.

We are fortunate in New Zealand, as the sea is never more than a 130km away. From where I live, I can be there in an hour.

As I draw near, I am taken in by the scent of the salty sea mist. Already I am breathing deeper, for the air by the sea is higher in oxygen and cleaner than in urban environments. I also inhale negative ions. The beach has one of the highest concentrations of negative ions. This is thanks to the motion of the water and the waves, which naturally break up atoms and disperses electrons, ionising the sea mist and purifying the air. When inhaled by us, negative ions purify our bodies, relieve depression, fatigue and stress, and accelerate our absorption of oxygen.

Then I am staggered in awe by the magnificent view: that vast expanse of blue sky and blue sea, fringed by dunes and bushy green mountains. In that wide open space, I remember I am just one little creature in a great big universe. The colour blue has long been considered calming and it has been found that staring at the blue ocean can actually alter our brain wave frequencies to a more meditative state, often inspiring creativity. The sound of the ocean acts similarly on us. Its calming, unthreatening sound induces meditation, and strengthens the brain.

The sun overhead not only encourages a sunny disposition but is necessary for Vitamin D production, which is vital to bone and muscle health. As over 90% of our vitamin D production comes from UVB rays, I personally consider it important to get some sunshine directly on my skin before covering up or applying a natural sunscreen to prevent burning.

My feet hit the sand. Ah, I’m here. Our feet have more nerve endings per square centimetre than any other surface of our body, and the earth’s surface is covered in electrons. By standing or walking on the warm, soft, sand, or the cool compact shoreline, negative ions are discharged directly into our bodies, neutralising our own bioelectromagnetic field. Not only that, but standing barefoot on the sand literally grounds our own field in a closed circuit to the earth, helping to balance our nervous systems.

The smell, the sights, the sounds, the sun overhead and the sand beneath our feet, all activate our parasympathetic nervous system, the ‘rest and digest’ arm of our autonomic nervous system, responsible for lowering cortisol, regulating hormones, lowering inflammation, and increasing metabolism, cognitive clarity, immune function, mood, sleep…

And that is before we even enter the water.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, doctors recommended a holiday by the sea, with specific instructions on how long and how frequently to go swimming, as both treatment and cure for various ailments including tuberculosis, consumption, scurvy, jaundice, and chest disease.

Modern research has backed up what these doctors already knew from observation: the ocean is an incredible curative.

The ocean is rich in naturally occurring minerals, including magnesium, chloride, sodium, potassium, sulphur and iodine. When we go swimming in the sea, we can absorb these necessary minerals trans-dermally (similar to bathing in Epsom salts).

Seawater is anti-inflammatory, antiseptic and wound-healing. It inhibits the growth of bacteria and infection, and detoxifies the body of impurities. Swimming or sitting in the shallows may help soothe, ease and/or heal arthritis, joint pain, inflammation, wounds, and skin condition such as psoriasis, contact dermatitis, and eczema. Saline water is soothing and cleansing for sinus conditions, and both flushing with it and breathing in the ocean air can help improve respiratory passages.

When you put your face underwater, you are not only immersing your face in minerals that aid in skin repair and elasticity, you are also activating the human dive reflex, which slows the heart rate and constricts certain blood vessels, redistributing blood from the limbs to the brain, heart and other central organs, in turn activating the vagal nerve, and (once again) the all-important parasympathetic nervous system.

I cringe when my fellow beachgoers pass by hooked up to their phones, ear-buds, smart watches etc. The holistic healing experience the ocean and beach supply require that you interact with all your senses. To bring technology to the beach is a multi-level distraction that not only detracts from these health benefits – but is also an often-unacknowledged cause of ill health (phones and personal devices generate positive ions that cause inflammation, disease and degeneration; plus they mess with your magnetic field and activate the sympathetic nervous system).

By leaving your technology behind, you have the opportunity to ‘detox’ and enter a state of effortless, mindful attention. I think now of my last beach visit. My gaze drifted from the gentle waves, to the light revealing patterns on a rock outcropping, and then to a lone seagull gliding through the twisting currents of air that would’ve otherwise been invisible to my eye. During my observation, my mind was completely present and my worries were irrelevant. By the time I left the beach, the tension was gone from my body, and I slept well that night.

Nature is amazing, we have only to be present with her to be reminded she’s got us, so long as we also remember and honour the fact that we have her.

Zara Adcock is a freelance writer, editor, poet and children’s author based in Northland (see zara-adcock.com). She is also co-founder of We Love Organics, a range of holistic organic personal care products handcrafted in NZ (weloveorganics.co.nz).

So let’s talk about GE

/in , ,
Pro-GE lobbyists are saying we need to have a ‘mature’ conversation about genetic engineering. Originally they claimed it would solve world hunger, now they are claiming it will mitigate climate change. Philippa Jamieson logically and ‘maturely’ refutes their greenwashing.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.

It’s primarily vested interests who are pushing for deregulation or weaker laws around GE – the biotech and agrichemical industries who want to patent and sell GE technologies, and those who would get research and development funding. They are well resourced to lobby politicians, and to flood the media with press releases and opinion pieces that are often published verbatim and uncritically. But are they willing to listen? Can we have a conversation that looks at GE in a holistic way?

Technology has changed – should rules change too?

GE proponents claim that the technologies have improved and become more precise over the years, so the regulations also need to change. Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury says today’s techniques are no less risky than before and will explain this in-depth during our next webinar on 23 January. Regardless, technology isn’t the only thing regulations need to consider – there are also social, cultural, economic, environmental, ethical, and liability aspects. Indigenous and organic philosophies and practices are holistic, recognising the interconnectedness of everything. Science focuses on just one piece of the picture. Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. For example, we could have nuclear power, or even nuclear bombs, but there are overwhelming reasons why this would not be beneficial.

GE conversations

In November, the Soil & Health NZ co-chair, Jenny Lux, hosted a webinar on genetic engineering featuring three panellists: Dr Jessica Hutchings (Papawhakaritorito Charitable Trust), myself – Philippa Jamieson (OrganicNZ writer on GE), and Charles Hyland (Soil & Health NZ national councillor and soil scientist).

Jessica set the scene in Aotearoa of mātauranga Māori and kaupapa Māori, and whakapapa, mauri and mana, which would be disturbed by genetic engineering. She also placed GE in the context of colonisation, biopiracy, and the current capitalist system that puts profit above people and the planet.

I talked about the GE-free movement over the past 25 years, including massive protests, the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification which gathered people’s views (2001), and the ban on GE organisms in the outdoor environment which was lifted in 2003. So far, no one has applied to release GMOs outdoors, apart from some problematic field trials – almost all of which have ceased.

Charles talked about GE ryegrass, which has been put forward by the pro-GE lobby and the National Party, as a way of reducing our methane emissions. However, this could potentially spread easily and would be impossible to recall, leading to risks not only for organic farmers but to farmers and the environment overall.

Watch this webinar online at soilandhealth.org.nz directly from the homepage, or under Our Work/Events.

Our next webinar, Demystifying GE techniques with Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, will be held on 23 January 2024, 7.30-8.30pm. See page 11 for more on our future webinars.

Gene editing – the new wunderkind

Scientists have discovered more about DNA over the years, and a notable breakthrough was the discovery of gene editing techniques over a decade ago. These techniques (such as CRISPR-Cas9) are much faster, cheaper, and easier than earlier GE techniques.

The biotech industry frequently promotes gene editing as the new, improved version of GE – precise and safe. However, numerous accidental or unintended changes occur, such as allergens or toxins being produced, antibiotic resistance increasing, and organisms interacting in yet unknown ways within ecosystems.

Are we really missing out?

Another argument continually rolled out by GE proponents is that our current laws mean we’re missing out on opportunities and are falling behind the rest of the world. There is some research that scientists are better able to pursue overseas, but there’s also lots that can be kept within the safer environment of the lab.

But rather than missing out, we’re profiting from a reputation of being clean, green, and GE-free. Imagine the benefits if all the funding going towards GE was instead channelled into organic and regenerative research? Consumers around the world want clean, safe, healthy organic food and other products, and are prepared to pay a premium for it.

Rather than missing out, we have the opportunity to lead in a safer, holistic, direction.

We don’t need GE.

What about farmers and climate change?

GE proponents claim that farmers and the climate will benefit from GE technologies, and should have the choice to do so. Yet they’re often vague about the crops or technologies. The species most often mentioned is GE ryegrass, with the potential to reduce methane emissions from ruminant animals like cows and sheep, therefore reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Nice idea! But what are the other impacts and risks? On farm and native ecosystems, workers, animals, people who eat the products, the farmer’s bank balance? Who pays for any loss of organic certification, loss of income, and cleanup after GE ryegrass spread or contamination?

GE-free solutions

There are other ways we can lower methane emissions. Selective breeding offers some promise: AgResearch has successfully bred a lower methane emitting sheep – no GE needed.

But most significantly, organic and regenerative practices can help reduce methane and other greenhouse gas emissions by multi-species pastures and cover crops, less tillage, and by building healthy soils that sequester more carbon and have more methane-consuming microbes.

Rodale Institute (USA) has run comparative farming trials since 1981, and have found that ‘regenerative organic systems, which prioritise soil health and good farming practices, like cover cropping, crop rotations, and pasturing animals, use 45 percent less energy and release 40 percent fewer carbon emissions than conventional agriculture, with no statistical difference in yields’. (rodaleinstitute.org/science/farming-systems-trial)

Not only do regenerative organic systems emit fewer greenhouse gases, they also have multiple other benefits – healthy soil, cleaner waterways, greater biodiversity, and healthier people and animals. No need for GE!

Philippa Jamieson, previously OrganicNZ editor, has campaigned against, researched, and written about GE for over 20 years.

Dispersing the myths of methane

/in ,
Are burping cows really to blame for global warming? Dee Pignéguy delves into the source and cycle of methane to reveal that it is not so simplistic – and there are other culprits that should concern us more.
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.

Insects in your garden: Beneficial or bad?

/in ,
Insects are a vital component of a spray-free garden. But which ones? Duncan Smith describes what various insects do, why you need them, and how to get them.
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access.

How-to: urban composting with bokashi, worm farming, and more!

/in , ,
Recycling plant matter into plant food is half of the cycle of life. Kaitlyn Lamb describes how this can be done on any scale, in any place – even the most urban situation.
The following content is only available to members. Join us for access

Behind the scenes of the Organic Act

/in , ,
Over four decades, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of voluntary hours have been committed to establishing a solid foundation for organics in New Zealand. Brendan Hoare recounts the journey, the challenges, and the lessons learnt in the creation of the Organic Product and Production Act 2023.
We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ.  Join us to access more, exclusive members-only content.

Like all landmark events, there is a back story. Our tumultuous expedition to protect and promote organics in Aotearoa New Zealand through regulation is no different. Like all journeys, there are multiple trials, tribulations, twists, and turns that test intent, motivations, and determination. This article outlines the ten-year journey that led to the passing of the Organic Products and Production Act 2023 (Organic Act) and will conclude with key observations for present and future. The article follows on from ‘Getting our Organic Act Together’ (OrganicNZ March/April 2020).   

The Organic Products and Production Bill became law on 5 April 2023.  
It is the most profound change to the organic sector in New Zealand to date and will shape our progress for decades to come.  

Since the 1980s, the organic sector has sought from the government a policy to protect and grow organic. By 1999, we’d gone as far as to publish and describe in Organic NZ describing our preferred future that required: “…government regulation standards, for both domestic and export markets, and support policy that safeguarded organic e.g. spray drift legislation”.  

The Organic Federation of New Zealand (OFNZ)1  formed in 1999 and morphed into Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ) as a united force representing the organic sector with the core purpose to ‘grow and develop organic’. OANZ identified regulation and national standards were required to do this2.  

OANZ’s formal creation in 2006 had government funding to assist it in its initial development. The funding ran out without its intent being fully achieved. Prior to 2012, OANZ had nearly collapsed. Rebuilding was a slow, incremental task which began with the launch of our 2012 Organic Market Report (Market Report), on 6 March 20133 in Parliament. This launch was not supported or attended by the National-lead government, but by opposition MPs; Green Party member Steffan Browning, and Labour’s Damien O’Connor. (O’Connor would, in 2018, be the Minister of Primary Industries and introduce the Organic Bill to parliament.) 

By June 2013 OANZ had engaged communications expertise from Christine Dann and we raised awareness of the need for regulation by utilising the Market Report, front-page articles in NZ Herald highlighting the proliferation of ‘Dodgy Organic Labels’4 and the fact that, at that time, all the top 25 organic trading countries had regulation, except New Zealand, Australia, India, and several others did not.  

OANZ decided to focus on and initiate discussions with government officials responsible for market regulations and consumer protection. We developed and published an ‘Introduction to Regulations’ paper for our members, and officially adopted the OANZ Regulation Working Group, which, for the first time, consisted of all the certification bodies. It also included the Organic Exporters Association of New Zealand. We also secured a meeting with Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) directors to explain the situation and opportunity. We were on a roll. 

By September 2013 we had met with Food Minister Hon Nikki Kaye, MPI’s technical lead Glen Neal, and Director of Food Policy Karen Adair. Nikki Kaye’s advisor was MPI’s Fiona Duncan who had been close to the sector’s work since 2002. We had invited the Primary Industry Minister Nathan Guy, but he was not available.  The meeting with Kaye was positive and progressive and as agreed, we spent the next six months defining the problem with MPI’s technical and policy teams.  We liaised with a wide cross-section of the organic community who openly shared examples of organic fraud and risks to their business. By March 2014 we, with MPI, had identified that there was a problem that required regulatory protection. The regulatory framework as it was in 2014 offered no protection for organic producers and consumers and also jeopardised potential trade relationships with international markets that had regulated organic. MPI presented these findings to OANZ’s AGM in Auckland on 4 July 2014, affirming that a regulatory approach was to be sought.  

Simultaneously OANZ had actively engaged and enrolled what it called its ‘5 + 2 strategy’. Horticulture New Zealand, New Zealand Winegrowers, Beef and Lamb, Dairy NZ, and the Federation of Māori Authority being the five and Countdown and Foodstuffs being the two, were provided clear logic and rationale for regulating organic. Progress with New Zealand’s primary industry, all political parties, and government was positive and by December 2014 OANZ had released a position paper on why to regulate organic in NZ. This was well received by everyone. All was on track.  We had created great working relationships across the organic community, primary industry, major retail and government. We felt positive and were still on a roll. 

By February 2015, as we were gearing into what promised to be a prosperous year, we came across several roadblocks. Firstly, critical MPI staff who had been instrumental in progressing the organic case had changed roles and our Ministerial champion Niki Kaye had been promoted to Minister of ACC. With new staff and Minster Nathan Guy now in charge we had to rebuild relationships, and felt comfortable in doing so. However, at the end of April 2015 MPI senior staff advised that any regulation would be under the Food Act 2014 and when we explained this would not work, because organic was not just about food, we were told categorically that organic was now “a low priority for MPI”. MPI provided us their very (in)famous ‘Development of Domestic Organic Regulation Programme scorecard which demonstrated their assessment only gave us 45 out of 365 –  that is 12.3%!   

While this seems incredulous, or even cynically humorous now, it was utterly devastating then.  

In May we reflected on our work on regulation to date.  As we communicated MPI’s decision to discontinue work on regulation to our wide community, we received full support,shared frustration and dismay.  

This was a critical moment for the regulation of organics and OANZ. While we had rebuilt trust and demonstrated value in OANZ as a national organisation, and communicated the need to protect and grow organic through regulation, it was also true that this had largely been achieved through the vision, networks, drive, and tenacity of myself as Executive Chair, the communications and political skills of Christine Dann, and reliance on a few critical members from leading organic sectors; all voluntary. We were exhausted.  It was not sustainable.  We needed help and resources.  

In August 2015 we held an OANZ national special meeting to explain the situation. Doug Voss, the Chair of the Certified Organic Kiwifruit Organisation became Chair of OANZ, a Board was elected, I moved to being the Executive Director, and Niki Morell took over Christine’s work to lead communications. 

We wasted no time re- engaging past leaders of MPI as to what might be the reason for MPI’s ‘change in heart’ and utilised the sector’s networks to lobby political parties and other Ministries such as the Commerce Commission, Ministry of Business and Innovation, Standards New Zealand, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We transferred our energy towards directly engaging the Primary Production Select Committee (PPSC) where we found favour across all political parties. By the end of year, we had rekindled the ‘OANZ Regulation Working Group’ and changed its name to the ‘Standards Working Group and included MPI staff from their Official Organic Assurance Programme (OOAP)’ The name change was to appease the concerns that using the word regulation would upset trade negotiations by giving the perception that we did not have any regulation; which was true.    

We utilised the frustration of the sector being told there ‘was no need to protect or grow organic’ to raise substantial sponsorship and presented our updated 2015 Market Report to Parliament on 7 April 2016. This time we had the leadership of the PPSC chair and National MP Ian McKelvie and support from Greens, Labour, and NZ First as well of course the whole organic community. It was a great success.  

The OANZ 2016 Market Report5 again demonstrated substantial growth and the requirement to safeguard the domestic and international markets. We emphasised one simple message: serious export earnings were increasingly at risk because we did not have a domestic organic regulation. However, this time, immediately following the Market Report launch, we had arranged a public presentation with the Primary Production Select Committee (PPSC) where we reiterated OANZ’s simple, clear four-point plan to:  

  1. Regulate the use of the term organic  
  2. Develop a single national standard.  
  3. Adopt MPI’s OOAP Technical Rules as the National Standard.  
  4. The National Standard will cover export, domestic, and imported certified organic product.  

The PPSC’s subsequent report noted that: “We support the work OANZ is doing and agree that a universal regulated standard should be developed and implemented as soon as possible.”6

The Minister’s official response to the PPSC was that he: “Welcomed an application from the sector to become a Primary Growth Partnership programme recipient in the future”, and that we would have to meet the criteria. 

Within a month we had developed a simple plan and met with Minister for Primary industries  Nathan Guy. By June, off the success of the Market Report, meetings with PPSC, and the Minister, we had created another position paper on the development of ‘Organic Regulation and Standards’ and delivered this to MPI. When, six weeks later, we had still not  received  areply from MPI, we knew where we had a problem.   

As chance would have it,  I met Scott Gallacher, the then Deputy Director  General Regulation and Food Assurance at a Building Brand and Reputation Across Boarders conference in July 2016,  we agreed to bring OANZ’s grievance to MPI’s senior management’s attention. In August, Scott hosted a meeting with Director Food and Regulatory Policy Karen Adair and Director Plants, Food and Environment Peter Thompson.  

This meeting resulted in direct access to the Manager of Food Policy Colin Holden and senior policy staff. The outcome of the communications was that while MPI may have shared their support for our goals, their solution was to ‘consider’ bringing us under their Future of Food programme and utilising existing regulations that would connect with Ministry Business, Innovation & Employment, the Commerce Commission and the Fair Trading Act. They were struggling to find where and how we fitted. While we were being heard and told there was an understanding of how complex organic was, we still felt we were not being understood.  We had to wait for MPI policy to come back to us. 

This period also brought to a head internal issues withing OANZ’s members that had been brewing since the formation and appointment of a full board. This was largely centred around existing relationships between the certification agencies of BioGro, AsureQuality, and the Exporters group, who had a direct relationship with the MPI staff running the OOAP, and the position that OANZ was taking on behalf of the whole sector directly with senior MPI staff and the policy division. The tension was potentially divisive. The espoused threat was that anything new would disrupt existing trade relationships with markets through the OOAP and we had changed the name of our working group to appease this.  However, through deeper engagement and correct persistence, OANZ’s found this position not to be of benefit or serve all its members and what is best for organics in Aotearoa New Zealand – hence its name.  

We continued to build relationships with key industry sector partners, in particular, Horticulture New Zealand and New Zealand Winegrowers, which both represented large volumes of certified organic growers and export product. The Chair of Horticulture NZ at the time, and some of their board members, were organic licensees. It was great to have others singing our praises’ and voicing our concerns from another perspective. This gave our collective position gravitas. 

We also stepped up the engagement. Simultaneous to our relationship building in the commercial sector and financial sector like ANZ, we organised for the PPSC to visit one of NZ’s leading organic regions –  Hawkes Bay – and meet the whole OANZ Board. Our rationale was to demonstrate that organic is a total system from production to ingredients, inputs, products, services and yes, food, with a discerning consumer who participates in its definition and setting of standards. So, we wined and dined, visited organic viticulture, chicken, vegetable, and apple production systems at all scales, and demonstrated our world. MPs got to see first-hand what we had been talking about and got to talk directly to those most affected. This is always powerful.  

The result of our networking (nationally and internationally), hosting, sharing, and lobbying was profound. We had mounting proof that the current MPI strategy was not working and was resulting in opportunity and advantage being lost. NZ’s failure to act was affecting growth in export markets.  

This was an intense period of engagement that delivered results and by early 2017 we had returned to constructive dialogue with MPI – and organised a meeting with the recently appointed Minister for Food Safety David Bennet (who is a certified organic dairy farmer) and confirmed his commitment to establishing regulation. Special mention needs to go to Horticulture NZ’s Mike Chapman for hosting and arranging some of these meetings.   

At the end of 2017 we had an election and a change in government. Damien O’Connor (who had been supportive since 2013) became the Minister of Agriculture, Biosecurity, Food Safety, Rural Communities, and later Trade. Being a-political and securing all political parties as to the benefit of organic had deep ramifications. 

OANZ then met with Minister O’Connor who, on the advice of MPI’s policy team’s review, concluded that to protect and grow organic in New Zealand needed to have its own organic act.  

Then on 20 June, our 2018 Market Report was launched in parliament for the third time. Ministers attended, as did MPs from all political parties, MPI and other ministry agencies, ambassadors, and a full array of organic practitioners.  It was a great celebration; there was a sense of progress and success. 

This period had been exhilarating, but exhausting on resources and relationships. The organic sector’s efforts were voluntary and draining on personal and inter-relationships on those that had led the work.  

As OANZ reconciled this and went through its own internal changes our new law was being written by MPI staff. The first reading of the Organic Products Bill took place on 19 March 2020.  On o 5 April 2023 it was passed into law. It took just over three years with three readings, and a select committee process, before it became law.   

The process has seen multiple reviews, a name change, created extensive debate both within and between the organic sector, and with and within MPI and politicians. MPI’s consultation process has improved over time. During this process it has reiterated that the organic sector is complex, diverse, not homogeneous, but of a common culture outlined in our principles of health, ecology, fairness and care.7 We remain committed, passionate, and seek practical change. We are relentless and persistent in our pursuit.  

Engage to change 

As the sector works with MPI to develop the regulations that will give shape to the Organic Act, key lessons from the decade include: 

  • Stay close and connected with the community that you represent. Engage in participative, open transparent processes by sharing openly and listening. Be honest and clear in all responses, say when you do not know, work together to find solutions.   
  • Have clear, powerful effective communications and engage professionals to help do this.  
  • Ask for help, people want organic to succeed. 
  • Always be inclusive of all political parties when engaging change at a national level. Politicians and political parties come and go from being in Government.  
  • Build relationships and maintain them at every opportunity. 
  • Find and nurture relationships with empathetic officials across multiple Ministries. People get promoted in their careers. 
  • Stay true to organic values. 

Moving forward

As we move closer to implementing the Organic Act through the regulations8, there is a lot for us to consider. They include:  

1. What training would be required to manage the Act, regulations, standards, and auditors? What would that cost? Who is going to pay and through what system?  
2. The organic standard may be owned by Government, but, who will manage it?   
3. What would the future of OANZ look like and how will it be funded?  
4. How will education and training be managed throughout the supply chain and by whom?  
5. How will existing and new certification agencies engage with the national standard?  
6. Will there be a national mark (logo)? Who will own, maintain and manage it?  
7. What role will MPI and other key government agencies have in the new model?  
8. How will it fit in global best practice models? Could New Zealand lead? Who would lead?  
9. How do we ensure the organic sector remains both rigorous and united?  
10. What other opportunities and expertise is required?  

With the passing of the Act and development of supporting regulations, it is critical that we remain united, focused, strategic and work together with officials to ensure our Organic Act achieves it purpose to:   
– increase consumer confidence in buying products labelled “organic” 
– increase certainty for businesses claiming products as organic 
– facilitate international trade in organic products. 

References

  1. Original members of OFNZ were Soil and Health Association, BioGro NZ, Bio-Dynamic Association of NZ and Organic Products Exporters Group.  ↩︎
  2. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, ‘Organics Working Group Report’. September 2001 ISBN 0-478-07647-9  ↩︎
  3. https://www.oanz.org/market-reports ↩︎
  4. NZ Herald 6 Apr, 2013 Pg 1 ‘Dodgy ‘organic’ labels fooling health conscious food shoppers’  ↩︎
  5. https://www.oanz.org/market-reports ↩︎
  6. Pers comms – letter to OANZ ↩︎
  7. https://www.ifoam.bio/why-organic/shaping-agriculture/four-principles-organic ↩︎
  8. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/agriculture/organic-product-requirements-in-nz/changes-to-organic-products-law/  ↩︎

Brendan Hoare is a managing director of Buy Pure New Zealand. His involvement in organics has included holding positions with Soil & Health NZ (president), BioGro (director), OANZ (founder, executive chair, and CEO) and IFOAM (world board member). He is serves on the Organic Farm NZ Council. His business is run from the OFNZ certified ‘Long Breath Farm’, on the edge of the Waitakere Ranges.