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