The wellbeing of food in Aotearoa

We produce enough food in New Zealand to feed 40 million people, yet one in five Kiwi kids live in households that experience food insecurity.

Gareth Hughes talks about his new role as lead of the Wellbeing Economy Alliance Aotearoa. 

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

How do you get a cabbage? My book, A Gentle Radical: The life of Jeanette Fitzsimons, was recently published, and in researching the biography I stumbled upon an unusual speech the late Green Party politician had given at the Fourth New Zealand Energy Conference entitled “Two Ways to Get a Cabbage. What on earth did cabbages have to do with a late 1970s energy conference? Fortunately, I was able to track down a faded typewriter-written copy of her speech where Jeanette used the vegetable as an example of the very different approaches society takes to provide things like cabbages. 

The mainstream approach, even back then, was energy intensive, relying on artificial fertilisers, chemical pesticides, insecticides and fungicides, and complicated fossil fuel-dependent transport and retail chains. The embedded energy and resources that went into growing a commercial cabbage was huge, and if it wasn’t the uniform size, shape or appearance it would be thrown out rather than sold at the market. She contrasted that cabbage with the home-grown organic variety planted and tended with no need for machinery and pesticides, saying “It represents time, effort, caring and an exchange with the earth.” The home-grown cabbage was fresher, tastier and more nutritious but she pointed out that only the commercial cabbage was represented in official economic statistics of progress. 

Gareth Hughes and the late Jeanette Fitzsimons, 2018.
Reader support keeps us going

Please support our work by joining with a membership subscription (print or digital). Organic NZ is independently published by the Soil & Health Association, a charity devoted to healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.

Our independent journalism relies on support from people like you!

What does our food really cost us? 

We’ve never had more volume of food produced globally than now but our connection to that food is at its lowest point in history. Are we looking at the bigger picture when we buy a cabbage or any item in our modern food system? The current paradigm is dominated by corporate giants, global trade networks and is dependent on huge inputs of energy and chemicals. While we might complain about the high cost of food in the supermarket as inflation rates rise, the really staggering cost is being paid by earth systems – soil, water and atmosphere. How we produce food is a major driver of climate change and biodiversity loss. Every year we draw down further on nature’s balance sheet while too often only valuing the financial one.  

Across my 20-year career as a progressive campaigner and Member of Parliament, food has remained as a major theme across all my mahi. I’ve led the engagement work for New Zealand’s food rescue sector, been arrested dressed as Ronald McDonald, which triggered the fast-food giant to ditch GE-fed chicken, protested palm oil ships and Fonterra’s gigantic use of coal, passed the Country of Origin of Food Act so Kiwis can know where their food has come from, and for our moana achieved a ban on shark finning and negotiated in government for cameras on fishing boats. Food touches every part of our lives, society and economy – how it’s grown, how it’s sold and who gets it. 

I’ve recently started working for the Wellbeing Economy Alliance, a global collaboration of organisations, individuals and governments to transform the economic system into one that prioritises shared well-being for people and the planet, as the Aotearoa country lead. A wellbeing economy would deliver purpose, nature, fairness and participation – what would that look like for food in New Zealand? 

Right now we have an unhealthy relationship with food. We export a volume of food that’s estimated to feed up to 40 million people yet one in five Kiwi kids live in households that experience food insecurity. There’s real hunger and malnutrition in New Zealand. Despite the cost of food – highlighted recently by the Commerce Commission’s staggering estimate that $1 million dollars a day in excess profit is being taken from consumers by the supermarket duopoly – on average, each New Zealand household throws out an estimated $1520 worth of food every year. Collectively, that’s more than $3 billion worth of good food rotting away and contributing to climate change. Agricultural production is responsible for half of New Zealand’s emissions, and dairy’s impact on our rivers and lakes, and nitrate contamination of water supplies are well-known problems. Every year 192 million tonnes of our most precious resource – soil – washes out to sea as a result of our land-use practices. New Zealand still sprays chemicals banned in Europe and uses destructive bottom-trawling fishing techniques, smashing ancient deep sea coral. 

Making progress 

Despite the gloom, there are bright spots emerging. We see the growth of food cooperatives and farmers’ markets where consumers can have a closer relationship with producers. The organics sector grew 20 percent between 2017 and 2020. Regenerative farming has become a household name, and more farmers are experimenting with reducing stocking rates and finding that their profits are increasing.  

Food-rescue organisations report 30 million meals were provided in the last year, turning an environmental problem into a social solution. Pātaka kai (free pantries) are popping up all over Aotearoa to facilitate sharing food. New products are hitting the market, from pea-protein meat alternatives and bread made from crickets to delicious oat milk brands. Growing numbers of New Zealanders are eating more plant-based meals for health, environmental or ethical reasons, and as a nation dependent on food and fibre exports, international consumers’ desires to purchase food with lower climate and higher animal-welfare standards continue to drive change. 

It could be said that today’s problems were once yesterday’s solutions. Around the turn of the millennium, farmers were actively encouraged to convert to dairy and expand into regions totally unsuited to hit exponential growth targets. A focus on volume over value has come with real costs. As we deal with today’s problems – dependence on milk powder exports, environmental degradation, the cost of food, genuine food poverty, and reliance on unethical inputs like palm kernel expeller and phosphate from occupied Western Sahara – we need to ensure we aren’t creating tomorrow’s problems. 

What would a fair system look like? 

A wellbeing economy of food would look at broader outcomes than just growth rates or profit; it would value wider issues as well – resiliency, sustainability, fairness and access.  

One positive example of this happening right now is the fact there is such a thing as a free lunch in New Zealand. Currently 220,000 kids are receiving free lunches in low-decile schools. The primary objective was to make sure children going without were fed, but what schools report are additional benefits for students’ health and food awareness. It’s impacting their attendance, ability to learn and participate in class and is building a sense of school community. It’s a solution-multiplier that was avoided for many years just on the question of cost, and is delivering significant benefits. Ideally we will build on the success and ensure the food used is organic, grown locally and that students can connect with growers. 

Another example is Wakatū, a company owned by 4000 Māori families in the Nelson region. Wakatū has a 500-year strategy focused on their tikanga, or values, the taonga that is the land and water, and manaakitanga for the people. Kono, their food branch, is one of the region’s largest employers and exports to more than 80 countries. 

Imagine if New Zealand and our food system had a 500-year strategy! We have made a start – factoring in well-being in our national budgets, and now we need to do that in all the decisions government and business make. How we grow a cabbage, produce milk or catch a fish matters more than just the quarterly profit and loss statement.

I believe thinking long term and holistically from a wellbeing perspective would encourage regenerative, restorative agriculture and food sovereignty. Tangata whenua would be able to harvest kai from healthy rivers and seas. We’d see more food forests and community gardens. We would eat food in season and we would know its provenance and how it was produced. Food poverty would be consigned to history and nutritious organic food would be available for all – not just those who can afford it. Let’s move from just counting commercial cabbages to valuing everything that matters.   


Gareth Hughes is a former Green Party MP and the country lead for the Wellbeing Economy Alliance: weall.org. 

Fashion: the good, the bad, and the greenwashed

If you’re feeling overwhelmed and bewildered about what constitutes planet-friendly fashion, you’re not alone. Claire Brunette unpicks the multilayered environmental and ethical issues within the fashion industry.

 We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZ. Sign up now for a print or digital subscription and get the latest from us each issue.

Clothing is powerful and necessary, and a handwoven burlap sack just doesn’t do it for most people these days. The right clothes can help get you the job you want, keep you safe, change how you see yourself and how others see you; they can be a source of joy.

If clothing production ceased tomorrow, there would be enough clothing in the world to keep us going for a very long time, but we keep producing more than we can use. It’s getting harder and harder to process the wall of information about clothing that is out there. What is actively environmentally harmful? What is exploiting the people making the fabric? What seems sustainable, and says it is, but shimmering below the surface has the nasty tint of greenwashing?

An oft-repeated statement is that the most sustainable piece of clothing is the item you already own, but what if that item is releasing tiny microplastics into the ocean every time you wash it? Microplastics are now found in our kaimoana, our honey, our salt and our blood. A report published by Scion in 2019 showed that 87 per cent of microplastics found on Auckland beaches were likely to be from fabric fibres released during laundering.

So how do we get dressed in the morning in a world that’s tugging us in different directions? Information is empowering, so before you buy anything, especially anything new, let’s explore fabrics. It’s important to note that no fabric is perfect and all have their own unique impact. It is still an essential tenet of sustainability to use what you have and to seek items that are already circulating.

Synthetics 

The big bads of fabric. Derived from fossil fuels and irresistibly cheap to make. Polyester, nylon, acrylic and their ilk are to be avoided whenever possible. They continue their dirty work post-production, shedding microplastic fibres into the marine environment every time they are washed. Many vegan alternatives are simply plastic. Companies are rushing to make garments out of recycled polyester, turning plastic bottles into tracksuits, but as these items are still capable of fibre shedding, it’s best to save your recycled polyester purchases for items that don’t need to be washed, such as shoes. See the box on page 64 for ways to reduce the impact of washing synthetics. 

Semi-synthetics 

Viscose, rayon and bamboo all come under the umbrella of semi-synthetic cellulose. The wood pulp, bamboo or other raw plant material is put through rigorous, chemical-intensive processes to break the fibres down into a product that can be spun and woven into fabric. The resulting fabric is biodegradable, breathable and silky on the skin, making it extremely popular with consumers.  

Unfortunately, the environmental and human cost of producing cellulose is high. According to the non-profit environmental organisation Canopy, 3.2 billion trees are cut down every year for cellulose production, up to 30 per cent of which is from ancient and endangered forests. The Changing Markets Foundation released a report in 2017 revealing that viscose factories in Indonesia, China and India were dumping highly toxic wastewater into local waterways, destroying marine life and exposing workers and local populations to harmful chemicals. Awareness around these issues has increased, and manufacturers have been making changes, so when purchasing cellulosic fabrics, look for brand names, such as EcoVero, that encourage responsible, closed-loop production. 

Flora Collingwood-Norris is an ethical, low-impact knitwear designer based in Scotland, and a champion of visible mending – a technique where repair work is deliberately made into a feature.

Please support our work by joining with a membership subscription (print or digital). OrganicNZ is independently published by the Soil & Health Association, a charity devoted to healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.

Our independent journalism relies on support from people like you!

Get the magazine ($55/year)

Become an online reader ($5/month)

Natural 

Cotton 

Soft and smooth, cotton allows air to circulate, keeps you cool in summer and is an ideal inner layer in winter. We love cotton! It also is an incredibly thirsty crop using often inefficient irrigation systems that divert water from natural sources. According to WWF,  cotton cultivation severely degrades soil quality, leading to expansion into new areas and the attendant destruction of habitat. Cotton production is heavy on pesticide use, threatening the surrounding ecology of cotton-growing areas and the people that live there. It is hard to forget the dark past of cotton production, and bonded and child slavery are still of concern today. 

GMO cotton has long been touted as an alternative and now accounts for close to 100 per cent of cotton grown in Australia. It is designed to increase both insect resistance and herbicide tolerance (so products such as glyphosate can be applied for a longer period of time) while reducing the need for water. An obviously controversial choice. 

If you want fresh cotton in your wardrobe, organic is the best choice. Check for labels with GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) certification. GOTS is a non-profit that prohibits the use of GMO cotton while maintaining high organic, labour and welfare standards.  

Most recycled cotton comes from pre-consumer waste, scraps and excess from factories. These are shredded and woven into new fabrics, which often have a pleasing speckled appearance. There are innovations that are creating a pulp out of those scraps by dissolving them with a solvent, so it’s worth looking into how the garment you are buying is recycled, but luckily most producers have this information prominently displayed on their websites.  

Linen 

Breathable, moth-resistant and durable, linen is grown from flax (Linum usitatissimum – a different species from Phormium tenax, our native harakeke), a resilient, ancient plant that can thrive in poor soils and requires a fraction of the water that cotton does. Organic linen is even better, as nitrates and toxic dyes aren’t used in its production. GOTS certification is also available for linen. Overall, linen is an excellent choice. The con is that all this comes at a premium price. 

Wool  

Our beloved national fibre is natural, warm and biodegradable. But is it sustainable? There are currently over one billion sheep in the world. That’s far too many to be considered planet conscious, and sheep farming is resource-intensive. According to Circumfauna, who do research on the impact of animal-derived materials, more than 367 times the amount of land is required for wool than for cotton in Australia, and an Australian wool-knit sweater emits about 27 times more greenhouse gas emissions than a cotton-knit sweater. The wool industry comes with a host of issues relevant to those interested in animal welfare. If you are looking for wool, check for accredited or organic wool to mitigate concerns. It may be easier for hand knitters to trace their wool through small suppliers.  Recycled wool is often blended with polyester for durability, so beware. There is nothing like the warmth of wool, so consider looking for second-hand items to keep the chill off.   

Silk  

The fanciest fabric of all, silk biodegrades and keeps rural artisans in business in an almost zero-waste industry. Unfortunately, it’s a fussy fabric to maintain, with the care instructions usually demanding dry cleaning. Its animal welfare credentials are nil, thanks to the traditional step of boiling the silkworms alive to separate the silk from the worm. Sericulture requires very little land use but unfortunately is water-intensive. The dyeing process is where toxic chemicals can shimmy their way into production, so look for naturally dyed items. New alternatives, such as peace silk (where the silkworms aren’t killed), spider silk and silk made from fruit fibre are being developed and offer exciting possibilities for the future.  

Second time round 

Cost can be a significant barrier to accessing responsibly produced clothes for many. Making beautiful clothes in a way that takes the planet and its people into account is unavoidably expensive. Natural, organic fibres cost more than synthetic, and fair labour costs more than exploitation.  

Purchasing second-hand clothing is a lower cost option, but generally requires a larger investment in time. Op shops can sometimes be a challenging place to shop as the racks are becoming increasingly filled with the poorly constructed, synthetic-heavy clothes of recent years. There are a number of people selling second-hand clothing online, curated according to particular needs or aesthetics. However, for some people, the stigma of second-hand clothing is hard to shake. And if you are at either end of the size spectrum, finding quality second-hand clothing can be close to impossible. It’s easy to see the allure of shops that stock your size, in your style, at a price that won’t eat too far into the weekly shop.  

Hamilton-based sustainable fashion label KoiNo’s garments are made to order and range from size 8 to size 28.

Slow wins the race 

Where the sustainable industry fails, where fashion fails in general, is in providing for a plus-sized market. Amanda Matthews, owner of KoiNo, a Hamilton-based, size-inclusive, sustainable fashion label, agrees that many brands don’t see the value in extending their sizing. “Increasing a size range to include plus size is not always as simple as extending sizing by taking standard sizes and making them bigger. Often new patterns are needed, with adjustments made to make the style fit well on a bigger body.”  

To avoid this problem, and its associated costs, Amanda bases her patterns on an XL, grading up or down from there, as she finds this creates a better fit on a wider range of sizes. This isn’t the only clever model that Amanda has adopted. Her garments are made to order, essentially eliminating unsold pieces. “I don’t need to invest in making every size in every style in every colour. I only make what is needed.” 

In Aotearoa, we are lucky to have a raft of fashion designers who are eco-conscious and innovative, from I Used To Be, who make frankly adorable bags out of discarded pool toys, to the chic Kowtow, whose clothes read as a love letter to the rain-fed, fair-trade organic cotton they are made from.  

Change is coming to fashion. Technology is firmly focused on future solutions. It won’t be long until we are wearing mushroom leather and lab-grown wool. Until then, choose your clothes wisely and love them well.   


Claire Brunette is a writer, worrier and textile enthusiast who lives in Tāmaki Makaurau. 

The history of GE in New Zealand

Bonnie Flaws investigates New Zealand’s ongoing debate on the regulation of genetic modification

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

The question of whether we should allow genetic engineering in New Zealand has been raging for almost as long as the technology has been around – since the 1970s. By the late 1990s and early 2000s, the sentiment among the public was decidedly anti-GMO, with protest a regular feature of the political landscape, including famous hīkoi that travelled from Northland to Wellington. Now the topic is in the headlines again after the Productivity Commission recommended in its 2021 report that New Zealand’s strict laws regulating genetic engineering ought to be reviewed, in part because the techniques used have evolved.

GM, GMO, GE, GEd – what exactly does it all mean?

  • New Zealand law defines a genetically modified organism (GMO) as any organism in which any of the genes or other genetic material have been modified by, inherited or otherwise derived through any number of replications, by in vitro techniques.
  • Genetic engineering (GE) is the use of in vitro techniques to make genetically modified organisms.
  • Genetic modification (GM) is used interchangeably with the term genetic engineering by experts in the field.
  • Transgenic techniques, what we traditionally think of as genetic engineering, use a foreign “gene of interest” that has been cultured and inserted into a cell of the host organism. Today, it’s more common to hear about gene editing (GEd) techniques, such as CRISPR-Cas9, TALENs and ZFNs.
  • Gene editing (GEd) techniques have been around since the late 70s, but some tools (nucleases) like CRISPRCas9, TALENs and ZFNs are new.

The use of language in the GM debate 

The language used to describe genetic engineering has often been contested by those who would like to see it deregulated. For example, it’s been argued that conventional and selective breeding of plants is a form of genetic engineering. More recently, it has been argued that the biochemical processes of gene editing are similar to those that cause natural mutations.  

Jack Heinemann, a professor at the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury, who promotes regulation, says the “equivalence to nature” argument is a semantic obfuscation, but a High Court ruling in 2014 made it unambiguous. New Zealand became the first country to make it explicit in law that gene editing is a technique of genetic modification, meaning it must be regulated. Heinemann was the expert witness in this case. This ruling hinged on the ability of the technique to make changes at scale that wouldn’t happen in nature, he says. 

Reader support keeps us going

Please support our work by joining with a membership subscription (print or digital). Organic NZ is independently published by the Soil & Health Association, a charity devoted to healthy soil, healthy food and healthy people.

Our independent journalism relies on support from people like you!

A potted history 

This tension between those for and against regulation has been a continuous thread in the national discourse, with the public generally wanting controls, and industry and parts of academia wanting more freedom to experiment. 

After a field trial moratorium was lifted in 1987, the public became increasingly agitated about GE experimentation, particularly around the issue of contamination of agricultural crops, and demand for tighter regulation grew. The first big breakthrough for activists came with the 1996 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act, leading to the creation of the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA). This was the body responsible for overseeing importation, development, field trials and releases of GMOs. The act allowed scientists to experiment with GM techniques in the lab and in contained field trials. 

But GE experiments began to cross lines that many people found distasteful and unethical. The worry that GMOs might escape from the lab and contaminate and self-propagate in the environment, or that food with foreign genes inserted might end up on their plate kept activists like Zelka Grammer motivated.  

“You have this whole nefarious history of incompetence and slackness, and then even worse, MAF and MPI not adequately monitoring to catch significant breaches of ERMA’s rules of approval,” says the chair of GE-free Tai Tokerau. “People like Stefan Browning from the Green party and local orchardists had to go and find secret field trial locations, take photographic evidence, march down to MAF and MPI and say, ‘WTF! Why are these brassicas flowering out of doors when it’s not allowed under the conditions of approval?’ It was shut down in disgrace over and over and over.” 

There was a strong feeling that regulators were not adequately monitoring trials, and the rapid development of the biotech industry was seen as a threat to New Zealand’s agricultural sector. Despite this, industry and academic voices were keen to see the technology liberated for use in both the biomedical and agricultural spheres. Without deregulation, New Zealand would be left behind in the technological and economic race. 

Organisations such as the Royal Society Te Apārangi, Plant & Food Research, Scion, NZBio, Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, Agcarm (New Zealand Association for Animal Health and Crop Protection) and Federated Farmers have all advocated for greater deregulation of genetic engineering over the years. 

A petition signed by 92,000 Kiwis called for a Royal Commission to investigate and establish a way forward for the controversial technology. This was done, and in 2000 the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification validated many of the concerns voices by activists. The overall recommendation was to “proceed with caution”, while also rejecting the unrestricted use of genetic engineering. Within a year, a voluntary moratorium was put in place – all in all a landmark year for people power.  

Several memorable hīkoi in 2001 and 2003 followed the Commission’s findings. Māori played a big part in their organisation but the movement was broad-based and many New Zealanders took part. Groups like GE-Free New Zealand and Mothers Against Genetic Engineering (MAdGE) had a prominent public voice. In 2015 the Northland and Hastings regions were successful in asserting their own “GE free” status in their district plans. 

It is clear that everyone is in it for the money. The risks can be dismissed by appealing to the benefits, and when the benefits are not forthcoming, the promises have to be kept alive. Biotechnology is the south sea bubble at the end of the millennium.

A quote from “The Biotechnology Bubble”, an article by Mae-Wan Ho, Hartmut Meyer and Joe Cummins, originally published in The Ecologist and reprinted in the July 1999 issue of Organic NZ.

However in 2012, CRISPR, a new gene editing tool, had been discovered. Proponents argued it was more precise than transgenics, and led to changes similar to what might happen naturally. Proponents said the technology should be set free to fulfil its potential. It could be applied not only in food production, but also in medical research, pest control and even to tackle climate change. 

At the same time, a growing body of scientific literature showed that gene editing gave rise to numerous unintended genetic mutations, and was not as precise as claimed. The Sustainability Council of New Zealand took the Environmental Protection Authority (formerly ERMA) to court to challenge industry claims that gene editing was not genetic engineering. 

The 2014 High Court ruling, which determined gene editing was legally a form of genetic modification, also established that the rate and specificity of change was what made the technology risky. 

Key dates in the history of GE

1973First recombinant bacteria is developed in the US.
1978The New Zealand government places a moratorium on field releases that remains in place for 10 years.
1980sThe early 1980s sees GE technologies begin to be applied in laboratories in New Zealand, largely for biological and medical research purposes.
1988The moratorium on field release is lifted and an Interim Assessment Group (IAG) is established for the field testing and release of genetically modified organisms.
1996Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 passes in law, which leads to the establishment of the Environmental Risk Management Authority New Zealand (ERMA).
1999The Independent Biotechnology Advisory Committee is established to assess and provide independent advice on the use of GE technology.
2000The Royal Commission on Genetic Modification is established and a voluntary moratorium put in place.
2008Activists chop down GE pine trees at a Scion forestry research site near Rotorua in 2008 and 2012. 
2011ERMA becomes the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).
2012CRISPR is invented, adding a new tool to the GE toolbox. 
2014The High Court rules that gene editing is a form of genetic modification.
2015Both the Hastings and Northland regions become GE free. 
2016Auckland becomes GE free.
2021Productivity Commission report recommends a full review of HSNO.

The Māori world view

Māori have largely been vocal opponents of GE from the beginning. “The issue is that using GE will have an impact on the mauri of our food and the soil,” says Lahni Wharerau, kaiwhakahaere of Te Waka Kai Ora, the National Māori Organics Authority. “Mauri is what gives us life force and underpins wellbeing. GE interferes with that.”  

Wider news reporting since the Productivity Commission’s report shows that attitudes aren’t set in stone. Maui Hudson, associate professor at the University of Waikato, said a national survey of Māori on the issue of genetic modification and gene editing was done last year, showing a wide variety of perspectives were held. “For some people it’s all the same, whether it’s genetic modification or gene editing, while for others they get that there is a difference and that may change the way you think about it.” However, a “proceed with caution” approach was still valued. “In the context of the conversations we’ve had, there is no appetite for a totally unregulated environment for gene editing.” 

The Productivity Commission and the global push for GE deregulation 

The New Zealand Productivity Commission last year called for a complete review of HSNO, as well as the legislative framework and institutional arrangements governing genetic engineering, suggesting separate legislation or a standalone regulator. 

“Technologies have moved on significantly over the last 20 years. In particular, advances in gene editing have produced technologies such as CRISPR, which enable much faster and more precise modification than earlier tools,” it says in its 2021 report. 

Once again, proponents have seized the opportunity to promote deregulation. Jack Heinemann says the push for deregulation is happening globally. Pulling no punches,  
he calls it an orchestrated campaign by vested interests – industry and those parts of academia aligned with industry outcomes – that follows the same pattern everywhere, drowning out voices of scientific doubt. 

As a geneticist, he is immensely positive about the benefit to society of regulated genetic engineering in the lab, but says both the utopian promise of genetic engineering – how it’s promoted to the public and the regulators – and the risk profile remain unchanged since regulations were put in place. What gene editing does is change the scale and speed at which interventions can be made in nature, he says. “That is precisely what makes a technology risky.” 

President of GE-Free New Zealand Claire Bleakley says the HSNO regulations follow a clear pathway to ensure products are safe. “Because GMOs are living organisms they might contaminate the indigenous flora and fauna, the economic crops, or have serious health effects. Our biggest concern is that the Productivity Commission report was basically minimising the dangers of GMOs and highlighting the simplicity of them.” 

Sociologist Jodie Bruning agrees the report obfuscates risk, and doesn’t represent what the bulk of submissions had been asking for – just two out of 80 submissions (both from the medical industry) that fed into the Productivity Commission’s 2021 report argued that HSNO should be opened up. 

The main fear Jack Heinemann, Claire Bleakley and Jodie Bruning convey is that without the appropriate checks and balances, and careful scientific oversight, niche experimentation with the ability to change organisms at pace and scale would proliferate, and with them, unintended consequences. 

“Regulation is not a ban. It isn’t stopping anything. Good science is like good democracy – it needs accountability and transparency. No dark corners,” Bruning says.  


Organics around the world

The demand for New Zealand organic produce is growing, reflecting the global trend. Local experts share their thoughts with Melissa Reid on how the sector can scale up to meet domestic and export demands. 

There is an ever-increasing number of people who are becoming more attuned to where their food comes from. The demand for products that meet the health, environmental and ethical demands of conscious consumers is on the rise. Nowhere is this better reflected than in the global increase in demand for organic produce. 

With a focus on protecting waterways, biodiversity, communities and helping to fight climate change, organic regenerative agriculture is recognised as a way of farming that offers solutions to these problems, and meets consumer demand for more environmentally friendly practices. 

The growing global organics market

For over a decade, global sales of organic products have shown consistent year-on-year growth. In 2019, global sales of certified organic products reached €106.4 billion (NZ$187.26 billion). 

Around the world, just 1.5 percent of all farmland is certified organic, but the total area looks set to increase because of government policies in a number of countries. Japan, for example, has a target of 25% of agricultural land to be organic by 2050 and some states in India are aiming to be 100% organic in the coming years. 

In 2019, 72.3 million hectares globally were organically managed, up 1.6 percent or 1.1 million ha from 2018. New Zealand’s 5849 ha under organic certification is down 3.41% (3029 hectares) since 2017, but is set to increase again with approximately 6000 ha in conversion to organic. 

Taking our products to the world

Aotearoa New Zealand is in a different situation from most other countries in terms of our agricultural focus.  

“The New Zealand organic sector is targeted and designed for export, just like the rest of the agricultural sector,” said Rick Carmont, executive director of the Organic Exporters Association. “At 58%, New Zealand is the only country that exports most of its organic production. By contrast, Australia exports 26%, Denmark 19%, Sweden 10%, and the US less than 2%.” 

The 2020/21 Organic Sector Market Report commissioned by Organics Aotearoa New Zealand (OANZ), shows that our organic agriculture sector’s value has increased by 20% since 2017 to $723 million, with market value split between exports at 58% ($421 million) and domestic market at 42% ($302 million).  

There is significant demand for New Zealand’s organic products worldwide, with 81% sold into five markets in 2020: USA, China, Europe, Australia and Japan (see graph).  

Top 3 countries (number of hectares)
  1. Australia: 35.7 million
  2. Argentina: 3.7 million
  3. Spain: 2.4 million

The global total is 72.3 million hectares, and New Zealand currently has 85,849 hectares.

Top 3 countries (organic producers)
  1. India: 1.3 million
  2. Uganda: 210,000
  3. Ethiopia: 204,000
Top 3 countries
(% of organic land)
  1. Lichtenstein: 41%
  2. Austria: 26.1%
  3. São Tomé and Príncipe: 24.9%

Top 3 regions
  1. Oceania: 36 million ha
  2. Europe: 16.5 million ha
  3. Latin America: 8.3 million ha

Half the world’s organic agricultural land is in Oceania due to Australia’s large area of organic pastoral farmland.

Supporting the growth of organics in Aotearoa 

Meeting an ever-increasing demand for both domestic and export markets will require government support and a robust action plan.  

Fortunately, two pieces of work can help make this happen: the Organic Products Bill and the Organic Sector Strategy Taking Action for a Better New Zealand

Viv Williams, chief executive of OANZ, spearheaded the Organic Sector Strategy with input from a wider sector leadership group, stakeholders from across the local organic sector, and the assistance of MPI funding. 

The sector strategy’s vision is to enable producers, communities and the environment to thrive through organics. The strategy outlines a roadmap that will contribute a cumulative $4.7 billion to New Zealand’s GDP by 2030 while reducing climate change and environmental pollution. 

“Organics provides an established international market and brand,” said Williams. “When combined with the energy and vitality coming from the regenerative agriculture movement, organic regenerative can make a strong contribution to the future of farming as outlined in the government’s Fit for a Better World strategy. A future that is better for our environment, our farmers, and our communities.” 

Pete Huggins, general manager of the Soil & Health Association, agrees that placing organics within government strategies would be a good start to strengthening the sector. 

“Government acknowledgment of organics, like we’ve seen overseas, can open up new possibilities,” said Huggins. “Hopefully, a positive outcome of the Organic Products Bill process will be increased awareness and understanding of organics amongst decision-makers.” 

Similarly, Rick Carmont wants to ensure the Bill is an advantage and not an obstacle for market growth. 

“It will be an important instrument in continuing to grow and maintain our organic trade arrangements, and the Organic Exporters Association is a big supporter of it,” said Carmont. 

Top 5 organic export markets

USACHINAEUROPE (EXCL UK)AUSTRALIAJAPAN
Value $86.8 MILLION $81.8 MILLION $73.4 MILLION 66.4 MILLION $31.5 MILLION
% of NZ organic exports 20.6% 19.5% 17.5% 15.8% 7.5%

At over USD55.1 billion, the US organic market is the largest destination (both current and potential) for NZ organics.

Hua Parakore: indigenous organics 

Active support for indigenous food and growing knowledge is also key to sector growth. Aotearoa’s unique indigenous verification and validation system for food production – the National Māori Organics Authority of Aotearoa (Te Waka Kai Ora) – supports Māori organic growers and protects Māori food sovereignty. Te Waka Kai Ora has developed and implemented the Hua Parakore system, an indigenous validation and verification system for kai atua (Māori organic products).  

“Māori food sovereignty is about returning to eat our cultural landscapes as food producers, kaitiaki and mana whenua,” said Dr Jessica Hutchings, Te Waka Kai Ora member and part of the Sector Strategy Leadership Team.  

“It is imperative that Māori communities grow Māori food producers and food farmers to not only increase organic food production by Māori, but to place Māori at the centre of the food system as producers.” 

Encouraging a clean, green future

Consumers around the world want to know where their food comes from and are increasingly looking for cleaner and greener products. Converting more farms to organic is desirable from both a sustainability and financial perspective. But with the EU’s target of 30% of agricultural farmland organic by 2030, New Zealand exporters should expect increasing competition in organic supply. 

“The key for New Zealand exporters will be to differentiate and create value through innovation and leveraging our premium ‘pure NZ’ brand position,” said Andrew Henderson, general manager of Fonterra Organic. “Having the infrastructure, legislation and incentives in place will also be critical to ensure the simplicity and efficiency needed to be competitive globally, and to incentivise more farmers to convert to organic.” 

More info

Download these reports from Organics Aotearoa New Zealand: oanz.org  

  • Time for Action: The New Zealand Organic Sector Market Report 2020/21 
  • Taking Action for a Better New Zealand: 2022 Aotearoa New Zealand Organic Sector Strategy 

Read the Organic Products Bill on the parliament.nz website, or via bit.ly/31fpuTa.  

A path forward for farmers 

Organic regenerative agriculture is both an important pillar to Aotearoa’s sustainability story and, importantly, can provide a path forward for farmers. According to the OANZ market report, there are approximately 6000 hectares in conversion to organic. 

“Some farmers are moving towards regenerative practice by themselves, but to get a step change we need to see national leadership,” said Pete Huggins. 

“Government funding for extension services which support a shift to organics would help, especially if joined with transition support for farmers undertaking the three-year switch to organic certification. Underwriting this transition would reduce the risk for farmers and show that the government means business.” 

The sector strategy focuses on extension services to support more growers to innovate on-farm and convert to organic farm practices, alongside collaboration with regenerative growers and scientists to deliver the best of both worlds.  

“This strategy, built by the organics sector, provides valuable information on how we can address current challenges and tap into opportunities,” Williams concluded. “It’s a pathway forward for the growth of the sector.” 


Melissa Reid is a freelance writer who lives in Auckland, and works for OANZ.

The best of both worlds: Regen ag and organics

Aotearoa New Zealand is seeing a groundswell of regenerative agriculture. Martin Freeth finds out just how complementary the new thinking and practices are with our longer tradition of organic farming. 

We hope you enjoy this free article from OrganicNZJoin us for access to exclusive members-only content.

Southland farmer Tim Gow smiles to himself when regenerative agriculture (regen) is discussed. This organic sheep and beef farmer has been building soil quality, growing nutrient-dense feed for well-adapted animals, and concerning himself with carbon capture and retention for over three decades. The tenets of today’s regen movement are hardly new to him.  

Says Tim: “I’m enthusiastic about the fact that many people are moving to regen, which is a whole lot better than using all that synthetic fertiliser and chemicals, but they seem to be overcomplicating something which is basically simple and actually very old.” 

Sabbatical for the soil 

Tim Gow began ‘sabbatical fallowing’ – the practice of annually locking up one seventh of the farm for much of the year to enable natural composting of plants and soil, and regeneration of everything that grows above and below ground – in 1987.  

Tim and his wife Helen haven’t looked back since their first rotation when improvements started showing up in soil depth and biology, feed supply and livestock health. Their 469-hectare farm, Mangapiri Downs on rolling country near Blackmount, is now into its fifth rotation – and has long since become a strong platform for their stud breeding of distinctive Shire hair sheep (Wiltshire-Marsh cross) and polled Highland Tufty cattle.  

Ferdinand, a Tufty (polled Highland) bull calf

Breeding for natural health 

It’s also now more than three decades since the Gows achieved organic certification as meat and livestock producers through BioGro NZ (March 1989). For Tim, an organic approach to every aspect of farm management is a perfect, natural complement to fallowing. He hasn’t drenched or vaccinated an animal in 32 years – hasn’t needed to because Mangapiri’s adaptively bred sheep and cattle are so healthy on dense, diverse pastures and naturally enriched soils.  

The Shire rams and ewes, and Tufty cattle, are marketed to farmers throughout New Zealand as organic livestock for use in their production flocks and herds. Both have been advanced (and trademarked) on the strengths of selective breeding for hardiness and meat production, and of the organic and fallowing management system at Mangapiri.  

“Surely it’s time to reject chemicals, look to the basic cause of parasites and disease and move to organic methods of control, such as breeding the natural immunity back into your stock like they used to have before the chemicals and drench arrived over 60 years ago,” says Tim in his latest stud stock catalogue. 

Building vitality in the soil  

With sabbatical fallowing, that seventh portion of the farm is shut off each October, as a hay paddock would be, after being lightly grazed and having the residual of grasses, herbs and legumes trampled by the animals.  

“You fold much of your spring growth and summer seeds down into the topsoil where it becomes compost … you leave it until late the next winter before putting stock in again to take the top off that paddock’s huge growth.” 

The Gows import no feed and make no baleage; winter feed is all standing grass crops, mostly in blocks that are being fallowed that year. On shut-off areas, Tim has been amazed at the natural resurgence of plant life, including traditional grasses and Maku lotus not otherwise seen for decades.  

“You can see the vitality in the soil … its organic matter, worm life and just the look and smell of it. It becomes soil that will get you through a drought or flood.” 

Tim was inspired while travelling in Asia, the Middle East and Europe in the late 1970s and again in the mid-80s. He saw farmers applying their own versions of fallowing, and recognised this as ancient wisdom even referred to in the Bible, Koran and Torah.  

“I came home determined to give it a go,” he says. Within a decade, the benefits of fallowing at Mangapiri were recognised by soil scientists from Invermay Research Station, who compared soils of the same type from 19 Southland farms. 

What constitutes ‘regenerative’? 

Could there be a more regenerative farmer? Tim Gow – organic producer, sabbatical fallowing practitioner and man of constant inquiry – will surely look the part to anyone reading this year’s ‘Regenerative agriculture in Aotearoa New Zealand’ paper from Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research. 

The researchers’ literature review and wide consultation led them to identify a ‘regen mindset’ among farmers, with 11 core principles that include: treat the farm as a living system; maximise year-round photosynthesis; minimise disturbance; harness diversity; and manage livestock holistically – see sidebar. 

The Manaaki Whenua team refrain from providing a standard definition of regen because, they say, of the diversity of ideas and practices in the regenerative basket, and because more work is needed to understand the contribution of concepts in te ao Māori like kaitiakitanga. There is nothing for regen, at least in New Zealand, as clear and concise as the international definition for organic agriculture (OA) – see sidebar. 

Regen obviously does encompass the same ideas. As the Manaaki Whenua paper notes, regenerative principles and practices – the term itself originates from the United States in the late 1970s – are all about reversing the environmental damage now associated with conventional farming, and about managing ‘agroecosystems’ in holistic ways for continuous improvement in social and cultural terms as well as environmental. (An agroecosystem is a natural ecosystem modified by people for the production of food and fibre. For an overview of the concept and some related research, see  sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/agroecosystems.) 

shire sheep.
Shire sheep (Wiltshire-Marsh cross) at Mangapiri Downs, Southland

Regen network: Quorum Sense 

In New Zealand today, there are said to be at least 1000 farmers systematically applying regen practices in their commercial production of milk, meat, fibre and/or plant crops. The figure comes from Quorum Sense, a farmers’ network formed in 2018 with a mission to ‘generate and share practical knowledge to support regenerative farm systems and vibrant rural communities’ – see quorumsense.org.nz. Quorum Sense holds seminars and field days, and shares stories online – all reflecting ‘learn together’ and ‘make context-specific decisions’ which are two more of the Manaaki Whenua-articulated principles. 

Needless to say, many of regen’s ‘linked in’ farmers are also certified organic producers, or on their way to becoming so. They recognise the foundational importance of soil health, the value of multispecies pastures, and the need for great care in matching animals and their feed requirements to nature and local conditions, while also eschewing synthetic fertilisers and chemical control of diseases, pests and weeds. 

You can see the vitality in the soil … its organic matter, worm life and just the look and smell of it. It becomes soil that will get you through a drought or flood.

Regen and organic working together   

Russell and Charlotte Heald, dairy farmers near Norsewood in southern Hawke’s Bay, are a good example. Last season, they milked 385 cows (once a day), with no inorganic inputs, much care in the rotational grazing regime on their nine-species pastures, and a strong focus on prevention of cow health issues, not just treatment. The Healds see a perfect fit between regenerative and organic – and they expect to attain full certification this November. 

“They’re working very well together as one cohesive system,” says Charlotte. “With organics there are few things no longer in the toolbox … you might want to apply a bit of N to help one paddock along or spray out some blackberry but you can’t and anyway, we now have effective alternatives,” says Russell, for whom the transition from conventional dairying began in 2017. 

The Healds went regenerative first with advice from a biological farming advisor on a new pasture mix of grasses, herbs and legumes, and soil enhancement using fish-based products under the Biosea brand. Benefits in soil and plant health were evident in the first season, says Russell, along with a nearly $200,000 saving in feed costs and a much reduced bill for animal health.  

Organic certification was the obvious next step, says Charlotte. “It was going well with all the changes we were making but we were also seeing how people increasingly want to know more about where their food comes from … to be assured of its quality and the integrity of the farming system. That’s where organic certification becomes so valuable … and it is also about completing the alignment with our own values.”  

For Russell, the basics are the same. “It’s all about building the immunity and health of the animals, and that flows out of having healthier soil and healthier plants,” he says.  

Not to be forgotten also is the need for farm profitability – and the Healds say their move to regenerative organic dairying has been positive in that regard, even through the particularly dry 2020–21 season. 

11 regenerative principles

  1. The farm is a living system
  2. Make context-specific decisions
  3. Question everything
  4. Learn together
  5. Failure is part of the journey
  6. Open and flexible toolkit
  7. Plan for what you want; start with what you have
  8. Maximise photosynthesis (year round)
  9. Minimise disturbance
  10. Harness diversity
  11. Manage livestock strategically/holistically

More information available at: www.landcareresearch.co.nz

Market value and provenance of food  

The regen movement definitely does have farmers’ financial health in mind: that’s part of social and cultural wellbeing. As the Manaaki Whenua paper notes, the longer-term aspiration is for regeneratively produced New Zealand food and fibre to accrue higher value as global markets recognise the embedded environmental benefits. In one sense, organic certification gives producers a headstart on this (as well as adding the quality assurance of ‘organic’ to each item of product). 

Simon Osborne, mid-Canterbury arable farmer and co-founder of Quorum Sense, thinks regen will have market value in itself when the farming and ecosystem provenance of food can be conveyed directly from producer to consumer through digital communication. Meantime, he says, it just isn’t realistic, or necessary, for every regen farmer to strive for organic certification.  

“It is probably relatively easy for pastoral farmers with their twin focus on soil fertility for growing grasses and on animal health because they have readily available organic options… it isn’t the same for large-scale arable producers like me, without huge additional costs and lots more bloody hard work,” says Simon.  

No-till arable farming 

His farming, on 280 hectares of mostly shallow clay loam near Leeston, is ‘no-till’ at its best in New Zealand. Simon has carried on and refined the practices of his father through 30 years of his own trial and error with different crops, companion planting and rotations. He grows wheat, barley, peas and various other crops – and he continues to trial new ones. 

Today his soils have depth, structure and microbial activity like never before, supporting deeper roots and more vigorous growth above ground. The farm has been at various times a learning site for agronomy students at nearby Lincoln University.  

He doesn’t use insecticides or fungicides and makes minimum, targeted use of nitrogen fertiliser, He does use glyphosate as a “primary cultivation tool” in different areas of the farm annually, prior to sowing. The only viable alternative would be extensive tillage, exposing the soil to more weeds, and pest and disease risks. That’s not an option for a farmer with such passion for his soil – and one whose soil tests show no detriment to microbial activity from very limited spraying.  

People increasingly want to know more about where their food comes from … to be assured of its quality and the integrity of the farming system.

Common ground 

Simon – and scores of others consulted for the Manaaki Whenua paper – see organic farming and regen both springing from the same philosophical, emotional and practical rejection of conventional, often called ‘industrial’ or ‘intensive’, agriculture with its bias to monoculture, and reliance on synthetic nitrogen and phosphate fertilisers, on agrichemicals and on animal antibiotics. These are all associated with freshwater water degradation, soil and biodiversity loss, excessive carbon emissions and climate change.  

“We have a huge debt of gratitude to the pioneering organics movement. If they hadn’t held the line over the past 50 years, there would be no starting point for regen … industrial agriculture would have taken over lock, stock and barrel,” says Simon. 

Manaaki Whenua describes regen as ‘a grass roots, farmer-driven movement founded in an ecological paradigm’ and its members as engaged in ‘wider systems thinking … with an outcomes focus’.  

To farmers like Simon Osborne – and others in the regen movement spoken for this article – it all comes down to this mindset of the 11 principles, and to personal willingness and capability to adopt alternatives to the conventional model.  

All share a disdain for farming based on manufactured inputs and production growth goals that have proven, longer-term damage to ecosystems. But they see no one alternative prescription for every farm or growing operation that will reverse the damage, while producing nutritious, affordable food for all and sustaining communities of farmers financially and socially. There is a common concern that achieving organic certification has become too prescriptive, and hence costly and time consuming, for farmers and too focused on creating niche consumer markets for food. 

It all starts with soil health 

Regenerative or organic, everything starts with soil health – that is certainly clear. Seems clear also that out on the land, Tim and Helen Gow, Russell and Charlotte Heald, and Simon Osborne are all moving in the same direction.  


Martin Freeth is a journalist, consultant and olive grower based in the Wellington region.