The Soil & Health Association will provide a grant of up to $100 for the running of any public event led and organised by an association member.
Grant conditions
Applications for grant funding must use the form provided below
Applications should show how the proposed event will deliver benefits to one or more of the strategic priorities of the Soil & Health Association: Organic regenerative agriculture; Climate change; Healthy Food; Cohesion and unity
Events must be open to the general public
Any information, photography, video or material resulting from the event should be made available to the Association.
Apply now
These grants are available to any Soil & Health member
Note: the total amount of grant funding available is limited to a total of $1200 over one financial year, the Association will take this limit into account when considering applications.
https://soilandhealth.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Counting-earthworms-at-Tapu-Te-Ranga-for-web-1.jpg11541732editorhttps://soilandhealth.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Soil-and-Health-Association_logoFA-web2024.jpgeditor2022-06-14 12:48:282022-06-14 12:48:28Event grants for Soil & Health members
What New Zealand’s Proposed Genetic Engineering Rules Could Mean for Organics
By Charles Hyland, chair of the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
When the Government released the Gene Technology Bill in late 2024, it advanced a proposal that could reshape how Aotearoa New Zealand manages genetic technologies for many years to come. We have a short and critical window of opportunity to influence this for the benefit of the organic and wider farming community, the New Zealand public and the environment.
For decades, the organic movement has maintained an unambiguous position on genetic engineering: it has no place in organic systems.
This position is not solely about the safety or otherwise of specific technologies. It is about protecting ecological integrity, sustaining consumer trust in food systems, and safeguarding the right of communities, growers, and consumers to choose farming systems that remain free from genetic contamination.
Above: Charles Hyland
The Gene Technology Bill represents the most significant attempt to rewrite Aotearoa’s genetic rules since the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 was passed nearly thirty years ago. It therefore represents a critical juncture in the country’s relationship with biotechnology, food, agriculture, and the environment.
A legislative reset
The original version of the bill, introduced in late 2024, was designed to remove gene technology regulation from the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) framework and place it into a dedicated new system. This new framework would create a single Gene Technology Regulator supported by advisory committees and a risk-tiered approval system. Government ministers and officials presented the change as a necessary modernisation. They argued that HSNO was an outdated and overly cumbersome regime that treated all genetic technologies in a single, inflexible way. Some researchers and industry groups had long complained that HSNO imposed slow and costly approval processes, making it difficult to work with techniques such as CRISPR and other forms of gene editing. The stated goal of the reform was to reduce regulatory lag, streamline decision-making, and encourage domestic research and innovation.
To the organic community, however, this proposal triggered deep concern. The original draft of the bill allowed entire categories of genetic techniques to be declared “not regulated,” which would have created the possibility of genetically engineered organisms entering our food, farming systems and outdoor environment without any public notification, without labelling, and without clear liability mechanisms if contamination occurred. To Soil & Health, the promise of streamlining looked less like efficiency and more like a structural blind spot.
One of the most consequential elements of the original proposal is the potential redefinition of what legally counts as a “GMO” in New Zealand. By excluding certain forms of gene editing from the GMO umbrella altogether, these technologies could be treated as though they are no different from conventional breeding. This shift would not just simplify regulation; it would fundamentally alter the scope of what falls under genetic oversight, enabling some gene-edited organisms to bypass the regulatory system entirely. For the organic sector, this raises profound concerns about transparency, traceability, and market trust.
What changed in the Health Committee’s version
The Health Select Committee, which considered the draft Bill, received a large volume of submissions from environmental organisations, Māori representatives, organic producers, consumer groups, scientists, legal experts, the biotech industry, and concerned members of the public. Its revised text introduces several significant changes intended to address some of the concerns raised.
One of the most important shifts is that the committee recommends restricting exemptions to specific organisms, not to entire classes of genetic techniques. Exemptions can now only be applied on an organism-by-organism basis, and only if those organisms cannot be distinguished from conventional breeding outcomes. Under the committee’s recommendations, this determination would be made by the Gene Technology Regulator, with advice from the Technical Advisory Committee and the Māori Advisory Committee. Applicants can claim indistinguishability, but the regulator must assess and verify those claims before an exemption is granted. While this represents a shift away from industry self-declaration back to the current case-by-case regulatory decision, concerns remain about how rigorously such claims will be tested in practice and who will bear the cost of verification.
Another change is the introduction of a public schedule (a register) known as Schedule 3A. This schedule would list organisms that are not regulated GMOs and technologies that are not considered ‘gene technologies’ under the new framework. Exemptions and registration requirements sit alongside, but are separate from, this schedule. These organisms may still be genetically modified or gene edited, or the products thereof, but if they are deemed indistinguishable from conventional breeding, they will not go through the full regulatory process. While inclusion in the schedule does not trigger full oversight, it at least ensures that their status is on the public record, addressing some of the concerns from organic and environmental advocates about a lack of transparency around gene editing decisions.
The revised bill also attempts to bolster trust by clarifying the scope of ministerial powers and embedding a broader advisory system. While the Regulator would still be accountable to the Minister, the committee’s recommendations clarify and limit how ministerial directions can be issued, including ensuring these powers cannot be delegated. The Regulator would also be required to produce annual reports on its activities.
The advisory structure has been expanded to include environmental scientists, mātauranga Māori experts, and public interest voices, aiming to reduce the risk of decisions being made within a narrow technical circle. However, several submitters have questioned why a new regulatory office is needed at all, suggesting that strengthening the existing Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) might achieve similar outcomes with fewer concerns about accountability and duplication.
The parliamentary process: not law yet
The Gene Technology Bill remains at the parliamentary stage. There was not wide consultation during drafting of the Bill, and no economic impact information sought. After a first reading in December 2024, the Bill was referred to the Health Select Committee, which gave a short public submission period of only two months over the summer holiday period. The Committee received about 14,500 written submissions and approximately 1,500 requests to present oral submissions. Of those, only around 400 were granted, with presenters given just 5–10 minutes each. The Committee produced its revised draft, released on 10 October 2025. The revised Bill will return to the House for its second reading. If the bill is supported at that stage, it will go through the Committee of the Whole House, where MPs debate it line by line and propose further amendments. If it passes a third reading, it will receive Royal assent and become law.
This timeline is important because it means the content of the legislation is not yet fixed. The coming months will determine whether additional protections for the organic sector, primary producers more generally, Māori communities, and consumers are introduced, whether the bill is enacted largely in its current form, or whether it stalls for lack of sufficient support.
Regulation and public trust
New Zealand’s current HSNO regime is intentionally conservative, and many consumers see that conservatism as part of the country’s clean and trusted agricultural identity. Trust is not automatically guaranteed by legislation. It is built when the public can see what decisions are made, understand the reasoning behind them, and believe that independent oversight is in place.
The revised bill attempts to build trust through structural mechanisms, including increased transparency and clear reporting requirements for the Regulator. Yet public trust is fragile. It takes years to build and can be lost in a single regulatory failure.
A single example could be a gene-edited crop or grass variety spreading beyond its intended trial site, contaminating nearby organic farms and compromising their certification, income, market access, and reputation, an outcome that has occurred overseas when containment measures have failed.
Organic producers, Māori communities, and environmentally minded consumers are wary not because they misunderstand gene technologies, but because they have seen how weak oversight has led to adverse irreversible consequences elsewhere.
Consultation versus shared power
The Health Committee has strengthened expectations for consultation at various stages of the regulatory process, and it requires a post-implementation review. These steps reflect recognition that gene technology decisions require more than narrow technical consideration. They have cultural, social, and economic implications.
However, advisory input is not the same thing as actual decision-making power. Māori submitters made clear that gene technology touches whakapapa, mauri, and tino rangatiratanga, and therefore raises issues of sovereignty and responsibility toward taonga species. For many Māori, being consulted after the fact is not sufficient. They are asking for meaningful influence over decisions, not just an advisory seat on the sidelines.
The organic sector’s concerns have some differences from those of Māori in content but are similar in how they play out. For Māori, gene technology interferes with core cultural values, and the bill does not comply with te Tiriti o Waitangi, which guarantees governance over taiao – the environment. For the organic sector, it is about protecting GMO-free production systems, certification, and market access. In both cases, meaningful safeguards rather than consultation alone are essential. If the regulatory system listens but fails to act, both groups risk having their concerns effectively ignored.
Monitoring and enforcement: from paper to practice
The revised bill grants the Regulator broader powers to monitor and enforce compliance. Inspectors would be able to visit both current and former sites of regulated activity. Public registers would provide visibility into what is being approved and where. Licenses could be varied urgently if new risks emerged. Penalties for violations have been streamlined and clarified.
In practice, its value depends on whether the Regulator is adequately resourced to use these powers effectively. A well-designed legal framework cannot protect the environment or organic farmers if it is not backed by funding, staffing, and operational capacity. Many organic producers have seen this dynamic play out in other regulatory domains, where strong rules are undermined by weak enforcement.
National control versus local autonomy
Another contentious element of the bill involves local government. The Government has signalled an intention to move toward a nationally consistent framework, which may limit the ability of local councils to impose their own restrictions on gene technology activities at the behest of their communities. The Government has presented this as a matter of consistency and efficiency. Industry groups argue that a single national standard will reduce duplication and confusion.
For communities, however, this represents the removal of an important tool. Several regions have precautionary and/or prohibitive plans and policies. Under the new framework, these preferences would carry little or no legal weight. This is not merely a procedural question. It touches on democratic control, regional autonomy, and the ability of communities to shape the future of their land.
For the organic movement, both globally and in Aotearoa, this is especially significant. Around the world, local or regional authorities have often acted as protective backstops when national governments have moved toward more permissive gene technology regulation. New Zealand has followed this pattern, with councils such as Hawke’s Bay, Auckland, and councils into Northland declaring GE-free, precautionary or prohibitive positions. Centralisation would mean that if the national regulator approves the release of a genetically engineered crop, animal, insect, or microbe, local communities would have limited ability to maintain GE-free landscapes.
International alignment and trade realities
The bill brings New Zealand procedurally closer to international frameworks by establishing information-sharing arrangements with overseas regulators and aligning regulatory processes with international practices. The alignment is largely administrative and trade-oriented, aimed at avoiding regulatory isolation and supporting the Government’s broader strategy to position New Zealand as “science-friendly” and “innovation-ready.”
But trade alignment is a double-edged sword. New Zealand’s competitive advantage in many export markets depends on its reputation for clean, non-GMO production. European markets, in particular, remain sensitive to genetic engineering. Many buyers in Asia also favour products that are certified organic and/or verified as non-GMO. If the new framework enables genetically engineered products to enter the food system quickly and without mandatory labelling, that premium reputation could erode. This would not only be an environmental concern but also a commercial one, and potentially a concern for health.
Labelling: the silent gap
One of the most striking aspects of the Gene Technology Bill is what it does not address. It is a regulatory framework for approvals, not a consumer labelling law. The bill creates no requirement for mandatory labelling of gene-edited or genetically modified products. Definitions and labelling of food is determined by the trans-Tasman body Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). This body has now exempted some new gene editing techniques from GMO labelling requirements. As a result, products using these technologies could enter the food chain without consumers’ knowledge.
For organic – and indeed all – consumers, this represents an erosion of informed choice. For any producers who want to remain GE-free, it creates an uneven playing field in which they must continue to bear the cost of proving their products are non-GMO, while those using gene technology face no corresponding requirement to disclose. It also has implications for New Zealand’s export reputation. If overseas buyers cannot reliably distinguish between GE and non-GE products, they may simply choose to source from other countries with stricter standards.
Contamination and liability
Another unresolved issue is liability for contamination. If gene-edited pollen or seed drifts into an organic field, the question of who pays for the resulting damage remains unanswered. The Gene Technology Bill contains no liability framework for such events. The only liability provisions relate to protecting the Regulator from legal claims when acting in good faith.
There are no mechanisms assigning responsibility or financial liability to developers, users, or other parties in cases where genetically engineered material contaminates non-GMO or organic crops or ecosystems. This is a major gap compared with more precautionary regimes overseas. Contamination incidents in other countries have been common and costly, with organic farmers losing certification, income, market access, and consumer trust through no fault of their own.
Without a fair liability system, the risk is likely to fall on organic and GE-free farmers themselves, creating a moral hazard where those who use gene technology externalise the costs onto those who do not. For the organic sector, this is not a marginal issue but a central question of survival.
A well-documented example of such a failure occurred in the United States, where genetically engineered creeping bentgrass escaped containment during field trials and spread across irrigation canals and wildlands, triggering years of expensive and incomplete eradication efforts. Similar issues arose with GM canola in Canada, where widespread contamination effectively eliminated the possibility of growing organic canola in many regions. These incidents illustrate how quickly contamination can spread beyond its intended boundaries, leaving farmers and communities to deal with long-term consequences and costs they did not create.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and governance
The revised bill makes more explicit reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by embedding consultation requirements and the inclusion of mātauranga Māori in advisory processes. However, the Māori Advisory Committee remains advisory only, and its role does not carry decision-making authority. This procedural strengthening falls short of genuine co-governance, which is why many Māori submitters have expressed concern.
Gene technology intersects with whakapapa and mauri in profound ways, so decisions in this area are not purely technical. They touch on cultural identity, spiritual responsibility, and sovereignty. For the bill to gain legitimacy with Māori communities, it must demonstrate that these concerns influence real outcomes, not just process. Otherwise, mistrust is likely to deepen.
Speed and precaution
The Government has presented speed as one of the central goals of the new regulatory framework. Faster approvals are seen as a way to boost innovation and make New Zealand more competitive internationally. But speed in genetic regulation is not necessarily a good thing. Genetic material cannot be recalled once released into the environment. Drift and escape are well-documented phenomena and, unlike chemical pollutants, genetic material can replicate and spread.
A faster system without strong monitoring, labelling, and liability provisions creates obvious risks for non-GMO and organic producers, for home gardeners, and for natural ecosystems. It also creates significant risks for conventional farms, which may face unintentional contamination, disrupted or even banned market access, and loss of buyer confidence if their products can no longer be reliably distinguished from gene-edited varieties.
Lessons from abroad
The experience of other countries provides sobering lessons. In Canada, the widespread planting of herbicide-tolerant GE canola in the late 1990s led to rapid contamination of non-GMO and organic canola fields. Within a few years, growing organic canola became practically impossible in large regions of the Canadian Prairies. In the United States, similar contamination occurred with alfalfa (lucerne). Even strict buffer zones and best-practice guidelines proved insufficient. In contrast, the European Union’s precautionary approach has preserved a clearer market separation and sustained consumer trust.
A permissive, fast-moving system carries both environmental and economic risks. A precautionary system may be slower, but it preserves options for farmers and consumers who want to remain GE-free.
Unresolved questions
Many critical issues remain unresolved in the Bill, and some issues would only be considered later, during the drafting of regulation that sits under the Bill. Among these are the practical mechanisms for ensuring transparency, the nature of liability protections for organic and GE-free producers, the absence of a clear labelling regime, the scope of local authority powers, the resourcing of the Regulator, and the role of Māori in actual decision-making rather than purely advisory capacities. These are not minor details to be filled in later. They will determine whether the system is trusted and workable.
A moment of choice
The Health Committee’s revisions are improvements on the original bill. They increase transparency, tighten exemption criteria, and enhance the independence of the Regulator. But they do not change the overall orientation of the policy, which is designed to facilitate and manage the use of gene technology in New Zealand, rather than putting the health and safety of people and the environment first. Whether that future supports or undermines organics will depend on how these remaining gaps are addressed. One of the most critical of these gaps is the complete absence of a liability framework, leaving farmers and communities exposed to the costs and consequences of contamination events they did not cause.
For organic producers and consumers, this is a moment of decision. New Zealand’s organic exports command a premium price in part because of the country’s reputation as GMO-cautious and environmentally responsible. That reputation can be eroded far more quickly than it can be rebuilt. The coming months will determine whether the organic and wider GE-free movement can help shape a regulatory framework that protects its interests, or whether it will be forced to adapt to a more permissive environment.
Looking ahead
The parliamentary stages that lie ahead provide opportunities for change. Amendments can still be introduced to address the labelling gap, clarify liability rules, secure adequate resourcing for enforcement, and ensure meaningful co-governance with Māori. These issues are not optional extras. They are the core conditions that will shape public trust and determine how different sectors experience the new regime, if indeed it is introduced.
New Zealand now faces a strategic choice. One path leads toward a regulatory framework that balances innovation with precaution, transparency, and respect for community values. The other path risks weakening trust, undermining organic markets, and eroding local control. For organic growers, consumers, and communities, this is a time to pay close attention, engage constructively, and insist on a system that protects ecological integrity and informed choice.
The tightrope has been strung high. How we walk it will shape the future of farming, food systems, and public trust for decades to come.
Aotearoa New Zealand – The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand is calling for the Government to halt the Gene Technology Bill, warning that the proposed law would open the door to genetically engineered organisms in Aotearoa’s environment, food system and farms.
The latest draft of the Bill, which has just been released by the Health Select Committee, has only minor changes from the initial draft.
“New Zealanders have a right to know what we’re growing and eating – and to choose food that aligns with their values,” says Charles Hyland, chair of the Soil & Health Association.
“This Bill would still allow GE into our farms, gardens and food, risking contamination, loss of organic certification, lawsuits and Aotearoa’s GE-free status. Anyone who doesn’t want GE could face difficulties avoiding it.”
“In addition to the risks to food and agriculture, there are also risks to tikanga Māori, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, biodiversity, conservation and natural ecosystems, economics, trade, liability and insurance, animal welfare, ethics and more.”
“Local authorities would have no jurisdiction over GE in their territories.”
“One positive change we have identified is the inclusion of a register of all genetically modified organisms.”
“We’re urging Parliament to pause this Bill and take the time needed to address the wide-ranging environmental, cultural and economic risks,” says Hyland. “This legislation is too important to rush – it must be shaped with meaningful public consultation.”
Aotearoa New Zealand – The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand welcomes the end of animal genetic engineering trials that have taken place at AgResearch’s Ruakura facility for more than two decades.
“These experiments caused immense animal suffering and should never have been allowed to happen,” said Charles Hyland, chair of Soil & Health.
The Association applauds GE Free NZ for exposing the scale of the harm. Their report, based on AgResearch’s own annual statements, documents spontaneous abortions, cancers, deformities and other adverse effects on cattle, sheep and goats.
“After 25 years and tens of thousands of dollars of public money, these experiments have delivered no benefits,” Hyland said. “We are deeply concerned they could resume if the proposed Gene Technology Bill is passed. Animals must not be subjected to such cruelty again.”
“New Zealanders – and our overseas markets – expect high animal welfare standards and food that is healthy, ethical and safe. The future lies in organic and sustainable food and farming.”
Charles Hyland, Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 707 0747 Philippa Jamieson, Organic NZ editor, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 547 3929
TOP IMAGE: Genetically engineered cows at AgResearch’s Ruakura facility in 2011(Photo: Steffan Browning)
https://soilandhealth.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Ruakura-cows-low-res-scaled.jpg18692560membershiphttps://soilandhealth.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Soil-and-Health-Association_logoFA-web2024.jpgmembership2025-10-06 14:30:262025-10-06 14:30:27Soil & Health welcomes end to GE animal trials after 25 years of suffering
The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand is an incorporated society founded in 1941. Its primary purpose is to promote and advocate the production and consumption of organic food. Our motto is ‘Healthy soil – healthy food – healthy people: Oranga nuku – oranga kai – oranga tāngata’.
We represent approximately 17,000 members and supporters around Aotearoa New Zealand, including consumers, home gardeners, farmers, horticulturists, business people, chefs and more.
Our members and supporters are health conscious and highly concerned about their food: how it’s produced, what’s in it, and what effects it has. They want food that is natural and unadulterated, free from harmful chemicals and toxins, and produced in ways that enhance our soils, environments, health and communities.
We represent people who have many reasons for wanting to avoid GE food – such as health, environmental, ethical, cultural, philosophical, climate change and more.
The Soil & Health Association (hereafter Soil & Health) welcomes the opportunity to submit on this application.
Submission
Soil & Health categorically opposes the application for the Purple Tomato for the following reasons.
No justification
Norfolk Healthy Produce’s justification for their application is that the genetically engineered Purple Tomato contains high levels of anthocyanins, which are beneficial compounds.
However, simply containing high levels of anthocyanins is no justification for allowing this genetically engineered tomato into the food supply of New Zealand and Australia.
This application is for an unnecessary food and is primarily for the purpose of patenting.
There are already numerous plant foods that contain anthocyanins, such as blueberries, blackcurrants, blackberries, elderberries, cherries, purple grapes, eggplants, purple cabbage, purple cauliflower, purple carrots, blue corn, red onions, oranges, raspberries, red wine, pink grapefruit, red radishes, purple asparagus, black beans, red broad beans, and many more.
There are already several heirloom varieties of tomato with blue and purple hues that contain anthocyanins.
The applicant’s claim (as part of its justification for the application) that the Purple Tomato is visually striking and ‘delights consumers’ is subjective and a flimsy justification for the application.
Human health effects are unknown
A pilot study on mice was conducted in 2008 and showed and found some benefits of consuming the Purple Tomato in terms of longer life span (Butelli et al, 2008 – referred to in the application).
However this was a limited, small-scale study on just 20 mice, and further tests of a more extensive scope are required to provide evidence of beneficial and/or adverse health effects.
The health effects (positive and negative) of humans consuming these tomatoes are unknown. To our knowledge there have been no trials involving humans.
As the UK’s National Health Service said: ‘until the tomato is tested in humans we cannot be sure that it will offer the same benefits, or that there will not be any unexpected harms’.
Potential adverse health effects
Soil & Health notes that while anthocyanins are generally beneficial for health, they are not essential nutrients.
When anthocyanins are taken in pill form, safe levels may be exceeded, and they may have adverse health effects including the potential to limit iron absorption.
The levels of anthocyanins in the Purple Tomato are much higher than occur in other foods and in supplement form, but there is limited research on the overconsumption of anthocyanins except when taken as supplements.
Before approving the introduction of the Purple Tomato to our diet, independent research must first be undertaken into the health effects of consuming it, to investigate any potential adverse effects.
We don’t know the safe upper limits of anthocyanin consumption. A Harvard University mini review states there is a ‘need for increased regulation and guidelines for polyphenol consumption and supplementation in order to ensure consumers remain safe and informed about polyphenols.’ (Anthocyanins are polyphenols.)
One of the risks of genetically engineering foods is that allergens, toxins and novel proteins can be created.
The applicant says the Purple Tomato does not contain anything matching or similar to any known allergens or toxins. However this does not rule out containing allergens or toxins yet unknown.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you’re not looking for something, you won’t find it.
Safety and equivalence
The claim that foods produced using GE are equivalent to their non-GE counterparts cannot be made with any certainty – in fact significant differences have been discovered.
Existing non-GE tomatoes have a history of safe use over hundreds and thousands of years. The Purple Tomato does not have a history of safe use.
There is no long-term independent research on the Purple Tomato.
The Purple Tomato contains genetic material from not only the purple snapdragon but also bacterial and viral material.
We are increasingly discovering unexpected (‘off-target’) changes resulting from genetic engineering. For example, gene-edited cattle were found to have unintended alterations to the DNA, with bacterial DNA conferring antibiotic resistance, despite the developer having claimed the cattle contained no additional genetic material.
If these tomatoes were released into the food supply, any adverse effects on humans would be unable to be measured or monitored.
Therefore FSANZ must apply the precautionary principle and reject this application, to fulfill its regulatory function of upholding and safeguarding public health.
Māori concerns, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Many Māori – including Māori members and supporters of Soil & Health – strongly object to any form of genetic engineering, as it disturbs whakapapa (kinship with the natural world), mana (dignity), mauri (life force or essence), wairua (spirit) and tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty).
In Aotearoa New Zealand there is at least one claim before the Waitangi Tribunal that involves genetic engineering – Claim WAI262.
Until or unless this is settled to the satisfaction of Māori, no genetically engineered organisms or foods should be approved in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Consumer rejection
The applicant’s claim that consumers would seek out this novel food is speculative and no evidence is given to back it up.
Many surveys in many countries have shown consumers to be wary about, if not opposed to, consuming genetically engineered foods.
Soil & Health members and supporters have been giving us feedback that they would be horrified to see the Purple Tomato on sale in Aotearoa New Zealand, and would actively seek to avoid buying or consuming it.
While it may not be too difficult for consumers to avoid buying the Purple Tomato as fresh produce, it may be harder to avoid it if it’s included as an ingredient.
New Zealand’s GE labelling laws are already inadequate for consumers to make informed choices about avoiding GE food ingredients.
For example, GE ingredients do not have to be labelled in restaurants and other food service outlets, so if the Purple Tomato is served fresh or as an ingredient in a processed product or meal it would not need to be labelled, making it harder for consumers to try to avoid.
Trade impacts
The application says there would be no trade impacts to Australia, with no mention of New Zealand.
While we are aware application A1333 is about food derived from the Purple Tomato, clearly those tomatoes have to be grown somewhere, and we note that an application has been filed with the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to grow the Purple Tomato in Australia.
The only country New Zealand currently imports fresh tomatoes from is Australia. Based on the many consumer surveys over the years, we anticipate low consumer demand in New Zealand for any Australian-grown Purple Tomatoes.
New Zealand exports about 902 tonnes of tomatoes annually (2023 figures), mainly to Asia, the Pacific and Pacific Rim countries.
If in future they are grown in Aotearoa New Zealand for export that could negatively affect our clean green export brand and image in international markets.
Summary
In summary, Soil & Health strongly rejects the application.
Accepting this application would mean exposing the public of New Zealand and Australia to potential risks that would not be able to be measured and monitored.
We support FSANZ to take a precautionary approach to the Purple Tomato and indeed all GE foods, in order to uphold public health and safety.
We urge FSANZ to reject this application as there is insufficient evidence of the safety of the Purple Tomato.
https://soilandhealth.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/719202370657AM.jpg8501200membershiphttps://soilandhealth.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Soil-and-Health-Association_logoFA-web2024.jpgmembership2025-09-21 17:24:302025-09-21 17:24:32Soil & Health submission on GE purple tomatoes in food
Jenny Lux opened the meeting with a karakia at 10.00am.
Acceptance of Agenda
Jenny provided the opportunity for items to be added to the agenda. No items were added.
Attendance and Apologies
Attendees: Jenny Lux (Chair), Charles Hyland (S&H National Council), Rebecka Keeling (S&H National Council), David McNeill (S&H National Council), Leane Makey (S&H National Council), Brendan Hoare, Chris Morrison, Emma Wilson, Ian Fielding, Jamie Tucker, Lou Vicente, Marion Thomson, Philippa Jamieson, Tiffany Tompkins, Ian Fielding, David Woods, Jon Merrick, Gillian Woods, Greg and Joanne Turner, Jim Drury, Scott Walters, Alison White, Matt Morris, Marion Wood, Joseph Stuart, Laurence Speedy, Sophora Grace, Liz Fenwick (S&H staff and minute taker), Richard Wallis (from 10.15am) Zane Brown (from 10.20am) Peter Davis (from 10.35am)
Apologies: Kaitlyn Lamb, Steffan Browning, Dave Kennedy, Derek Broadmore
Confirmation of the Minutes of the 2023 AGM and the May 2024 SGM
Jenny proposed that the Minutes of the 2023 AGM be approved as a true and accurate record. Seconded by Joanne Turner. All in favour. Carried.
Jenny proposed that the Minutes of the 2024 Special General Meeting be approved as a true and accurate record. Seconded by Philippa Jamieson. All in favour. Carried.
Introduction of the Voting Section
Philippa Jamieson explained the voting process. There are seven places available on National Council. Rebecka Keeling is continuing in the second year of her 2-year term. Four candidates are standing for the remaining six positions.
While there are more places than candidates, we want to ensure we have a mandate from members and our constitution says that we give the option to vote. Advance online votes will be tallied with the votes cast during the meeting.
Nominees
The meeting heard from each of the nominees (three minutes each), followed by questions from the floor before voting.
Charles Hyland
Charles got involved in Soil & Health a few years ago through the Auckland branch. He got to know S&H as something other than a magazine producer. S&H is in a period of change with the transition to digital. He believes this is the natural progression of S&H and that we need to embrace it and get excited about it. He would like members to be involved in the new media.
Charles has been on the board of BioGro for the past year representing S&H. There is a lot of important work that needs to occur there. He is looking forward to working together for the benefit of organics in New Zealand. We are all part of the organic community and it is very important that we truly align with each other. We are too small to be divided.
Leane Makey
Leane has joined the last three Soil & Health meetings. She lives in the Kaipara region. She has been involved with non-profit and environmental organisations for the last 15 years (in NZ and Australia). She has a PhD in environmental science. Soil and human relationships are her particular interest.
Leane works out of the University of Auckland. She is a Hua Parakore food grower and sheep farmer. She is a specialist in developing strategic actions. She would like to enable S&H to continue to educate, and advocate for the soil’s future. She is passionate about building the organisation at a time when things are desperate and dire for soil.
David McNeill
David is a passionate soil campaigner and organics advocate. He is an organic avocado grower and is keen for advocacy and promoting greater protections for the soil. He has been in the Treasurer role since he started. There is a huge amount to do which will require volunteers and more core volunteers are needed. The core crew is fewer than 10.
David would like to see advocacy grow and local branches re-started. Community gardens are needed to build resilience against supply chain issues. He wants to see the health of people grow as we grow organic food and create healthy spaces. David would like to see 16 branches of local, organic and energetic people. He is keen to contribute for another year.
Richard Wallis
Richard became interested in joining because the world needs a more coherent understanding of what is causing extreme weather events and global heating that is happening more rapidly than models predict. The missing piece is Soil & Health. It all comes down to a functional soil microbiome, and decent compost. We need to apply it in our agriculture and forestry. If we can implement this successfully across landscapes, the world will be a much better place.
Richard has hands-on experience of composting over the last 16 or so years. This has given him a good feel for what the soil microbiome can do. S&H is the natural organisation to sponsor the movement. We need to get a common understanding amongst politicians and businesses and community groups. All three of these components need to come together with a common understanding. We need a coherent voice to solve the problems we are facing.
Questions to nominees
Sophora Grace asked the nominees what types of campaigns they are most passionate about? E.g. GE, climate change, other?
Charles is keen to advocate about soil erosion, which is often overlooked, even amongst people who care a lot about soils.
Leane has been trying to source funding to implement the digital strategy over the last few months. She is interested in investing in designing branches and creating more grassroots spaces.
David is an advocate for a Soil Act. No person or organisation should do anything to harm the soil. Four inches of topsoil supports life and is everything to us.
Richard supports the idea of a Soil Act. Even better is soil action. He would like to see S&H leading the debate. He would like to contribute a lot of the science around it so that we can understand not just that the soil needs to be healthy, but what that means and how we generate it. We need to get back to times before the industrial revolution when the earth was gaining carbon at 50 billion tonnes per year. It comes back to reforestation and farming without nitrates. We need to champion the solutions.
Philippa said she is keen to see fundraising that Leane mentioned. It will be crucial to keeping S&H alive.
Philippa asked Richard what skills and experience he can bring to S&H.
Richard commented that he sees his strengths in the advocacy role. He was a lawyer for 30 years practicing in commercial litigation. His real capacity is doing some of the writing of the papers that we need to be able to publish which get to the nub of restoring soil and health. Richard’s business currently has composting systems in 80 schools. The plan is that one day every school will be learning about ecosystems and restoring the microbiome.
Voting
Attendees were asked to cast their votes if they hadn’t already done so; results to be reported later in the meeting.
Reports
Financial Report
David commented on the Audited Financial Statements.
The financial results are tough. The magazine wasn’t affordable and had to cease. Membership would have needed to double and the price would have had to double to keep it going. S&H is now needing to be a grassroots organisation.
BioGro is having a tough time too. The costs are at the same level as revenue. The BioGro Board need to return it to some semblance of a surplus.
The S&H website has had a refresh. This has eliminated a lot of the operating costs of the website.
The audit has been a challenge this year. There were delays from BioGro in getting information to the auditors. There are still some issues to work through this year.
S&H isn’t spending excessively. All magazine costs have been eliminated, we no longer have an office and there is not much more to trim unless we go down to a completely voluntary organisation. Membership renewals are down significantly. Thankfully we have the moon calendar back which is popular.
Cash reserves are down. They have continued to the decline in the 6 months since the reports were published. S&H can’t afford much at all. However, we can still act as a great facilitator between funding bodies and projects we want to spend funds on, such as advocacy and digital publishing.
The balance sheet shows we have no physical assets. It comes down to cash and cash reserves. We have BioGro but it’s not for sale so the value is not relevant.
David asked if there were any questions. No questions were asked.
Richard commented that we need funding to implement the digital strategy.
Philippa commented that she is moving on as Editor and we need new volunteers.
Jenny commented that Organic Week was very successful. We are continuing to work on keeping the budget extremely tight.
Marion Thomson asked if there was time to digest the report and provide comments before it goes to Charities Services. Jenny apologised that the Audit report was not able to be provided earlier. The audit was a very drawn-out process, and Jenny was sorry that it wasn’t provided in good time to digest it. It is now complete and provides some clarity as to the financial position.
Jenny commented that we are now 6 months on since the end of the financial year. S&H currently has $16,000 in the bank. BioGro’s cash reserves are also very tight.
Brendon Hoare left the meeting at 10.51am.
Tiffany Tompkins asked if the $16,000 bank balance included the $10,000 reserved for Organic Week. Jenny responded that some of the funding is tagged to re-start Organic Week and is being kept to hopefully support the next Organic Week.
Jenny proposed that the Auditor’s report be accepted and submitted to Charities Services on Monday 30th September 2024. Seconded by David. All in favour. Carried.
Chair’s Report
Jenny read her written report to the meeting (provided online prior to the AGM). She explained that S&H is a Tier 2 charity because it owns BioGro, meaning it is required to complete a more detailed audit.
Jenny also shared a presentation on the Digital Strategy.
BioGro Report
Joseph Stuart (chair of BioGro) provided a verbal report to the meeting.
This is my 8th or 9th AGM, and I have been on BioGro board for 11 years. BioGro has come a long way in the last decade. The company is turning over more than $2m per annum. I am very proud of the growth in the business, but it is very challenging at the moment.
BioGro got back to profit in the last year. This time last year we were talking about the loss but as it went through the year it became apparent that a lot of the loss was an HR challenge and invoicing which should have happened in the year happened a month late. The actual loss was therefore only about $70,000. The change in the invoicing and accounting has enabled BioGro to make a profit this year.
I am proud that BioGro can make a dividend to the shareholder. In saying that, the operating environment we are working in is challenging. Our key metric is keeping customers. As a service-based business, looking at customer numbers and ensuring people are happy is a key focus for the team. Licensee numbers are holding. When we look through to March next year, we are forecast to make a small profit (smaller than this year). Given the environment we are in, this is a good result for the business.
When looking at the Group, we are looking at ways to work better with S&H to ensure the group survives. It is a big challenge. I am pleased to hear about the changes at S&H. BioGro have been through the same thing – we are now a very lean ship.
There have been some changes around the Board table. We have new people coming which brings new opportunities and lots of good new energy. David has also joined which is great given his audit background.
BioGro apologises to S&H for the audit issues. The delays were due to HR issues with new staff not understanding the process. An Audit and Finance Committee has been reinstated to ensure there are no big challenges moving forward. I am looking forward to David’s input in this. BioGro have also engaged a virtual part time CFO. This has helped to structure performance reporting – forward looking forecast with certainty. While it has been challenging financially, we have the right processes in place.
I am happy with appointment of Peter Harris as this gives me the opportunity to step down. I am not resigning but with the new appointments around the table, we have the opportunity to look at succession. Peter’s experience will enable governance activity to be structured. I am looking forward to future opportunities to work together with S&H and the organic community. We need to recognise that we are big influencers. We are three times bigger than AsureQuality. We are also nimble. We have a new Intellectual Property strategy in play and I am excited about work going on in the regenerative space. BioGro is looking to develop a regenerative standard and is hoping to put it in the budget for the 2025/26 financial year.
Joseph asked if there were any questions.
Leane Makey asked how BioGro interfaces with the science and research space.
Joseph said that at its heart BioGro is a certification business focussed on organics. Supportive of licensees getting in amongst it, within the requirements of BioGro’s standards. BioGro is not in the space of R&D. BioGro is focussed on how to make it easier for people to become certified organic, and once certified, how to make compliance costs as small as possible.
Zane Woods noted that he has been discussing with Charles getting some digital content from BioGro licensees to put it out to the general public about what are doing and how it’s beneficial.
Joseph said there are communication opportunities and raising public awareness of farming organically. There is a lot of opportunity in demystifying it. Agrichemical companies will downplay the impact they have. We need to raise the profile and ensure we are strong together. This is squarely in S&H’s remit to support this. If we are going to survive as a human race we need to look after our soil. A lot of people don’t get that.
Sophora asked how BioGro responds to new contaminants coming into our growing products, specifically things like PFAs in compost and potting mixes.
Joseph said it requires quite a bit of science to explain. At a governance level, they don’t dive into the operations (but it would be a good question for Donald). Private inputs must be reputable and are what they say they are on the tin. Testing is undertaken by the certification team.
Jenny commented that there are standards for inputs to compost. Compost certification has six-monthly checks (more frequent than other licensees).
Jenny said there is a proposal from the S&H National Council that BioGro licensees become S&H members because they would be part of the shareholder company. This is currently with the BioGro board to consider.
Joseph commented that it is a great suggestion and that it will need to go through the proper process. The intent is there to align as best we can. There should be something tangible on the table by the next AGM.
Report from the Auckland branch
A verbal report was provided by Emma Wilson, Secretary/Treasurer of the Auckland branch.
I have moved to Kaiwaka and stepped down as president; Charles Hyland has stepped in. Also in attendance from the Auckland branch are Dave and Gillian Woods, Laurence Speedy and Zane Woods.
It is a privilege to be part of the Auckland branch. We have had some struggles in the last five years and have come through them really well. We have gone from being a committee to being a fun, enjoyable, hardworking committee and a real pleasure to get to know and operate with.
We have also been affected by Covid changes – we lost older members and are still losing members. We need to get used to the changing dynamics of our group. We have lots of people with a variety of skills – health, composting, soil science. This makes it very interesting.
There are lots of areas of focus which is also challenging. Zane, Laurence and others have been looking at what meetings will look like in terms of speakers and interests. A lot of organic producers are struggling. Joy Lowyim from IE Produce was invited to speak to find out what it is like for her personally and her business. Our following online is steadily increasing (65 on Facebook and on YouTube). We meet in Western Springs. Our membership has reduced to 34.
Subscription fees have recently increased from $6 to $15. Members gave us a hard mandate – retain the funds we had (do not spend them). We had approximately $6,000 and didn’t want to spend it right away, we wanted to see how it would go. We currently have approximately $2,600 (had expected it to be lower). I have encouraged the committee to start spending on the digital side and working closely with the national level to work on the digital strategy. We have purchased cameras etc. Zane has a team of editorial volunteers to assist with filming. National members will be able to access the footage they create at their field trips. We want to share more with a wider audience in a different way.
We have changed the financial period so that it is now in line with the national body (1 April to 31 March). We are going through a big process of constitutional upgrade. Some want the easy road of using the national S&H one but some people want us to have something different.
Overall, we are doing well. We are updating all our digital platforms and media. We look forward to working more closely with National Council and are privileged to have Charles on the Board.
Voting Results
Jenny reported that all 4 nominees were unanimously voted in. Richard Wallis, Leane Makey and David McNeill were confirmed as new councillors and Charles Hyland’s reappointment was confirmed.
Remits
The National Council recommended to members that Soil & Health changes its auditor to Kudos Murray Audit to audit the current financial year, ending 31st March 2025.
The main reasons to change the auditor were cost and timeliness.
Jenny has investigated different options. Kudos Murray have stated that they will charge $10,000 (no more). We have been paying $20,000 plus GST to Moore Markhams.
Annual auditing is required for Soil & Health as a Tier 2 charity. BioGro pays 80% of the audit from its turnover.
As Chair of the National Council, Jenny proposed that the remit be adopted.There was no opposition to the remit and it passed unanimously.
General Business
Philippa expressed her gratitude to Jenny Lux for her massive contribution to S&H particularly over the past year as chair and stepping into staff management in the absence of a manager.
Philippa also asked the meeting to take a moment to send best wishes to Patricia Fielding who suffered a heart attack recently, and to acknowledge both Ian and Patricia Fielding (Auckland branch, and life members of Soil & Health) for all their work and support.
Philippa also expressed thanks to Soil & Health’s Treaty partner, Te Waka Kai Ora: The National Māori Organics Authority of Aotearoa, for all the work they are doing.
Philippa also thanked OrganicFarmNZ – acknowledging the difficulties and the hard times and pressures that some of the smaller growers and producers are under.
Philippa said that all in the organic sector need to support each other and work together as a movement.
Closing
Jenny closed the meeting with a karakia. The meeting finished at 12.00pm.
Event grants for Soil & Health members
/in Association Meetings and EventsThe Soil & Health Association will provide a grant of up to $100 for the running of any public event led and organised by an association member.
Grant conditions
Apply now
These grants are available to any Soil & Health member
Please complete the grant application form and email it to manager@organicnz.org.nz
Note: the total amount of grant funding available is limited to a total of $1200 over one financial year, the Association will take this limit into account when considering applications.
2026 Calendars for sale!
/in Books, Campaigns, Organic CommunityThe Gene Tech Bill Tightrope
/in Farming, Farming and Horticulture, Free Online, GE, GM, Health and Food, NewsWhat New Zealand’s Proposed Genetic Engineering Rules Could Mean for Organics
By Charles Hyland, chair of the Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
When the Government released the Gene Technology Bill in late 2024, it advanced a proposal that could reshape how Aotearoa New Zealand manages genetic technologies for many years to come. We have a short and critical window of opportunity to influence this for the benefit of the organic and wider farming community, the New Zealand public and the environment.
For decades, the organic movement has maintained an unambiguous position on genetic engineering: it has no place in organic systems.
This position is not solely about the safety or otherwise of specific technologies. It is about protecting ecological integrity, sustaining consumer trust in food systems, and safeguarding the right of communities, growers, and consumers to choose farming systems that remain free from genetic contamination.
Above: Charles Hyland
The Gene Technology Bill represents the most significant attempt to rewrite Aotearoa’s genetic rules since the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 was passed nearly thirty years ago. It therefore represents a critical juncture in the country’s relationship with biotechnology, food, agriculture, and the environment.
A legislative reset
The original version of the bill, introduced in late 2024, was designed to remove gene technology regulation from the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) framework and place it into a dedicated new system. This new framework would create a single Gene Technology Regulator supported by advisory committees and a risk-tiered approval system. Government ministers and officials presented the change as a necessary modernisation. They argued that HSNO was an outdated and overly cumbersome regime that treated all genetic technologies in a single, inflexible way. Some researchers and industry groups had long complained that HSNO imposed slow and costly approval processes, making it difficult to work with techniques such as CRISPR and other forms of gene editing. The stated goal of the reform was to reduce regulatory lag, streamline decision-making, and encourage domestic research and innovation.
To the organic community, however, this proposal triggered deep concern. The original draft of the bill allowed entire categories of genetic techniques to be declared “not regulated,” which would have created the possibility of genetically engineered organisms entering our food, farming systems and outdoor environment without any public notification, without labelling, and without clear liability mechanisms if contamination occurred. To Soil & Health, the promise of streamlining looked less like efficiency and more like a structural blind spot.
One of the most consequential elements of the original proposal is the potential redefinition of what legally counts as a “GMO” in New Zealand. By excluding certain forms of gene editing from the GMO umbrella altogether, these technologies could be treated as though they are no different from conventional breeding. This shift would not just simplify regulation; it would fundamentally alter the scope of what falls under genetic oversight, enabling some gene-edited organisms to bypass the regulatory system entirely. For the organic sector, this raises profound concerns about transparency, traceability, and market trust.
What changed in the Health Committee’s version
The Health Select Committee, which considered the draft Bill, received a large volume of submissions from environmental organisations, Māori representatives, organic producers, consumer groups, scientists, legal experts, the biotech industry, and concerned members of the public. Its revised text introduces several significant changes intended to address some of the concerns raised.
One of the most important shifts is that the committee recommends restricting exemptions to specific organisms, not to entire classes of genetic techniques. Exemptions can now only be applied on an organism-by-organism basis, and only if those organisms cannot be distinguished from conventional breeding outcomes. Under the committee’s recommendations, this determination would be made by the Gene Technology Regulator, with advice from the Technical Advisory Committee and the Māori Advisory Committee. Applicants can claim indistinguishability, but the regulator must assess and verify those claims before an exemption is granted. While this represents a shift away from industry self-declaration back to the current case-by-case regulatory decision, concerns remain about how rigorously such claims will be tested in practice and who will bear the cost of verification.
Another change is the introduction of a public schedule (a register) known as Schedule 3A. This schedule would list organisms that are not regulated GMOs and technologies that are not considered ‘gene technologies’ under the new framework. Exemptions and registration requirements sit alongside, but are separate from, this schedule. These organisms may still be genetically modified or gene edited, or the products thereof, but if they are deemed indistinguishable from conventional breeding, they will not go through the full regulatory process. While inclusion in the schedule does not trigger full oversight, it at least ensures that their status is on the public record, addressing some of the concerns from organic and environmental advocates about a lack of transparency around gene editing decisions.
The revised bill also attempts to bolster trust by clarifying the scope of ministerial powers and embedding a broader advisory system. While the Regulator would still be accountable to the Minister, the committee’s recommendations clarify and limit how ministerial directions can be issued, including ensuring these powers cannot be delegated. The Regulator would also be required to produce annual reports on its activities.
The advisory structure has been expanded to include environmental scientists, mātauranga Māori experts, and public interest voices, aiming to reduce the risk of decisions being made within a narrow technical circle. However, several submitters have questioned why a new regulatory office is needed at all, suggesting that strengthening the existing Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) might achieve similar outcomes with fewer concerns about accountability and duplication.
The parliamentary process: not law yet
The Gene Technology Bill remains at the parliamentary stage. There was not wide consultation during drafting of the Bill, and no economic impact information sought. After a first reading in December 2024, the Bill was referred to the Health Select Committee, which gave a short public submission period of only two months over the summer holiday period. The Committee received about 14,500 written submissions and approximately 1,500 requests to present oral submissions. Of those, only around 400 were granted, with presenters given just 5–10 minutes each. The Committee produced its revised draft, released on 10 October 2025. The revised Bill will return to the House for its second reading. If the bill is supported at that stage, it will go through the Committee of the Whole House, where MPs debate it line by line and propose further amendments. If it passes a third reading, it will receive Royal assent and become law.
This timeline is important because it means the content of the legislation is not yet fixed. The coming months will determine whether additional protections for the organic sector, primary producers more generally, Māori communities, and consumers are introduced, whether the bill is enacted largely in its current form, or whether it stalls for lack of sufficient support.
Regulation and public trust
New Zealand’s current HSNO regime is intentionally conservative, and many consumers see that conservatism as part of the country’s clean and trusted agricultural identity. Trust is not automatically guaranteed by legislation. It is built when the public can see what decisions are made, understand the reasoning behind them, and believe that independent oversight is in place.
The revised bill attempts to build trust through structural mechanisms, including increased transparency and clear reporting requirements for the Regulator. Yet public trust is fragile. It takes years to build and can be lost in a single regulatory failure.
A single example could be a gene-edited crop or grass variety spreading beyond its intended trial site, contaminating nearby organic farms and compromising their certification, income, market access, and reputation, an outcome that has occurred overseas when containment measures have failed.
Organic producers, Māori communities, and environmentally minded consumers are wary not because they misunderstand gene technologies, but because they have seen how weak oversight has led to adverse irreversible consequences elsewhere.
Consultation versus shared power
The Health Committee has strengthened expectations for consultation at various stages of the regulatory process, and it requires a post-implementation review. These steps reflect recognition that gene technology decisions require more than narrow technical consideration. They have cultural, social, and economic implications.
However, advisory input is not the same thing as actual decision-making power. Māori submitters made clear that gene technology touches whakapapa, mauri, and tino rangatiratanga, and therefore raises issues of sovereignty and responsibility toward taonga species. For many Māori, being consulted after the fact is not sufficient. They are asking for meaningful influence over decisions, not just an advisory seat on the sidelines.
The organic sector’s concerns have some differences from those of Māori in content but are similar in how they play out. For Māori, gene technology interferes with core cultural values, and the bill does not comply with te Tiriti o Waitangi, which guarantees governance over taiao – the environment. For the organic sector, it is about protecting GMO-free production systems, certification, and market access. In both cases, meaningful safeguards rather than consultation alone are essential. If the regulatory system listens but fails to act, both groups risk having their concerns effectively ignored.
Monitoring and enforcement: from paper to practice
The revised bill grants the Regulator broader powers to monitor and enforce compliance. Inspectors would be able to visit both current and former sites of regulated activity. Public registers would provide visibility into what is being approved and where. Licenses could be varied urgently if new risks emerged. Penalties for violations have been streamlined and clarified.
In practice, its value depends on whether the Regulator is adequately resourced to use these powers effectively. A well-designed legal framework cannot protect the environment or organic farmers if it is not backed by funding, staffing, and operational capacity. Many organic producers have seen this dynamic play out in other regulatory domains, where strong rules are undermined by weak enforcement.
National control versus local autonomy
Another contentious element of the bill involves local government. The Government has signalled an intention to move toward a nationally consistent framework, which may limit the ability of local councils to impose their own restrictions on gene technology activities at the behest of their communities. The Government has presented this as a matter of consistency and efficiency. Industry groups argue that a single national standard will reduce duplication and confusion.
For communities, however, this represents the removal of an important tool. Several regions have precautionary and/or prohibitive plans and policies. Under the new framework, these preferences would carry little or no legal weight. This is not merely a procedural question. It touches on democratic control, regional autonomy, and the ability of communities to shape the future of their land.
For the organic movement, both globally and in Aotearoa, this is especially significant. Around the world, local or regional authorities have often acted as protective backstops when national governments have moved toward more permissive gene technology regulation. New Zealand has followed this pattern, with councils such as Hawke’s Bay, Auckland, and councils into Northland declaring GE-free, precautionary or prohibitive positions. Centralisation would mean that if the national regulator approves the release of a genetically engineered crop, animal, insect, or microbe, local communities would have limited ability to maintain GE-free landscapes.
International alignment and trade realities
The bill brings New Zealand procedurally closer to international frameworks by establishing information-sharing arrangements with overseas regulators and aligning regulatory processes with international practices. The alignment is largely administrative and trade-oriented, aimed at avoiding regulatory isolation and supporting the Government’s broader strategy to position New Zealand as “science-friendly” and “innovation-ready.”
But trade alignment is a double-edged sword. New Zealand’s competitive advantage in many export markets depends on its reputation for clean, non-GMO production. European markets, in particular, remain sensitive to genetic engineering. Many buyers in Asia also favour products that are certified organic and/or verified as non-GMO. If the new framework enables genetically engineered products to enter the food system quickly and without mandatory labelling, that premium reputation could erode. This would not only be an environmental concern but also a commercial one, and potentially a concern for health.
Labelling: the silent gap
One of the most striking aspects of the Gene Technology Bill is what it does not address. It is a regulatory framework for approvals, not a consumer labelling law. The bill creates no requirement for mandatory labelling of gene-edited or genetically modified products. Definitions and labelling of food is determined by the trans-Tasman body Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). This body has now exempted some new gene editing techniques from GMO labelling requirements. As a result, products using these technologies could enter the food chain without consumers’ knowledge.
For organic – and indeed all – consumers, this represents an erosion of informed choice. For any producers who want to remain GE-free, it creates an uneven playing field in which they must continue to bear the cost of proving their products are non-GMO, while those using gene technology face no corresponding requirement to disclose. It also has implications for New Zealand’s export reputation. If overseas buyers cannot reliably distinguish between GE and non-GE products, they may simply choose to source from other countries with stricter standards.
Contamination and liability
Another unresolved issue is liability for contamination. If gene-edited pollen or seed drifts into an organic field, the question of who pays for the resulting damage remains unanswered. The Gene Technology Bill contains no liability framework for such events. The only liability provisions relate to protecting the Regulator from legal claims when acting in good faith.
There are no mechanisms assigning responsibility or financial liability to developers, users, or other parties in cases where genetically engineered material contaminates non-GMO or organic crops or ecosystems. This is a major gap compared with more precautionary regimes overseas. Contamination incidents in other countries have been common and costly, with organic farmers losing certification, income, market access, and consumer trust through no fault of their own.
Without a fair liability system, the risk is likely to fall on organic and GE-free farmers themselves, creating a moral hazard where those who use gene technology externalise the costs onto those who do not. For the organic sector, this is not a marginal issue but a central question of survival.
A well-documented example of such a failure occurred in the United States, where genetically engineered creeping bentgrass escaped containment during field trials and spread across irrigation canals and wildlands, triggering years of expensive and incomplete eradication efforts. Similar issues arose with GM canola in Canada, where widespread contamination effectively eliminated the possibility of growing organic canola in many regions. These incidents illustrate how quickly contamination can spread beyond its intended boundaries, leaving farmers and communities to deal with long-term consequences and costs they did not create.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and governance
The revised bill makes more explicit reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by embedding consultation requirements and the inclusion of mātauranga Māori in advisory processes. However, the Māori Advisory Committee remains advisory only, and its role does not carry decision-making authority. This procedural strengthening falls short of genuine co-governance, which is why many Māori submitters have expressed concern.
Gene technology intersects with whakapapa and mauri in profound ways, so decisions in this area are not purely technical. They touch on cultural identity, spiritual responsibility, and sovereignty. For the bill to gain legitimacy with Māori communities, it must demonstrate that these concerns influence real outcomes, not just process. Otherwise, mistrust is likely to deepen.
Speed and precaution
The Government has presented speed as one of the central goals of the new regulatory framework. Faster approvals are seen as a way to boost innovation and make New Zealand more competitive internationally. But speed in genetic regulation is not necessarily a good thing. Genetic material cannot be recalled once released into the environment. Drift and escape are well-documented phenomena and, unlike chemical pollutants, genetic material can replicate and spread.
A faster system without strong monitoring, labelling, and liability provisions creates obvious risks for non-GMO and organic producers, for home gardeners, and for natural ecosystems. It also creates significant risks for conventional farms, which may face unintentional contamination, disrupted or even banned market access, and loss of buyer confidence if their products can no longer be reliably distinguished from gene-edited varieties.
Lessons from abroad
The experience of other countries provides sobering lessons. In Canada, the widespread planting of herbicide-tolerant GE canola in the late 1990s led to rapid contamination of non-GMO and organic canola fields. Within a few years, growing organic canola became practically impossible in large regions of the Canadian Prairies. In the United States, similar contamination occurred with alfalfa (lucerne). Even strict buffer zones and best-practice guidelines proved insufficient. In contrast, the European Union’s precautionary approach has preserved a clearer market separation and sustained consumer trust.
A permissive, fast-moving system carries both environmental and economic risks. A precautionary system may be slower, but it preserves options for farmers and consumers who want to remain GE-free.
Unresolved questions
Many critical issues remain unresolved in the Bill, and some issues would only be considered later, during the drafting of regulation that sits under the Bill. Among these are the practical mechanisms for ensuring transparency, the nature of liability protections for organic and GE-free producers, the absence of a clear labelling regime, the scope of local authority powers, the resourcing of the Regulator, and the role of Māori in actual decision-making rather than purely advisory capacities. These are not minor details to be filled in later. They will determine whether the system is trusted and workable.
A moment of choice
The Health Committee’s revisions are improvements on the original bill. They increase transparency, tighten exemption criteria, and enhance the independence of the Regulator. But they do not change the overall orientation of the policy, which is designed to facilitate and manage the use of gene technology in New Zealand, rather than putting the health and safety of people and the environment first. Whether that future supports or undermines organics will depend on how these remaining gaps are addressed. One of the most critical of these gaps is the complete absence of a liability framework, leaving farmers and communities exposed to the costs and consequences of contamination events they did not cause.
For organic producers and consumers, this is a moment of decision. New Zealand’s organic exports command a premium price in part because of the country’s reputation as GMO-cautious and environmentally responsible. That reputation can be eroded far more quickly than it can be rebuilt. The coming months will determine whether the organic and wider GE-free movement can help shape a regulatory framework that protects its interests, or whether it will be forced to adapt to a more permissive environment.
Looking ahead
The parliamentary stages that lie ahead provide opportunities for change. Amendments can still be introduced to address the labelling gap, clarify liability rules, secure adequate resourcing for enforcement, and ensure meaningful co-governance with Māori. These issues are not optional extras. They are the core conditions that will shape public trust and determine how different sectors experience the new regime, if indeed it is introduced.
New Zealand now faces a strategic choice. One path leads toward a regulatory framework that balances innovation with precaution, transparency, and respect for community values. The other path risks weakening trust, undermining organic markets, and eroding local control. For organic growers, consumers, and communities, this is a time to pay close attention, engage constructively, and insist on a system that protects ecological integrity and informed choice.
The tightrope has been strung high. How we walk it will shape the future of farming, food systems, and public trust for decades to come.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
TOP IMAGE: iStock/heebyj
Gene Tech Bill threatens Aotearoa’s GE-free status, warns Soil & Health
/in Farming, Farming and Horticulture, Free Online, GE, GM, Health and Food, Media Releases, NewsMEDIA RELEASE
13 OCTOBER 2025
Aotearoa New Zealand – The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand is calling for the Government to halt the Gene Technology Bill, warning that the proposed law would open the door to genetically engineered organisms in Aotearoa’s environment, food system and farms.
The latest draft of the Bill, which has just been released by the Health Select Committee, has only minor changes from the initial draft.
“New Zealanders have a right to know what we’re growing and eating – and to choose food that aligns with their values,” says Charles Hyland, chair of the Soil & Health Association.
“This Bill would still allow GE into our farms, gardens and food, risking contamination, loss of organic certification, lawsuits and Aotearoa’s GE-free status. Anyone who doesn’t want GE could face difficulties avoiding it.”
“In addition to the risks to food and agriculture, there are also risks to tikanga Māori, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, biodiversity, conservation and natural ecosystems, economics, trade, liability and insurance, animal welfare, ethics and more.”
“Local authorities would have no jurisdiction over GE in their territories.”
“One positive change we have identified is the inclusion of a register of all genetically modified organisms.”
“We’re urging Parliament to pause this Bill and take the time needed to address the wide-ranging environmental, cultural and economic risks,” says Hyland. “This legislation is too important to rush – it must be shaped with meaningful public consultation.”
ENDS
FURTHER INFORMATION: Soil & Health’s submission on the Gene Technology Bill
Media contacts:
Charles Hyland, Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 707 0747
Philippa Jamieson, Organic NZ editor, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 547 3929
Email: editor@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.soilandhealth.org.nz
TOP IMAGE: Organic apples at Commonsense Organics, Wellington
Soil & Health welcomes end to GE animal trials after 25 years of suffering
/in Farming, Free Online, GE, GM, Health and Food, Media Releases, NewsMEDIA RELEASE
6 OCTOBER 2025
Aotearoa New Zealand – The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand welcomes the end of animal genetic engineering trials that have taken place at AgResearch’s Ruakura facility for more than two decades.
“These experiments caused immense animal suffering and should never have been allowed to happen,” said Charles Hyland, chair of Soil & Health.
The Association applauds GE Free NZ for exposing the scale of the harm. Their report, based on AgResearch’s own annual statements, documents spontaneous abortions, cancers, deformities and other adverse effects on cattle, sheep and goats.
“After 25 years and tens of thousands of dollars of public money, these experiments have delivered no benefits,” Hyland said. “We are deeply concerned they could resume if the proposed Gene Technology Bill is passed. Animals must not be subjected to such cruelty again.”
“New Zealanders – and our overseas markets – expect high animal welfare standards and food that is healthy, ethical and safe. The future lies in organic and sustainable food and farming.”
ENDS
FURTHER INFORMATION: Genetically Engineered Animals in New Zealand 2010 – 2025: Part 2 – The second fifteen years (GE Free NZ)
Media contacts:
Charles Hyland, Chair, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 707 0747
Philippa Jamieson, Organic NZ editor, Soil & Health Association of New Zealand, 027 547 3929
Email: editor@organicnz.org.nz
Website: www.soilandhealth.org.nz
TOP IMAGE: Genetically engineered cows at AgResearch’s Ruakura facility in 2011 (Photo: Steffan Browning)
Soil & Health submission on GE purple tomatoes in food
/in Campaigns, Health and Food, Submissions10 September 2025
To Food Standards Australia New Zealand
Submission to Food Standards Australia New Zealand
A1333 – Food derived from purple tomato lines containing event Del/Ros1-N
Preamble
The Soil & Health Association of New Zealand is an incorporated society founded in 1941. Its primary purpose is to promote and advocate the production and consumption of organic food. Our motto is ‘Healthy soil – healthy food – healthy people: Oranga nuku – oranga kai – oranga tāngata’.
We represent approximately 17,000 members and supporters around Aotearoa New Zealand, including consumers, home gardeners, farmers, horticulturists, business people, chefs and more.
Our members and supporters are health conscious and highly concerned about their food: how it’s produced, what’s in it, and what effects it has. They want food that is natural and unadulterated, free from harmful chemicals and toxins, and produced in ways that enhance our soils, environments, health and communities.
We represent people who have many reasons for wanting to avoid GE food – such as health, environmental, ethical, cultural, philosophical, climate change and more.
The Soil & Health Association (hereafter Soil & Health) welcomes the opportunity to submit on this application.
Submission
No justification
Human health effects are unknown
Potential adverse health effects
Safety and equivalence
Māori concerns, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Consumer rejection
Trade impacts
Summary
2025 AGM Paper Voting
/in Association Meetings and EventsLINK to the main AGM page is here.
2025 AGM Financial Report
/in Association Meetings and EventsThis content is member only, until after the 27 September 2025 AGM
LINK to the main AGM page is here.
2024 AGM Minutes
/in Association Meetings and EventsLINK to the main AGM page is here.
Soil & Health Association of New Zealand
2024 Annual General Meeting
Held 10.00am, 28 September 2024, by Zoom
Draft Minutes
Chairperson: Jenny Lux
Returning Officer: Philippa Jamieson
Assistant Returning Officer: Sophora Grace
Minute Taker: Liz Fenwick
Jenny Lux opened the meeting with a karakia at 10.00am.
Jenny provided the opportunity for items to be added to the agenda. No items were added.
Attendees: Jenny Lux (Chair), Charles Hyland (S&H National Council), Rebecka Keeling (S&H National Council), David McNeill (S&H National Council), Leane Makey (S&H National Council), Brendan Hoare, Chris Morrison, Emma Wilson, Ian Fielding, Jamie Tucker, Lou Vicente, Marion Thomson, Philippa Jamieson, Tiffany Tompkins, Ian Fielding, David Woods, Jon Merrick, Gillian Woods, Greg and Joanne Turner, Jim Drury, Scott Walters, Alison White, Matt Morris, Marion Wood, Joseph Stuart, Laurence Speedy, Sophora Grace, Liz Fenwick (S&H staff and minute taker), Richard Wallis (from 10.15am) Zane Brown (from 10.20am) Peter Davis (from 10.35am)
Apologies: Kaitlyn Lamb, Steffan Browning, Dave Kennedy, Derek Broadmore
Jenny proposed that the Minutes of the 2023 AGM be approved as a true and accurate record. Seconded by Joanne Turner. All in favour. Carried.
Jenny proposed that the Minutes of the 2024 Special General Meeting be approved as a true and accurate record. Seconded by Philippa Jamieson. All in favour. Carried.
Philippa Jamieson explained the voting process. There are seven places available on National Council. Rebecka Keeling is continuing in the second year of her 2-year term. Four candidates are standing for the remaining six positions.
While there are more places than candidates, we want to ensure we have a mandate from members and our constitution says that we give the option to vote. Advance online votes will be tallied with the votes cast during the meeting.
Nominees
The meeting heard from each of the nominees (three minutes each), followed by questions from the floor before voting.
Charles Hyland
Charles got involved in Soil & Health a few years ago through the Auckland branch. He got to know S&H as something other than a magazine producer. S&H is in a period of change with the transition to digital. He believes this is the natural progression of S&H and that we need to embrace it and get excited about it. He would like members to be involved in the new media.
Charles has been on the board of BioGro for the past year representing S&H. There is a lot of important work that needs to occur there. He is looking forward to working together for the benefit of organics in New Zealand. We are all part of the organic community and it is very important that we truly align with each other. We are too small to be divided.
Leane Makey
Leane has joined the last three Soil & Health meetings. She lives in the Kaipara region. She has been involved with non-profit and environmental organisations for the last 15 years (in NZ and Australia). She has a PhD in environmental science. Soil and human relationships are her particular interest.
Leane works out of the University of Auckland. She is a Hua Parakore food grower and sheep farmer. She is a specialist in developing strategic actions. She would like to enable S&H to continue to educate, and advocate for the soil’s future. She is passionate about building the organisation at a time when things are desperate and dire for soil.
David McNeill
David is a passionate soil campaigner and organics advocate. He is an organic avocado grower and is keen for advocacy and promoting greater protections for the soil. He has been in the Treasurer role since he started. There is a huge amount to do which will require volunteers and more core volunteers are needed. The core crew is fewer than 10.
David would like to see advocacy grow and local branches re-started. Community gardens are needed to build resilience against supply chain issues. He wants to see the health of people grow as we grow organic food and create healthy spaces. David would like to see 16 branches of local, organic and energetic people. He is keen to contribute for another year.
Richard Wallis
Richard became interested in joining because the world needs a more coherent understanding of what is causing extreme weather events and global heating that is happening more rapidly than models predict. The missing piece is Soil & Health. It all comes down to a functional soil microbiome, and decent compost. We need to apply it in our agriculture and forestry. If we can implement this successfully across landscapes, the world will be a much better place.
Richard has hands-on experience of composting over the last 16 or so years. This has given him a good feel for what the soil microbiome can do. S&H is the natural organisation to sponsor the movement. We need to get a common understanding amongst politicians and businesses and community groups. All three of these components need to come together with a common understanding. We need a coherent voice to solve the problems we are facing.
Questions to nominees
Charles is keen to advocate about soil erosion, which is often overlooked, even amongst people who care a lot about soils.
Leane has been trying to source funding to implement the digital strategy over the last few months. She is interested in investing in designing branches and creating more grassroots spaces.
David is an advocate for a Soil Act. No person or organisation should do anything to harm the soil. Four inches of topsoil supports life and is everything to us.
Richard supports the idea of a Soil Act. Even better is soil action. He would like to see S&H leading the debate. He would like to contribute a lot of the science around it so that we can understand not just that the soil needs to be healthy, but what that means and how we generate it. We need to get back to times before the industrial revolution when the earth was gaining carbon at 50 billion tonnes per year. It comes back to reforestation and farming without nitrates. We need to champion the solutions.
Philippa said she is keen to see fundraising that Leane mentioned. It will be crucial to keeping S&H alive.
Richard commented that he sees his strengths in the advocacy role. He was a lawyer for 30 years practicing in commercial litigation. His real capacity is doing some of the writing of the papers that we need to be able to publish which get to the nub of restoring soil and health. Richard’s business currently has composting systems in 80 schools. The plan is that one day every school will be learning about ecosystems and restoring the microbiome.
Attendees were asked to cast their votes if they hadn’t already done so; results to be reported later in the meeting.
Financial Report
David commented on the Audited Financial Statements.
The financial results are tough. The magazine wasn’t affordable and had to cease. Membership would have needed to double and the price would have had to double to keep it going. S&H is now needing to be a grassroots organisation.
BioGro is having a tough time too. The costs are at the same level as revenue. The BioGro Board need to return it to some semblance of a surplus.
The S&H website has had a refresh. This has eliminated a lot of the operating costs of the website.
The audit has been a challenge this year. There were delays from BioGro in getting information to the auditors. There are still some issues to work through this year.
S&H isn’t spending excessively. All magazine costs have been eliminated, we no longer have an office and there is not much more to trim unless we go down to a completely voluntary organisation. Membership renewals are down significantly. Thankfully we have the moon calendar back which is popular.
Cash reserves are down. They have continued to the decline in the 6 months since the reports were published. S&H can’t afford much at all. However, we can still act as a great facilitator between funding bodies and projects we want to spend funds on, such as advocacy and digital publishing.
The balance sheet shows we have no physical assets. It comes down to cash and cash reserves. We have BioGro but it’s not for sale so the value is not relevant.
David asked if there were any questions. No questions were asked.
Richard commented that we need funding to implement the digital strategy.
Philippa commented that she is moving on as Editor and we need new volunteers.
Jenny commented that Organic Week was very successful. We are continuing to work on keeping the budget extremely tight.
Marion Thomson asked if there was time to digest the report and provide comments before it goes to Charities Services. Jenny apologised that the Audit report was not able to be provided earlier. The audit was a very drawn-out process, and Jenny was sorry that it wasn’t provided in good time to digest it. It is now complete and provides some clarity as to the financial position.
Jenny commented that we are now 6 months on since the end of the financial year. S&H currently has $16,000 in the bank. BioGro’s cash reserves are also very tight.
Brendon Hoare left the meeting at 10.51am.
Tiffany Tompkins asked if the $16,000 bank balance included the $10,000 reserved for Organic Week. Jenny responded that some of the funding is tagged to re-start Organic Week and is being kept to hopefully support the next Organic Week.
Jenny proposed that the Auditor’s report be accepted and submitted to Charities Services on Monday 30th September 2024. Seconded by David. All in favour. Carried.
Chair’s Report
Jenny read her written report to the meeting (provided online prior to the AGM). She explained that S&H is a Tier 2 charity because it owns BioGro, meaning it is required to complete a more detailed audit.
Jenny also shared a presentation on the Digital Strategy.
BioGro Report
Joseph Stuart (chair of BioGro) provided a verbal report to the meeting.
This is my 8th or 9th AGM, and I have been on BioGro board for 11 years. BioGro has come a long way in the last decade. The company is turning over more than $2m per annum. I am very proud of the growth in the business, but it is very challenging at the moment.
BioGro got back to profit in the last year. This time last year we were talking about the loss but as it went through the year it became apparent that a lot of the loss was an HR challenge and invoicing which should have happened in the year happened a month late. The actual loss was therefore only about $70,000. The change in the invoicing and accounting has enabled BioGro to make a profit this year.
I am proud that BioGro can make a dividend to the shareholder. In saying that, the operating environment we are working in is challenging. Our key metric is keeping customers. As a service-based business, looking at customer numbers and ensuring people are happy is a key focus for the team. Licensee numbers are holding. When we look through to March next year, we are forecast to make a small profit (smaller than this year). Given the environment we are in, this is a good result for the business.
When looking at the Group, we are looking at ways to work better with S&H to ensure the group survives. It is a big challenge. I am pleased to hear about the changes at S&H. BioGro have been through the same thing – we are now a very lean ship.
There have been some changes around the Board table. We have new people coming which brings new opportunities and lots of good new energy. David has also joined which is great given his audit background.
BioGro apologises to S&H for the audit issues. The delays were due to HR issues with new staff not understanding the process. An Audit and Finance Committee has been reinstated to ensure there are no big challenges moving forward. I am looking forward to David’s input in this. BioGro have also engaged a virtual part time CFO. This has helped to structure performance reporting – forward looking forecast with certainty. While it has been challenging financially, we have the right processes in place.
I am happy with appointment of Peter Harris as this gives me the opportunity to step down. I am not resigning but with the new appointments around the table, we have the opportunity to look at succession. Peter’s experience will enable governance activity to be structured. I am looking forward to future opportunities to work together with S&H and the organic community. We need to recognise that we are big influencers. We are three times bigger than AsureQuality. We are also nimble. We have a new Intellectual Property strategy in play and I am excited about work going on in the regenerative space. BioGro is looking to develop a regenerative standard and is hoping to put it in the budget for the 2025/26 financial year.
Joseph asked if there were any questions.
Leane Makey asked how BioGro interfaces with the science and research space.
Joseph said that at its heart BioGro is a certification business focussed on organics. Supportive of licensees getting in amongst it, within the requirements of BioGro’s standards. BioGro is not in the space of R&D. BioGro is focussed on how to make it easier for people to become certified organic, and once certified, how to make compliance costs as small as possible.
Zane Woods noted that he has been discussing with Charles getting some digital content from BioGro licensees to put it out to the general public about what are doing and how it’s beneficial.
Joseph said there are communication opportunities and raising public awareness of farming organically. There is a lot of opportunity in demystifying it. Agrichemical companies will downplay the impact they have. We need to raise the profile and ensure we are strong together. This is squarely in S&H’s remit to support this. If we are going to survive as a human race we need to look after our soil. A lot of people don’t get that.
Sophora asked how BioGro responds to new contaminants coming into our growing products, specifically things like PFAs in compost and potting mixes.
Joseph said it requires quite a bit of science to explain. At a governance level, they don’t dive into the operations (but it would be a good question for Donald). Private inputs must be reputable and are what they say they are on the tin. Testing is undertaken by the certification team.
Jenny commented that there are standards for inputs to compost. Compost certification has six-monthly checks (more frequent than other licensees).
Jenny said there is a proposal from the S&H National Council that BioGro licensees become S&H members because they would be part of the shareholder company. This is currently with the BioGro board to consider.
Joseph commented that it is a great suggestion and that it will need to go through the proper process. The intent is there to align as best we can. There should be something tangible on the table by the next AGM.
Report from the Auckland branch
A verbal report was provided by Emma Wilson, Secretary/Treasurer of the Auckland branch.
I have moved to Kaiwaka and stepped down as president; Charles Hyland has stepped in. Also in attendance from the Auckland branch are Dave and Gillian Woods, Laurence Speedy and Zane Woods.
It is a privilege to be part of the Auckland branch. We have had some struggles in the last five years and have come through them really well. We have gone from being a committee to being a fun, enjoyable, hardworking committee and a real pleasure to get to know and operate with.
We have also been affected by Covid changes – we lost older members and are still losing members. We need to get used to the changing dynamics of our group. We have lots of people with a variety of skills – health, composting, soil science. This makes it very interesting.
There are lots of areas of focus which is also challenging. Zane, Laurence and others have been looking at what meetings will look like in terms of speakers and interests. A lot of organic producers are struggling. Joy Lowyim from IE Produce was invited to speak to find out what it is like for her personally and her business. Our following online is steadily increasing (65 on Facebook and on YouTube). We meet in Western Springs. Our membership has reduced to 34.
Subscription fees have recently increased from $6 to $15. Members gave us a hard mandate – retain the funds we had (do not spend them). We had approximately $6,000 and didn’t want to spend it right away, we wanted to see how it would go. We currently have approximately $2,600 (had expected it to be lower). I have encouraged the committee to start spending on the digital side and working closely with the national level to work on the digital strategy. We have purchased cameras etc. Zane has a team of editorial volunteers to assist with filming. National members will be able to access the footage they create at their field trips. We want to share more with a wider audience in a different way.
We have changed the financial period so that it is now in line with the national body (1 April to 31 March). We are going through a big process of constitutional upgrade. Some want the easy road of using the national S&H one but some people want us to have something different.
Overall, we are doing well. We are updating all our digital platforms and media. We look forward to working more closely with National Council and are privileged to have Charles on the Board.
Voting Results
Jenny reported that all 4 nominees were unanimously voted in. Richard Wallis, Leane Makey and David McNeill were confirmed as new councillors and Charles Hyland’s reappointment was confirmed.
Remits
The National Council recommended to members that Soil & Health changes its auditor to Kudos Murray Audit to audit the current financial year, ending 31st March 2025.
The main reasons to change the auditor were cost and timeliness.
Jenny has investigated different options. Kudos Murray have stated that they will charge $10,000 (no more). We have been paying $20,000 plus GST to Moore Markhams.
Annual auditing is required for Soil & Health as a Tier 2 charity. BioGro pays 80% of the audit from its turnover.
As Chair of the National Council, Jenny proposed that the remit be adopted. There was no opposition to the remit and it passed unanimously.
Philippa expressed her gratitude to Jenny Lux for her massive contribution to S&H particularly over the past year as chair and stepping into staff management in the absence of a manager.
Philippa also asked the meeting to take a moment to send best wishes to Patricia Fielding who suffered a heart attack recently, and to acknowledge both Ian and Patricia Fielding (Auckland branch, and life members of Soil & Health) for all their work and support.
Philippa also expressed thanks to Soil & Health’s Treaty partner, Te Waka Kai Ora: The National Māori Organics Authority of Aotearoa, for all the work they are doing.
Philippa also thanked OrganicFarmNZ – acknowledging the difficulties and the hard times and pressures that some of the smaller growers and producers are under.
Philippa said that all in the organic sector need to support each other and work together as a movement.
Jenny closed the meeting with a karakia. The meeting finished at 12.00pm.
2025 AGM Voting
/in Association Meetings and EventsThis form is only available to members.
LINK to the main AGM page is here.
2025 Chair’s annual report
/in Association Meetings and EventsThis content is member only until after the 2025 AGM.
LINK to the main AGM page is here.