2020 Submission Organic Products Bill

This submission is to the Primary Production Committee for the Organic Products Bill.

Closing date for submission was May 28 2020.

The draft form of this Bill is an excellent example of the struggle between public regulatory agencies being focused upon economic growth versus protecting public and environmental health on sustainable bases. The primary consideration for those engaged in organic agriculture is, protection of human and environmental health. Therefore, the quality of regulation is of the essence with regards to this matter - this is why people elect to purchase organic produce.

Organic regulatory frameworks are generally stricter in that they exclude a broad range of synthetic chemicals and engineered contaminants, many of which are toxic, used in conventional industrial production and processing. There are established principles and definitions, for example IFOAM's definition of organic, an established international definition,or the principles of organic agriculture, with particular attention to regulation of inputs, that is found in ten year old European legislation. Neither the MPI 2018 Summary nor the Regulatory Impact Statement discussed the objectives and principles of organic agriculture.

These MPI documents referred to an ‘organic regime’ and that objectives of the regime should achieve increased consumer confidence, increase business certainty to invest in organics, enable trade and ensure good, cost effective administration. This was agreeable to submitters. Yet in no way should these objectives be exclusively reshaped to act as Purposes within the end legislation. The purposes of legislation informs or guides, the rest of the legislation. If there is no purpose to protect existing principles of organic agriculture and production, this will not be a priority elsewhere in the document.

It is increasingly evident that organic agriculture as a growing market segment. In many ways it is a response to market failure in conventional agriculture. Hazardous (toxic) chemical regulators lack resourcing to appropriately risk assess chemicals used in agriculture and in food processing. Their regulatory standards have not kept pace with scientific knowledges (common in medical sciences). As such, issues concerning the public, such as the cocktail effect of chemical mixtures; greater vulnerability of children; and hormone level risk, remain ignored in regulatory risk assessment. Nor do regulatory agencies consider risk from cocktail effects in the environment.

This Bill is an exciting opportunity. Organic consumers are precautionary, quality lead and they seek high value produce. In this market sector, conventional assurances of regulatory capability may not be sufficient, the principles of organic agriculture, and guidance concerning inputs, must be embedded at a high level in the proposed legislation to ensure the values of organic consumers are enshrined and can guide future regulations relating to organic production and processing.

Defining organic principles will strengthen the organic industry and creates economic advantage as it increases certainty. As Professor David Michaels has discussed:

‘The objectives of the new laws and the agencies empowered to enforce them is not only to stop the damage and prevent future harm; it is to maintain and strengthen the free market system. Although many advocates of free market economics refuse to acknowledge this dynamic, law and regulations are the underpinnings of our economic system.’[1]

It is surprising that MPI have not observed the opportunity to create legislation that reflects longstanding aims of the New Zealand government and the public. Clauses could easily be inserted requiring protection of human and environmental health, of future generations, of freshwater, biodiversity, of drinking water, and to ensure organic principles are compatible with obligations regarding the Treaty of Waitangi and climate change. These politically challenging problems are compatible with the principles of organic agriculture and are less likely to be contested.

Lacking principles and definition of what constitutes an organic product, or an input that may be used in organic agriculture in the legislation creates gaps that:

(a) Leave the organic sector without the binding framework that is seen in legislation in other jurisdictions.

(b) Risk slow but steady erosion of the reputation of the organic industry in Aotearoa.

(c) Cannot assure consumer trust in the long term.

(d) Produces a lower quality product that may be targeted following foreign screening measures.

(e) Fail to protect soil and freshwater quality, exacerbating domestic food security issues.

(f) Are unable to fulfill MPIs own objectives

Our recommendations included a revised purposes that recommend a purpose of protecting established principles of organic agriculture; a definition of organic agriculture which has not yet been agreed on in NZ, drawn from IFOAM [2], and definition of what inputs are permitted in organic agriculture, and this was drawn from European legislation.[3]

Our complete submission can be downloaded:

Download

References

[1] Michaels, D. The Triumph of Doubt. Oxford University Press p271

[2] IFOAM Definition of Organic Agriculture. https://www.ifoam.bio/why-organic/organic-landmarks/definition-organic

[3] REGULATIONS Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. P. 189/4-189-5

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R0834&from=EN

Information