We hold our farmers to some of the highest standards in the world and then wonder why local food costs what it does. I’ve spent my life working with animals, raising them carefully, and making sure every step is done right.
I’m accredited, audited regularly, and every animal that leaves my farm is tracked and accounted for. I invest in proper transport, infrastructure, and paperwork, and I follow every rule not only because it’s the right thing to do, but because our welfare code and country’s values dictate I have to.
All of that comes at a cost. Facilities need upgrades. Vehicles need modifications. Paperwork and audits take time and money.
Standards like these are why New Zealand food is more expensive, because we pay to do it properly.
And then I walk into a supermarket and see products from halfway around the world, produced under systems we wouldn’t allow here, sitting cheaper on the same shelf.
Around 40 percent of the pork we eat is imported. Some of it comes from farms that use feed or additives we strictly regulate or don’t allow at all, and a vast majority use systems we’ve banned here or find unacceptable.
But because they're legal elsewhere, suddenly it’s fine to import it because it’s cheap.
One thing many people don’t realise is that this double standard reaches right down to what the animals eat.
While New Zealand doesn’t commercially grow genetically modified crops and tightly regulates GE food, imported ingredients like soybean or canola meal often end up in livestock feed.
Animals are consuming products we wouldn’t grow or allow here, yet the meat isn’t labelled as GE.
It’s a loophole that adds pressure to local farmers who must comply fully with strict standards, invest in infrastructure, and carry the cost of doing things right.
While farmers wrestle with compliance down to what their animals eat, industry leaders sometimes pivot to profit first.
Groups like Federated Farmers have become vocal in defending farmers, but increasingly their advocacy prioritises economic competitiveness over welfare when the two conflict.
Recent debates over farm standards show welfare considerations can quietly drop aside if the cost is deemed too high.
The principle of caring for animals and workers gets overridden when it collides with efficiency and profit. Meanwhile, the local farmer is still expected to carry the full cost, while imports bypass those same rules entirely.
This isn’t just a farming issue. The same contradictions exist across the economy.
Workers’ rights only apply domestically.
Environmental responsibility only applies domestically.
Ethical production only applies domestically.
The moment another country can produce cheaper without those standards, we import it anyway.
Cheaper isn’t better if it cuts corners we wouldn’t allow.
And this isn’t just pork, the same pattern shows up across our food sectors, including fisheries.
Maori values, kaitiakitanga, and guardianship are cited constantly in policy debates.
Question a policy decision, point out industry realities, or push back on regulatory dogma and suddenly you’re accused of undermining values.
But if values are real, they have to apply universally. Ownership and outcomes are two very different things.
Through Treaty settlements, iwi collectively own a significant portion of New Zealand’s fishing quota.
Ownership flows through structures under the Maori Fisheries Act, designed to support economic participation, intergenerational benefit, and cultural responsibility. Sounds perfect on paper. Reality is different.
Te Ohu Kaimoana manages assets on behalf of iwi.
Through it, iwi own Moana New Zealand, which in turn owns 50 percent of Sealord Group. The rest is held by a Japanese multinational. Other iwi entities also hold quota. Ownership is substantial and structural.
But here’s the problem. Once the fish are caught, a large portion is frozen, shipped offshore, processed in lower-wage countries, and sold into global markets, sometimes even returning to New Zealand.
Jobs that could exist in coastal communities don’t.
- Skills are exported.
- Value is exported.
- Ownership reflects values; operations reflect profit.
If guardianship, community uplift, and intergenerational benefit truly matter, exporting labour and processing offshore contradicts everything those principles are meant to protect.
Policies and corporate language often shield this from scrutiny, while debate focuses on political correctness and rhetoric.
Imported meat, dairy, seafood, and feed sometimes contain genetically engineered additives or are produced under conditions we would never tolerate here.
Local farmers carry the full weight of compliance while competing against imports that avoid the same investment in infrastructure, transport, audits, and welfare.
We uphold high standards here, but the moment the product leaves our borders, the rules disappear.
The principle is undermined, and the market quietly rewards the very practices we outlawed domestically.
Part of why food costs so much here is that prices aren’t set locally, they’re tied to global markets.
When demand overseas rises, exporters earn more, and domestic prices rise with them.
Imports are priced the same way, and a weaker dollar makes them even more expensive.
What should happen is simple. New Zealanders should get first access to our own food, keeping supply local before it’s shipped abroad.
More processing and finishing here would also keep jobs and value at home, while making prices fairer for Kiwi families without lowering standards.
- New Zealanders deserve honesty.
- Farmers deserve fairness.
- Animals deserve respect.
If standards matter for welfare, the environment, or food safety, they should apply universally. Otherwise, we are enforcing a cost on locals while rewarding shortcuts from abroad.
Until that alignment happens, food prices remain high, jobs are lost offshore, values are compromised, and consumers don’t get a true reflection of what goes into their food.
One standard must apply everywhere, or admit it doesn’t matter at all.