Federated Farmers: It's Not Too Late to Stand With Your Farmers

As a country, we’ve made the democratic choice to ban practices like sow stalls and battery cages because they do not reflect Kiwi values. But more than 60% of the pork on our shelves is imported from countries still using the very systems we've outlawed.

The Fair for Farmers campaign proposes a straightforward, commonsense fix to the “imports problem”: if it's illegal to produce here, it shouldn't be allowed to be sold here.

We'd expect Federated Farmers to agree too. But in recent weeks, in public statements, their spokesperson has argued against restricting low-welfare imports - while also acknowledging our farmers are getting a raw deal. His solution? Better marketing and bigger stickers on bacon.

Feds have got this one wrong, and we think the evidence shows it clearly. Here's what the data actually says.

1. The fear of trade retaliation

Federated Farmers has suggested that requiring imports to meet our welfare standards would provoke retaliation from trading partners. The evidence says otherwise.

For any country to retaliate with welfare-based measures, it would need to pass its own domestic legislation, demonstrate a public morals case, and apply those standards uniformly to every trading partner - not just New Zealand. No country is going to reshape its trade framework to target a market worth a fraction of a percent of its output.

The Animal Policy International report "Vision Into Action" analysed comparable import restrictions worldwide - the EU's Slaughter Regulation, foie gras and fur import bans - and found no evidence of trade retaliation in any case.

2. This is legal under international trade rules

WTO rules explicitly allow countries to restrict imports on public moral grounds, provided the standards apply consistently to both domestic and imported products. That's exactly what this policy does - it takes the rules we've already set for our own farmers and applies them to everyone wanting to sell on the NZ market.

California did this with Proposition 12, requiring products sold on their market not to be produced in ways that violate its welfare standards. The US Supreme Court upheld it. The EU's Slaughter Regulation requires imported meat to meet equivalent handling standards. These are functioning policies in major economies, none of which have been challenged at the WTO.

3. The bobby calf scenario is a distraction

On CountryWide Connect, Federated Farmers raised the concern that this policy would set a precedent - allowing countries like the UK to target our dairy exports over treatment of bobby calves. But the same legal requirements apply. Any country wanting to use welfare as a trade barrier would first need to pass its own domestic laws banning a practice and apply those laws consistently to every country it trades with. Because New Zealand makes up such a small share of these countries' total imports, any such move would hit their other major trading partners far harder than us. The idea that a country would rewrite its trade policy to target a New Zealand niche is not a realistic risk - it's a distraction from the issue at hand.

4. It's not about where the pork comes from - it's about how it was produced

Federated Farmers has suggested that because our pork imports come from countries like Spain, Germany, the US, and Canada, we aren't dealing with low-welfare producers. But this overlooks what's actually landing on our shelves. All of these countries still permit the use of sow stalls, which we’ve phased out. Around 90% of our pork imports by volume come from countries where sow stalls are legal and widely used.

Exporters simply choose to send the lower-welfare products because they're currently allowed to. The question is whether we should continue allowing the sale of products made using practices that are illegal under New Zealand law.

5. This is a regulatory problem, not a marketing one

Federated Farmers has suggested the solution is better “consumer education” and more prominent New Zealand branding on bacon. This shifts the burden onto the consumer and the farmer and when over 60% of the pork market is filled by imports that carry no information about how the animals were raised, consumers can't make informed choices even if they want to. We shouldn't expect "stickers" to solve this large-scale issue. 

How the policy actually works

The bill currently in the Parliament biscuit tin is not a blunt, overnight ban. It creates the power for a Minister to apply specific welfare standards to imports through regulations. The process includes consultation, transition periods, and applies equally to all countries - meeting the WTO requirement for non-discrimination. 

One set of rules

Over 80% of New Zealanders believe imports should meet the same standards we set for our own farmers. The evidence shows it's feasible, affordable, and poses minimal risk to our trade relationships.

We don't want to be at odds with Federated Farmers on this. They are an important organisation, and the farming community is stronger when its voices are united. But unity can't come at the cost of accepting a double standard that hurts our own producers.

The evidence is there. The public support is there. The legal precedent is there. We hope Federated Farmers will look at it with fresh eyes - because when they're ready to stand with farmers on this, we'll be here.

It’s simple: if it's illegal to produce it here, it shouldn't be legal to sell it here.

Get Involved

Sign the Fair for Farmers campaign open letter now, and reach out to us if you would like to get more involved in the campaign.