Organic Farmers: Contributing to the Resilience of the Food System? - Re-Thinking Organic Food and Farming in a Changing World - page 184

10.2 Organics in New Zealand

Along with many others throughout the western world, in the late 1920s some
New Zealand farmers began using organic principles and became part of the
organic movement concerned about “the direction of modernity and the growth
of materialism; the relationship between food quality and health; environment;
sustainable use of resources; and spirituality” (Stuart and Campbell 2004 , pp. 228,
229). The first organic society, the Humic Compost Club was launched in 1941, and
as its name suggests, promoted the relationship between healthy food and the use
of compost to improve soil health. Early supporters saw organics as a sustainable
agriculture practice, a spiritual and responsible connection between people and the
land, “promoting better health, improving and sustaining soil fertility in ways that
conserved resources and lessened environmental damage and to significantly reduce
both household and national dependence on foreign trade” (Stuart and Campbell
2004 , p. 230). The latter political emphasis was at odds with New Zealand farmers'
avowed role of “feeding the world” (Fairweather et al. 2001 , 2007 ; Saunders 2009 ).
In the 1970s, interest in organic agriculture re-emerged. Ritchie and Campbell
( 1997 , pp. 10, 11) propose that this was a combination of four historical processes:
the 1930s response to the “development of “scientific” agriculture”; the emergence
of the American environmentalist movement in the 1960s; the influence of migrants
from Europe between 1950 and 1970; and, the emergence of alternative land
use patterns around urban centers such as lifestyle blocks or hobby farms. Most
organic produce was sold locally on a trust system where the buyer knew the
grower. In 1983, three organizations formed BioGro to provide a certification
system for organic production (Campbell and Liepins 2001 , p. 28). Certification
was considered appropriate for a variety of reasons including, the large variation in
grower definitions of organic; a need for a guarantee of quality; a related concern
arising out of food scares in Europe and the U.S.A.; the relationship and support of
the bio-dynamic movement; international links with the bio-dynamic organization,
the Soil Association and IFOAM; and finally, the absence of government interest
(Campbell and Liepins 2001 , p. 29).
The scene changed in 1990 with the involvement of two corporate actors who
wished to use the BioGro label for exported products, and “by 1999 BioGro was
certifying over 90 % of organic producers in New Zealand” (Campbell and Liepins
2001 , p. 30). Over this period, organic production increased and some conventional
growers converted to organics, though overall, organic growers remained a small
minority. However, some members of the certification board were concerned the
involvement of corporates would lower standards. In response BioGro moved to
“a more professional and formal inspection process [

]” (Campbell and Liepins
2001 , p. 31) and aligned local standards with accreditation to IFOAM. Since the
inception of BioGro, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has also become
involved (at an arm's length) in organic certification (along with other auditing
and assessment services) through AsureQuality. BioGro and AsureQuality now
also conform to the USDA organic standards, important for the acceptability of

:::