MPI’s digital labelling trial promises lower prices — but by reducing the cost of importing food rather than supporting New Zealand growers. This article explains how digital labels weaken transparency, encourage offshore sourcing, and risk long-term impacts on local producers, food sovereignty, and consumer choice.
Online grocery shoppers can’t see product labels until food arrives — and that makes MPI’s digital labelling trial especially risky. This article explains why removing information from physical labels could undermine safety, allergens, substitutions, and traceability for New Zealand households.
MPI’s “digital labelling trial” sounds harmless — but it may be the first step toward removing vital information from food labels and hiding it behind QR codes. From allergen risks to enforcement gaps, here’s why New Zealand shoppers should be paying close attention before this becomes permanent.
Digital food labels are being sold as “modernisation,” but do they actually improve transparency? A new U.S. ruling warns that QR-only disclosure hides vital information. Here’s what New Zealand risks as labels move online — and what consumers still won’t see.
Before NZ rolled out its digital QR-code labelling trial, the Government’s own Product Labelling Review exposed far deeper issues — from weak enforcement to transparency gaps. Here’s what the Review actually said, and why the digital solution sidesteps the real problems.
Imagine standing in the supermarket, picking up a box of cereal, scanning the barcode… and seeing actual lab results instead of vague marketing claims.
Not just ingredients or allergens. Not just clean-sounding slogans. But real, batch-specific residue data — for...
New Zealand’s glyphosate assessment was built on a selective evidence base — and the 2017 Bruning–Browning review exposed just how much science never made it into the room. In this bonus investigation, we explore the missing studies, the unpublished data, the methodological shortcuts, and what these gaps mean for trust, transparency, and the future of chemical oversight in New Zealand.
New Zealand’s EPA is back in court — and the arguments sound eerily familiar. In the final part of our mini-series, we look at why the agency’s 2025 defence mirrors the same assumptions, gaps, and borrowed conclusions challenged in 2017, and what this means for glyphosate regulation, public trust, and the future of chemical oversight in New Zealand.
New Zealand’s glyphosate decisions didn’t falter because the science was unclear — but because the system leaned on industry-influenced agencies and untested assumptions. Here’s how that coziness shaped our regulatory outcomes.
