When MPI announced its “digital labelling trial,” the headline pitch was simple enough: lower grocery prices!
In a cost-of-living crisis, that promise lands easily. Cheaper food sounds like a public good.
But when government messaging lines up perfectly with supermarket PR, it’s worth slowing down and asking a more fundamental question: how exactly do digital labels lower prices?
Because digital labels don’t reduce the cost of growing, harvesting, transporting, or producing food. They don’t make wages lower, fertiliser cheaper, or freight more affordable. What they do make cheaper is the process of importing food from overseas.
And once you recognise that, the proposal looks far less like a technical trial — and far more like a structural shift with long-term consequences for New Zealand growers and consumers.
How Digital Labelling Lowers Import Costs
Right now, imported foods must comply with the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. That means the label attached overseas must include:
- ingredients
- allergens
- nutrition panels
- storage instructions
- batch numbers
- country-of-origin information
- importer details
If the original label doesn’t meet these requirements, importers must add compliant stickers or re-label products in New Zealand. It’s time-consuming, it’s regulated, and it adds cost. And because it adds cost, it also protects a small measure of competitiveness for New Zealand growers.
Digital labelling removes that step entirely.
No relabelling.
No over-stickers.
No repacking.
Just a QR code and a link to whatever information the manufacturer chooses to host online.
This is what the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) means by “lowering prices.” Not cheaper production — but cheaper imports.
We Have Already Seen What Cheaper Imports Can Do
Earlier this year, Wattie’s contacted long-standing New Zealand fruit suppliers with an abrupt message: their fruit was no longer needed. Importing offshore fruit was cheaper.
The impact rippled through orchards, families, and regional economies.
It wasn’t an isolated decision.
It was a sign of where supply chains move when import pathways become easier.
Digital labelling supports the same shift. It removes cost and friction from importing, making it even more attractive for businesses to move away from local ingredients and local growers.
Why Transparency Matters for Supporting Local Products
Most shoppers choose New Zealand products when they can. We look for:
- “Product of New Zealand”
- “Made in New Zealand”
- “Packed in NZ”
- “Product of Spain”
- “Imported from Thailand”
- “Made with Australian ingredients”
- local brand names
- familiar ingredient sources
We identify these things by reading the label.
If essential information — especially country of origin — moves off the physical pack and into a QR code that most shoppers will never scan, the visibility of New Zealand-grown food diminishes overnight.
It doesn’t take deception to shift a market.
It only takes reduced clarity.
When origins become harder to see, the cheapest option quietly becomes the default — long before consumers realise the change.
What the Shift Means for New Zealand Growers
If the trial eventually becomes permanent, the impacts are predictable:
- fewer contracts for New Zealand growers
- more imported fruit, vegetables, processed foods, and ingredients
- increased pressure on small local producers
- reduced resilience in regional economies
- a gradual erosion of food sovereignty
Once supply chains pivot to imports, they rarely swing back. Orchards are removed. Growers leave the industry. Towns feel the economic effects first. Consumers notice only later, often when the choice they preferred quietly disappears from the shelf.
Digital labelling is not the sole cause of these shifts — but it is a new and potent lever that lowers the barriers further.
How Physical Labels Support Fair Competition
Physical labels do more than provide safety and ingredient information. They create transparency that helps consumers understand what they are buying.
“Product of Spain.”
“Imported from Thailand.”
“Made with Australian ingredients.”
These statements guide shopper decisions. They allow New Zealand products to compete on more than price.
If origin, ingredients, or manufacturing details move online, the visibility that supports local producers weakens. Consumers may have no easy way to see the difference between a New Zealand product and a cheaper import substituted in its place.
Labels are economic tools as much as they are safety tools.
Removing them changes the balance of the marketplace.
A Perfect Storm for Cheaper, Less Transparent Imports
New Zealand already has:
- a permissive parallel-import environment
- limited oversight of imported additives and processing aids
- irregular testing of imported foods
- no routine glyphosate screening for most imports
- fewer enforcement resources than many trading partners
Weakening physical labelling on top of this creates a pathway where:
- more offshore ingredients enter without scrutiny
- compliance becomes harder to verify
- traceability diminishes
- consumers lose visibility
- imported ingredients displace local ones
This isn’t a marginal adjustment.
It’s a structural change disguised as a cost-saving measure.
Why All New Zealanders Should Care
New Zealand growers don’t need special treatment.
New Zealand growers are not asking for protectionism. What they need is a system where:
- local products aren’t overshadowed by hidden imports
- consumers can easily see where their food comes from
- traceability remains intact
- safety information is visible and reliable
- transparency is the norm
- compliance does not disappear behind a QR code
Digital labels, as proposed, disrupt this balance.
Not suddenly.
Not dramatically.
But gradually — through reduced clarity, lower barriers to import substitution, and the steady shift of information away from where shoppers can actually see it.
What’s at Risk if We Get This Wrong
This isn’t about nostalgia.
It’s not about protecting local growers for sentimental reasons.
It’s about the bigger picture:
- food sovereignty
- economic resilience
- traceability
- ethical production
- regional livelihoods
- transparency
- our right to know
If MPI’s digital labelling trial proceeds without strict protections, we risk losing more than clear labels. We risk losing the foundations of a food system that supports New Zealanders — not just the cheapest inputs from overseas.
Because once imported ingredients can slip in invisibly, and once compliance becomes a QR code, the market will shift the same way Wattie’s did:
toward whatever is cheapest, not whatever is best.
And once that shift happens, there’s no label left on the shelf to show us how we got there.
What This Means Going Forward
This issue extends far beyond labelling. It touches on:
- food sovereignty
- economic resilience
- regional livelihoods
- ethical production
- traceability
- consumer rights
- the long-term health of New Zealand’s food system
If MPI’s digital labelling trial proceeds without strong protections for physical labels, New Zealand risks losing not just information on the pack — but the transparency and economic stability that underpin our food supply.
Because once imports can slip in quietly, and once compliance costs disappear behind a QR code, the market will shift toward what is cheapest, not what is best.
And by the time we notice the consequences, the label we relied on may no longer be there to show us how it changed.
At No More Glyphosate NZ, we focus on transparency in food systems because it underpins everything else — from chemical disclosure to consumer safety to the ability of New Zealanders to make informed choices about what they bring into their homes. Digital labelling touches all of those foundations.
Related Reading: Labels Without Truth Mini-Series
If you’re following New Zealand’s wider shift toward QR-code “transparency,” you might also be interested in our Labels Without Truth mini-series — a three-part investigation into how digital labelling, weak enforcement, and disappearing information are reshaping what we think we know about our food.
Part 1 — Scan for the Truth: Why NZ Needs Real Food Transparency
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/scan-for-the-truth-food-transparency-nz/
Part 2 — Digital Labels Are Coming to NZ — But Will They Reveal Anything That Matters?
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/digital-food-labels-nz-trial-transparency/
Part 3 — NZ Product Labelling Review
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/nz-product-labelling-review-digital-labels/
Each piece explores a different angle — from QR-code lab results to MPI’s digital labelling trial — and together they paint a bigger picture of where New Zealand’s food transparency may be heading.
Resources & References
If this topic has you thinking more about where food information is heading in New Zealand, you may find the following articles helpful. Each one looks at a different part of the growing shift toward QR-code “transparency,” disappearing information, and the consequences for consumers who still expect honesty on the label.
MPI – Digital Labelling Consultation (2025)
The official consultation page outlining MPI’s proposal to trial digital-only food labels on certain imported products — and the exemptions that would allow key information to move off physical packaging.
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/consultations/proposal-to-enable-a-limited-trial-of-digital-labelling-on-certain-imported-food-products/
MPI – Food Labelling Requirements
Clear guidance on what must legally appear on a physical food label in New Zealand today, including ingredient lists, allergen declarations, storage instructions, and country-of-origin details.
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-business/labelling-composition-food-drinks/labelling-food-for-retail-sale/
FSANZ – Allergen Labelling for Food Businesses
Explains the mandatory requirements for declaring allergens on physical labels, including plain-English allergen names and bold formatting. Highlights the risk of shifting this information online.
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/business/labelling/allergen-labelling
FSANZ – Allergen Labelling for Consumers
Consumer-focused breakdown of how allergen labelling works under the PEAL update — reinforcing why on-pack clarity is critical for safety.
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/allergen-labelling
FSANZ – P1044: Plain English Allergen Labelling Proposal
Background and regulatory history for the PEAL changes. Shows the intention behind strengthening on-pack allergen disclosure — the opposite direction of MPI’s digital-only experiment.
https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/food-standards-code/proposals/P1044PlainEnglishAllergenLabelling
RNZ – Wattie’s Drops Contracts With NZ Growers
A real-world example of how quickly local producers can be displaced when imported ingredients become cheaper — mirroring the economic pressures tied to digital-labelling reforms.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/country/579432/cheap-fruit-and-vegetable-imports-put-pressure-on-new-zealand-production
Consumer NZ – “Country-of-origin labelling finally passed”
A documented case of strong public support for clear origin labelling. Their research showed many shoppers look for—but often don’t find—origin labels on fresh produce. This supports the argument that physical labels still matter.
https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/country-of-origin-labelling-finally-passed
MBIE – Origin of Food Regulations 2021 (New-Zealand)
The official regulations that require country-of-origin labelling for many fresh foods in NZ — showing that origin information isn’t a “nice to have,” it’s law (for certain categories).
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/business-and-employment/consumer-protection/country-of-origin-of-food
No More Glyphosate NZ – Digital Food Labels NZ: Transparency or Tech Trick?
Our critical analysis of how QR-code “transparency” risks replacing real labelling, undermining consumer rights, and creating hidden gaps in information access.
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/digital-food-labels-nz-transparency/
Taken together, these pieces help show the wider pattern: when information slips off the label, something else slips with it — trust. And that’s why understanding the full context matters. The sources below offer further background for anyone who wants to dig deeper.
Image Source & Attribution
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by Mickis-Fotowelt.
