A Different Assumption About Flowers and Chemicals
In Masterton, a floristry business is quietly challenging the idea that chemicals are unavoidable.
The Purple Dahlia, run by Felipa “Pip” Allard and her husband Mike, grows and designs flowers without herbicides or synthetic pesticides — not as a marketing gimmick, but as a practical choice.
If bugs appear, they introduce other bugs.
If weeds grow, they manage them manually.
If water is scarce, they adapt their planting — and their expectations.
The result isn’t a compromise. It’s a business people actively seek out.
A Spray-Free Floristry Model in Practice
The significance of that choice becomes clearer when set against the wider floristry industry.
Overseas investigations have begun to document what happens when flowers sit outside residue regulation entirely — where pesticides are used to protect appearance, but exposure to workers is largely unmeasured, unlabelled, and poorly understood.
In that context, spray-free floristry isn’t simply an aesthetic or environmental preference. It becomes a direct response to a regulatory gap — one that is explored in the companion article in this two-part series: The Flowers We Don’t Question: An Overlooked Pesticide Exposure Risk
Working With Nature Instead of Chemical Controls
Purple Dahlia follows organic growing principles:
- no herbicides
- no non-organic pesticides
- beneficial insects instead of sprays
- water conservation
- soil-first management
Their garden isn’t designed for maximum volume. It’s designed for resilience.
And importantly, it’s designed for human health — for the people who work there day in and day out.
Mike, who now works full-time in the garden, describes lower stress levels and better wellbeing since leaving an indoor profession behind.
That contrast matters.
What Pesticide Regulation Does — and Doesn’t — Cover in New Zealand
New Zealand’s regulatory framework focuses on:
- product approval
- safe handling
- worker instructions
What it doesn’t regulate is chemical residue on ornamental flowers themselves.
That gap mirrors the issue florists overseas are now confronting — and it raises a quiet question:
If residues don’t matter, why do so many workers report symptoms when exposure ends?
Why Consumer Demand Is Shifting Toward Spray-Free Flowers
Purple Dahlia doesn’t compete with supermarkets on price or volume.
They compete on:
- longevity
- uniqueness
- transparency
- seasonality
Customers notice. Many actively seek out spray-free flowers, not because they were warned — but because the alternative exists.
That matters, because regulation often moves only after alternatives are proven viable.
Here, viability already exists.
Not a Rejection of Floristry — But a Re-Think
This isn’t an argument that floristry is “dangerous” or that all flowers are contaminated.
It’s a reminder that how we grow things reflects what we value.
For decades, the industry valued perfection and scale.
Some growers are now valuing:
- worker health
- environmental integrity
- local supply
- informed choice
That shift didn’t come from regulation. It came from asking better questions.
Where this leaves us
Flowers sit at the intersection of beauty and blind spots.
They show how easily an exposure pathway can be overlooked — not because evidence says it’s safe, but because no one thought to check.
They also show that alternatives don’t require radical change. They require intention.
As with glyphosate in public spaces, the real question isn’t whether harm can be proven beyond doubt.
It’s whether we’re comfortable discovering the answer after the fact.
This article is part of a two-part NMGNZ series examining pesticide exposure in floristry — from unregulated residues and worker health risks, to local spray-free alternatives already operating in New Zealand.
Part 1: The Flowers We Don’t Question
Part 2: Spray-Free and Thriving- you are here.
Further Reading and Context
The question raised by this article isn’t whether floristry is “safe” or “unsafe” in absolute terms. It’s whether exposure pathways that fall outside conventional regulation are being meaningfully examined at all.
The sources below provide additional context — from peer-reviewed studies measuring pesticide residues on cut flowers, to international reporting on occupational exposure, and New Zealand’s own regulatory framework for hazardous substances. Together, they help situate this discussion within a wider body of evidence, uncertainty, and evolving awareness.
Pesticide residues on cut flowers and potential exposure of florists
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
This peer-reviewed scientific study found multiple pesticide residues on common cut flower species and discusses how such residues might lead to direct exposure for florists handling them.
Assessment of pesticide contamination in cut flowers
Pesticide Action Network Europe
Research commissioned in the Netherlands detected 23 pesticides, including banned substances, in six retail bouquets — underscoring how residues persist in cut flowers sold to consumers and florists.
Florists, the overlooked victims of pesticides
Le Monde
A detailed account of an officially recognised pesticide-related illness case in a florist’s family, highlighting how regulatory gaps — such as absence of residue limits on flowers — can have serious human consequences.
How hazardous substances are managed in New Zealand
EPA NZ
Official overview of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) regime in Aotearoa NZ, explaining how hazardous chemicals are approved and controlled — including pesticides — even though residue limits for ornamental flowers are not set.
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996
New Zealand Legislation
The full text of the HSNO Act, which sets out how hazardous substances are regulated in New Zealand, providing legal context for how pesticides are managed outside food residue frameworks.
None of these sources offers a final answer — and that may be the most important point. As with many issues involving chronic, low-level chemical exposure, the evidence emerges gradually, often after assumptions have already hardened into policy.
What these materials do show is that floristry is not exempt from the broader questions now being asked about pesticides, precaution, and unintended exposure. Whether regulation catches up — or alternatives continue to lead the way — remains an open question.
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 gitusik.
