NZ Farmers Slam Methane Madness: 95% Reject Biotech Fix For Livestock
Farmers are alarmed that unproven biotech tools threaten New Zealands hard- earned reputation for natural, pasture-raised meat and milk. They see methane inhibitors as risky, intrusive and unnecessarynot just to animal welfare, but to consumer …
A major new independent farmer survey reveals overwhelming rejection of New Zealand's current ruminant methane strategy, exposing a deep disconnect between grassroots producers and industry leadership.
Key findings:
95% agree reducing livestock methane won't impact global climate change
94% of farmers believe methane cuts should not be a necessary part of market access
93% refuse to use methane inhibitors on their animals
88% wouldn't eat meat or dairy from treated stock
Farmers are alarmed that unproven biotech tools threaten New Zealand's hard- earned reputation for natural, pasture-raised meat and milk. They see methane inhibitors as risky, intrusive and unnecessary—not just to animal welfare, but to consumer trust and export advantage.
'There is growing unease about manipulating the gut microbiome of healthy animals. These interventions go against everything our farming systems stand for,' says Duncan Humm of NZ Farming. 'How did we get this far down the track without consulting the very people expected to deliver these changes?'
Despite being global leaders in low-emissions food production, farmers feel ignored as unelected boards and bureaucrats push policies without a grassroots mandate.
Farmers are now demanding answers:
Why were hundreds of millions of dollars spent on methane tools without farmer consultation?
Where's the 'farmer' support the industry claims exists?
Why did co-ops join AgriZero without asking shareholders?
If farmers and consumers don't want these tools, who are they really for—and is compulsion the endgame?
Why are our levy bodies so out of touch?
The message is clear: Leave our animals alone.
Helen Mandeno of Methane Science Accord states:
'Professor David Frame has shown that New Zealand's ruminants might, at worst, contribute four millionths of a degree celsius warming per year. It would take 250,000 years for that to amount to 1 °C.'
Ruminant methane is a natural part of the carbon cycle—don't punish farmers and their animals for a crime they didn't commit.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Three of New Zealand's biggest emitters no longer have to reveal their climate impact
A plume of smoke rises out of an industrial chimney into the sky, in Copenhagen, Denmark. Photo: Supplied/ Unsplash - Mudit Agarwal Three of the country's biggest greenhouse gas emitters no longer have to reveal how much planet-heating gas they produce. For the first time, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)'s company-level emissions data doesn't include agriculture, after the government ended compulsory reporting for the farming sector. The change means companies responsible for around half the countries' greenhouse gases no longer have to supply information to the EPA every year giving a rough total of their methane emissions , unless they happen to be captured by other disclosure rules (for example climate disclosure rules covering stockmarket-listed companies). Meat processors Affco and Alliance no longer have to supply emissions data. Nor does Open Country Dairy, the country's second biggest milk exporter after Fonterra. All three were previously among the country's top ten emitters . RNZ asked Affco, Alliance and Open Country Dairy for their totals, but none had responded by deadline. The two biggest greenhouse gas producers in the farming sector - Fonterra and Silver Fern Farms - still disclose their emissions tallies in their own annual reports, as well as listing measures to reduce their impact. "It's critical that everyday people are able to find out who is responsible for New Zealand's climate pollution," said climate advocate Alex Johnston, of the Don't Subsidize Pollution campaign. "To not have big corporate from agriculture, the sector responsible for more than half of the country's emissions, required to report their emissions footprint is not responsible governing. "It's like closing the door on your kid's bedroom when they've left the heater on and then wondering why the power bill is so high." The change came about because the government removed farmers from the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). Agriculture was previously included in the scheme as a backstop in case voluntary discussions between farmers and government didn't result in an agreement to price methane. The backstop provision was removed and voluntary pricing talks were scrapped and re-started after the last election. Farming companies never had to pay for their methane emissions under the ETS the way petrol importers, coal miners and gas producers pay for their carbon dioxide emissions. However, until this year, they had to submit annual totals giving a rough estimate of their climate impact. ETS emissions reports were the only public information available for comparing individual companies, because some companies choose not to voluntarily disclose emissions. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts told Newsroom last year that officials had prepared an option to keep compulsory reporting while otherwise removing farming form the ETS. The government decided not to take it. He said the government was pursuing farm-level reporting instead. The change means reported emissions in the report have halved compared with last year, down from 65.7 million tonnes to 32.5 million tonnes. The difference is almost entirely because of the removal of the 33 million tonnes previously reported by the agriculture sector. When Fonterra is included, top 10 emitters collectively produce more than half the country's emissions, with Fonterra in the top spot followed by big petrol companies Z Energy, BP and Mobil. Farming companies - or their fossil fuel suppliers - still have to report and pay for any coal, gas or other fossil fuel they use in New Zealand under the ETS, for example coal used to dry milk or process meat. Affco reports its energy related emissions on its website, but not the larger total that comes from methane produced by farming the meat it processes. Alliance's website also discusses progress at reducing coal at its processing plants and said it completed a full lifecycle assessment of all its emissions last year, however doesn't appear to list the total. Open Country's website also discusses successful conversion of coal boilers to clean heat and said it is committed to reducing emissions from agriculture through the He Waka Eke Noa programme. He Waka Eke Noa was the programme scrapped by the coalition government after the election and replaced by direct engagement with farming groups through the government's Pastoral Sector Group. The new group is yet to announce a pricing plan or targets. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
31-07-2025
- RNZ News
Rule changes about chores children can do on farms misunderstood, Federated Farmers says
Wayne and Tyler Langford. Photo: Frank Film / supplied People have misunderstood the government's announcement regarding the threshold for light chores that children can do on farms, Federated Farmers says. On Tuesday Labour ridiculed the government's consultation with the agricultural sector after Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden's announcement included the examples collecting eggs and watering plants. In the announcement, van Velden said one proposed change was to amend the General Risk Regulations to make it clear that young people could safely take part in light chores on family farms . "We'll be consulting with farmers and the agriculture sector on the thresholds for light chores children can do on farms, like collecting eggs, feeding small animals and watering plants, while ensuring safety is not compromised. "I expect higher-risk activities such as being near heavy machinery like a hay baler will remain off-limits. As children grow older, they'll be able to undertake more complex tasks with supervision and training, such as driving a tractor." Federated Farmers New Zealand president Wayne Langford said farmers had been calling for clarity on the rules. "Taking a closer look at these rules is really important, so it's disappointing a lot of people have gotten the wrong end of the stick," Langford said. "The government aren't trying to add layers of bureaucracy or wrap farm kids up in cotton wool. They're actually trying to do the exact opposite of what's been portrayed in the media so far. "This is all about making sure health and safety rules are practical, common sense, and easy to understand - and Federated Farmers absolutely welcome that conversation." He said the examples given by van Velden were unfortunate and concerns related to situations where children could be harmed, such as around large stock, heavy machinery and quad bikes. "What she was saying was that, 'Hey, let's look at the roles that kids can play on farm and some of those that maybe should be avoided'. "For example, on my farm I keep my young children out of the milking shed. It's a dangerous place for the kids to be. It's a place where they could be kicked or harmed." In a statement, van Velden said the government was proposing making it clear that children could safely take part in "light chores" on family farms - but she expected higher-risk activities involving heavy machinery would remain off-limits. Farmers had told her they wanted the law to recognise that the farm was both their workplace and home, she said. Langford said the current health and safety rules for farmers had gone "way too far" and were unnecessarily confusing for smaller family-owned farming operations. "We're talking about small mum and dad type businesses which might only employ one or two staff members. "They're certainly not big corporates with a health and safety manager on staff. "They're hands-on farmers who actually spend their days farming rather than sitting in an office. That's why it's so important these rules are practical and easy to understand." He said confusion about health and safety obligations meant some farmers no longer allowed children on the farm like they would have in the past, for fear of falling foul of the law. "There's something very special about growing up on a farm and having that classic rural childhood many farmers enjoyed themselves," Langford said. He said his own son was very good at reading stock because he'd grown up around them and spent so much time by his father's side on the farm. "That's the childhood I had, and my own kids have had something similar, but I think we're at risk of losing that kind of upbringing if we don't get these rules right." Langford said preserving that traditional rural Kiwi upbringing, while still keeping kids safe, was what was trying to be achieved. Labour's workplace relations and safety spokesperson Jan Tinetti said the government was focusing on a non-existent problem and her colleague Kieran McAnulty questioned the rationale and said he "wouldn't have thought" it was an issue. "It's pretty common knowledge if an egg is covered in poo, you don't lick it. Wash your hands afterwards, what's the problem?" McAnulty said. But Langford said collecting eggs and watering plants was "not really what we're talking about here". "The fact those are the talking points the minister was provided with by bureaucrats tells you everything you need to know about why we need to get Wellington out of farming," Langford said. "In reality, we're talking about things like feeding calves, shifting stock, or helping mum and dad hose down the shed after milking - perfectly safe everyday farming activities." He said Federated Farmers looked forward to engaging in the consultation process. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Scoop
21-07-2025
- Scoop
Leading Employment Platform Urges New Zealand Businesses To Prepare For ‘Wage Secrecy' Changes
Press Release – Employment Hero With New Zealands pay transparency bill gaining momentum, Employment Hero urges businesses to get ahead by doing three things – reviewing pay structures, updating employment contracts, and preparing clear explanations of how pay is determined. Wellington Global employment authority Employment Hero, a leading people, payroll and benefits software provider, has encouraged New Zealand employers to prepare for The Employment Relations (Employee Remuneration Disclosure) Amendment Bill before it comes into effect. The bill aims to prevent employers from enforcing pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts, making it legal for employees to openly discuss their salaries without fear of reprisal. The National Party backed the bill at its first reading and signalled during the second reading debate that it would maintain its support, increasing the likelihood that the bill will become law. 'The legislation is designed to promote greater pay transparency and equality, helping to identify and address unjustified pay disparities. While it's a welcome change that will bring New Zealand in line with countries that have implemented similar measures, such as Australia and the UK, employers should take proactive steps now to prepare for if the Bill passes,' said Sanam Ahmadzadeh Salmani, Employment Counsel at Employment Hero and workplace law commentator. 'This is an opportunity for employers to drive better pay transparency and better outcomes for both businesses and employees. Aligning with the legislation will not only ensure compliance if and when required but can also improve employee satisfaction and retention. Employees want to know they're being treated fairly and businesses that embrace this change will likely see stronger engagement and loyalty. 'By preparing and making any changes before the Bill passes, employers will be on the front foot and can avoid being caught out later down the track,' added Ahmadzadeh Salmani. Ahmadzadeh Salmani highlights three key actions employers should take to prepare: Conduct a pay review 'Start by reviewing your current pay structures – look for any discrepancies and understand the reasons behind them – whether it's due to role differences, experience or something else. Being proactive here will help you not only stay compliant, but to spot payroll red flags early,' advises Ahmadzadeh Salmani. Review employment contracts 'Employers should also review employment agreements for any clauses that restrict pay discussions. These might not be labelled as 'pay secrecy' and they could be buried under general confidentiality or remuneration clauses. Having a clear plan of what needs updating now puts you in a better legal position once the Bill is passed,' adds Ahmadzadeh Salmani. Prepare clear explanations 'Transparency doesn't stop at removing secrecy clauses. Employers need to be ready to explain how pay is determined and what data or criteria is used, how performance factors in and how employees can progress. This builds trust and reduces confusion or resentment,' she adds. Employment Hero provides free resources to New Zealand businesses on employment law updates and compliance via its website. The latest resource, including Employee Remuneration Disclosure can be found here. About Employment Hero Employment Hero is revolutionising the world of work with the introduction of the world's first Employment Operating System (eOS), a solution designed to address the $20 billion problem of inefficient employment processes globally. eOS is the next generation of employment technology, a revolutionary system that simplifies and automates complex employment processes, allowing businesses to streamline workflows, reduce administrative burden, and focus on growth Employment Hero services over 300,000 businesses globally and its core platform reduces admin time by up to 80%. By launching employers toward their goals, powering more productive teams and taking employment to rewarding new heights, Employment Hero is revolutionising the employment marketplace.
