There I was, scrolling the apps, when a familiar Kiwi farmer\u2019s face appeared with a message that sounded quite good. I halted in my tracks and bestowed a view on the video\u2019s tally. The gist was that our imported farming products should live up to our national animal welfare standards. Fair enough, right?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Well, maybe if I was still the younger, more naive Ani who did not eat a bite of meat for a decade and worked at the SPCA. Alas, now I am a meat-eater and have a better grasp of how the New Zealand economy works. It is unfortunate how a bit of knowledge can destroy one\u2019s wishful convictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The \u201cFair for Farmers\u201d<\/a><\/em> campaign appears to be farmer-led, but it is run by Animal Policy International. It presents itself as a common-sense push to protect Kiwi farmers from unfair offshore competition. After all, why should New Zealand farmers be held to higher animal welfare standards than their overseas competitors? Why should we allow imports produced under conditions that would be illegal here?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The message resonates because it contains some truth and feels fair. But when you follow the logic through to its conclusion and examine the origins of the policy being promoted it is clear that this campaign risks turning New Zealand farmers into unwitting foot soldiers for a broader agenda that is fundamentally hostile to the future of farming itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The intellectual foundation for much of this argument can be found in the report\u00a0Closing the Welfare Gap<\/a><\/em>, produced by\u00a0Animal Policy International<\/a>\u00a0alongside advocacy groups including SPCA New Zealand and the New Zealand Animal Law Association. The report lays out a detailed case for restricting imports of animal products that do not meet New Zealand\u2019s domestic welfare standards. It argues that New Zealand is effectively undermining its own farmers by allowing in products produced using methods that are illegal here, and that this creates both a moral inconsistency and a competitive disadvantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The report leans into pro-farming framing, explicitly stating that low-welfare imports \u201cundermine the standards that we are holding New Zealand farmers to\u201d<\/em> and negatively impact local industries, particularly pork. It cites figures showing that around two-thirds of pork consumed in New Zealand is imported, reinforcing the sense that local producers are being squeezed out by cheaper, lower-standard products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the same report is equally clear that the objective is not simply to level the playing field for New Zealand farmers, it is to reshape New Zealand\u2019s approach to agricultural trade. <\/strong>It advocates for New Zealand to apply its domestic standards to all imports, effectively using trade policy as a tool to force overseas producers to adopt higher welfare practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite claims that the impact on trade will be \u201cminimal\u201d,<\/em> the ambition of Animal Policy International is not a narrow fix to a trade imbalance. It is part of a broader strategy to globalise animal welfare standards through market access restrictions. And the risks to an economy like ours that relies on the primary sector would be enormous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n New Zealand is a small country with massive agricultural reliance. We export around 90% of everything we produce, and those export dollars don\u2019t just underpin the rural economy, they underpin the entire economy. Our prosperity depends on access to international markets. That reality has underpinned our farming sector for generations, and it\u2019s the lens through which any proposed policy change must be judged.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Banning imports based on production methods, like differing animal welfare standards, may feel like a domestic market decision, but in practice it is very easily interpreted as a non-tariff barrier to trade. And if we go down that road, we shouldn\u2019t be surprised when other countries respond in kind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Major markets like the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States could well take retaliatory measures that directly affect our meat and dairy exports. If we are demanding other countries meet New Zealand-specific standards to access our market of just five million people, it is entirely reasonable to expect that they will begin imposing their own standards in return.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our farming systems are different. Not always necessarily worse or better, but different. We operate in entirely different climates and environments. These factors alone have a significant impact on the way we farm compared to other parts of the world. So if we imagine a world where production methods become the basis for trade restrictions, \u201cdifferent\u201d<\/em> could become leverage in trade negotiations or used as a protectionist barrier. What we see, in New Zealand, as efficient, pasture-based production could easily be reframed by others as falling short of their preferred standards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, European regulators could refuse access for New Zealand dairy products on the basis that our dairy systems produce surplus calves. British authorities could take issue with the way we run our outdoor lambing systems. The\u00a0UK branch of Animal Policy International<\/a>\u00a0takes issue mostly with Australian mulesing practices, but they also note that New Zealand permits tail docking and castration which a big red flags for the apparently pro-farming organisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Suddenly, what started as a well-meaning attempt to support local pork and poultry farmers turns into a much bigger problem for the sectors that actually drive our export economy. It is a sure fire way to land us in trade conflict that could decimate our primary industries. It takes what is a protectionist argument and repackages it as a moral one. In substance, it\u2019s a classic non-tariff barrier argument disguised in ethical language.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Farmers are being told this is about fairness, about levelling the playing field. But the actual likely outcome is a shrinking playing field. Trade barriers invite retaliation, retaliation constrains exports, and constrained exports hits our economy like a tonne of bricks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Importantly, none of this troubles the organisations pushing this framework. They are not focused on the long-term viability of New Zealand farming. Their objective, as outlined in Animal Policy International\u2019s organisational footprint is unusually scattered for a group that presents itself as a single advocacy body. Publicly available information shows a multi-jurisdictional structure where fundraising appears to be conducted via a United States\u2013based fiscal sponsor, but its materials reference a New Zealand registered charity, the\u00a0Animal Policy NZ Trust<\/a>. There is also an\u00a0Estonia-registered non-profit association (MT\u00dc)<\/a>\u00a0and the organisation lists a London mailing address in the United Kingdom. Each of these entities sits within a different legal and regulatory regime, with different disclosure and reporting requirements, yet they are presented under a single brand. While international NGOs sometimes operate across borders, the combination of US fiscal sponsorship, a NZ charitable trust, an Estonian MT\u00dc, and a UK correspondence address creates a layered structure that can make governance lines, financial flows, and accountability less transparent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The organisation appears to act as a kind of astroturf; a non-threatening face advocating for more incremental, less \u201cscary<\/em>\u201d change. For example, Animal Policy International\u2019s website lists Stray Dog Institute among its supporters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Stray Dog Institute\u2019s own site, its\u00a0\u201cGrantmaking\u201d<\/a><\/em>\u00a0page<\/a>\u00a0describes a philanthropic strategy focused on\u00a0\u201cfood systems transformation\u201d<\/em>\u00a0and explains how it handles affiliated entities. Importantly for tracing financial pathways, it set up the\u00a0Quinn Foundation<\/a>\u00a0which\u00a0\u201cmakes grants on behalf of Stray Dog Institute\u201d<\/em>\u00a0in the farmed-animal\/food-systems space which obscures the SDI\u2019s involvement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Stray Dog Institute is funded by its founders,\u00a0Chuck Laue and Jennifer Laue<\/a>. They are both heavily involved in many animal welfare projects and Jennifer\u2019s biography on the website states that she is\u00a0\u201cdeeply committed to veganism and building the movement for food systems transformation.\u201d\u00a0<\/em>Stray Dog Institute\u2019s public-facing mission statement explicitly echoes this, positioning the organisation as aiming for a plant-based and alternative-protein transition. It\u00a0further states<\/a>\u00a0that its\u00a0\u201callies\u201d<\/em>\u00a0encourage\u00a0\u201cplant-forward eating,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0\u201coppose industrial animal agriculture,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cadvance alternatives to animal-based food systems.\u201d\u00a0<\/em>The same\u00a0\u201cStray Dog\u201d<\/em>\u00a0family includes a\u00a0venture-capital vehicle<\/a>\u00a0active in alternative proteins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Animal Policy International also received funding from\u00a0Tiny Beam Fund<\/a>, an incorporated charity based in Massachusetts, USA, which has the stated aim to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHelp academic researchers and front-line persons gain a deeper understanding of the complex negative impacts of industrial food animal production.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n It\u00a0stipulates that the grants it issues<\/a>\u00a0must relate to work, activities, and purpose with a\u00a0\u201cfocus on understanding and tackling drivers and adverse effects of large-scale, industrial food animal production, especially concerning low- and middle-income countries.\u201d\u00a0<\/em>And one of the key objectives the funder looks for in organisations seeking funding is making\u00a0\u201cthe adverse effects of industrial animal agriculture (particularly concerning LMICs) more visible, relevant, and salient.\u201d\u00a0<\/em>On its website, Tiny Beam Fund lists the\u00a02023 Animal Policy International grant<\/a>\u00a0as\u00a0\u201cusing New Zealand as a case study\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Funding has also come from\u00a0Effektiv Spenden<\/a>\u00a0which is a Germany-based donation platform tied closely to the\u00a0Effective Altruism<\/a>\u00a0(EA) movement from which API receives funding too. Within the EA movement animal welfare funding is heavily skewed toward reducing animal agriculture including corporate pressure campaigns, policy advocacy, and alternative protein development.\u00a0Effektiv Spenden typically routes animal welfare money<\/a>\u00a0to organisations focused on factory farming, lobbying for regulatory changes, and protein transition strategies (to plant-based and lab-meat). It is part of a highly coordinated, ideologically aligned funding ecosystem that channels money into food system changes and massive long-term structural shifts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Their funding is, however, less interesting than the biographies of the people involved in the organisation. Two of the people named officers of the charity on the New Zealand charities register,\u00a0co-Executive Director Mandy Carter<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Public Affairs Manager Ramona (Mona) Oliver<\/a>, formerly worked at\u00a0SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation)<\/a>. The charity is\u00a0explicitly vegan<\/a>\u00a0and has been at the forefront of anti-farming activism in New Zealand including\u00a0undercover operations<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A simple internet search turns up public comments from Carter that reflect perhaps her true positions on farming:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe dairy industry causes widespread animal suffering, from the separation of mother cows from their young babies, to the brutal treatment of these vulnerable young animals on their way to the slaughterhouse,\u201d says Mandy Carter, SAFE head of campaigns.<\/a> \u201cSince MPI is the body charged with promoting primary industries, it has an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to protecting animal welfare. We urgently need an independent voice for animals to ensure that the needs of animals are prioritised.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n No animal will ever feel the terror of the slaughterhouse for my sake.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n There are plenty of good reasons to be vegetarian or vegan<\/a>: It\u2019s tasty, it\u2019s cheap, it\u2019s easy, it\u2019s good for you – and for beautiful New Zealand, but for me, the one true reason will always be: for the animals.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Carter describes herself<\/a>\u00a0as having been vegetarian from age 11 and vegan for nearly two decades now. She was the Head of Campaigns at SAFE and wrote regularly for the New Zealand Herald on animal welfare matters. In addition to her previous work at SAFE, Mona Oliver has also worked on four elections\u00a0campaigns for the Green Party<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The other\u00a0co-Executive Director, Rainer Kravets<\/a>, previously served as\u00a0Program Manager for the Food Innovation Summit 2022<\/a>\u00a0which was the largest alternative protein conference in the Nordic region. Researcher\u00a0Helen Willis<\/a>\u00a0also works for the Ministry for the Environment in New Zealand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the organisations advisors,\u00a0Scott Weathers<\/a>, is an American\u00a0\u201cPlant-Based Politician and Public Health Advocate\u201d.\u00a0<\/em>He previously worked at the Good Food Institute, focused on\u00a0\u201csupporting the growth of the emerging alternative protein industry.\u201d\u00a0<\/em>Another advisor\u00a0Olga Kikou<\/a>\u00a0is described as founder\/director of \u201cAnimal Advocacy & Food Transition,<\/a>\u201d<\/em>\u00a0with a mission to\u00a0\u201caccelerate the shift towards more plant-based food systems.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n And another,\u00a0Elena Artico<\/a>, is the Founder and Director of\u00a0Animal Advocacy And Food Transition<\/a>\u00a0which states on the homepage of its website:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Animal Advocacy & Food Transition (AAFT) is a non-profit organization working at the European level to end the systemic exploitation of farmed animals and challenge the industrial food system that enables it<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Fed-up](\"https:\/\/ci3.googleusercontent.com\/meips\/ADKq_NasYtS2BubpPzvYG2WQuRAae821CBO7dSvL_6naOSBL9KucrZlrdq4s9OxIXgtGqvk8Ky1jkWBmNhokwTWMA4M4JlO9AZn2qKohlMwK0J3VMzpzjp7H-eEgV0Ikv5jtzf4YDHoCTp_pMy9o60h-hthyIyeUV0aFum4ViRVXCKcpzc65vrzE7L6Tm5KRcuSb8qNmqR7uWrwzVD5LjoKN6_D78c7MTuXV73iFKIOp_mWSQQ5mlWnxaB4ceGdAndZq6dJ6wcA4QLQ_fczluV6bbRYKyU_6zTU899Mtbev_vNNZ0K9VFcbsb-KKa9ajy90lpSU2wvFdyQ=s0-d-e1-ft#https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!4pOf!,w_1100,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb32e2d0f-5eb4-4004-996f-358591ba2030_1920x1276.jpeg\" "\\"Fed-up")
<\/a>![](\"chrome-extension:\/\/ohhcpmplhhiiaoiddkfboafbhiknefdf\/images\/tooltip\/webicon_green.png\")
Closing the Welfare Gap<\/a><\/em>, is to use trade policy as a lever to drive global changes in animal production systems. They want to sound noble and palatable to farmers, but align far more closely with an agenda of reducing animal agriculture than supporting it. This is not a grassroots New Zealand animal charity, it\u2019s plugged into a\u00a0global ideological and funding network<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"FarmingwithWalt](\"https:\/\/ci3.googleusercontent.com\/meips\/ADKq_NarFQGcHFMq7tMmfksi2geC8kpT4ROLcSDlq2DpAQTus5Hdl3NjC-jaGuQ9gWzssRUDbPyIHYm-299X1p4_xIMYYcIuop6fjtM4_v4oK18I_g3g6llSQ_x_qO9mBQwjGCy7kMRz8iFX98pI2CIKVpJhNk8HpSFbm7BRFtZ__izziQOEzsqXAjGonPsq2-LPPeHR0QAC0CK7R_z9JkG0d-h8-CODci2sKl3ehBz4xLkfCN8X-lN1U8IlYP9zYFgY1mWuOVRCJPkY_GbtwvoNIrlEox_mPVSAciSnUI_1p8T68kbiP1mXvgQCsw7Y_5h_HsKKyA=s0-d-e1-ft#https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/$s_!Ky3Q!,w_275,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Feda19203-f799-4ef2-ad8f-e618d558c775_275x183.jpeg\" "\\"FarmingwithWalt")
<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n