Closing the Welfare Gap in New Zealand: questions answered

New Zealand has banned some lower welfare practices in farming, such as sow stalls for pigs. Yet products made using those very practices can still be imported and sold here. A simple, targeted policy would close that gap, asking imported food to meet the same animal welfare standards New Zealand already applies at home.

Here are the questions we hear most often.

What is the proposed policy?

Imported animal products sold in New Zealand would meet the same welfare standards New Zealand applies to its own farmers - for two practices already banned here: sow stalls for pigs and battery cages for hens.

A sow stall is a metal cage so narrow that a female pig (a sow) cannot turn around. In a battery cage hens cannot stretch their wings. New Zealand has decided these have no place in our farming: Parliament banned sow stalls in 2016 and battery cages in 2023.

Why is it needed?

Over 60% of the pork sold here is imported, and roughly 90% of it comes from countries that still use sow stalls. Most imported “liquid” eggs (used in manufacturing) come from countries that still allow battery cages. So a practice New Zealanders have rejected at home arrives back on our plates through the supermarket and the restaurant.

Most shoppers assume that what sits on a New Zealand shelf already meets New Zealand's standards. Right now, much of it does not. 

Is it legal under trade rules?

Yes. International trade law lets countries apply measures that protect widely held values about right and wrong, known as the "public morals" exception. And there is already strong precedent globally where this has been used. For example, due to widespread outrage over seal hunting the EU stopped importing certain products. In the resulting EC–Seal Products case, animal welfare was recognised as a legitimate basis for such a measure.

Independent legal advice on WTO rules has found repeatedly that a well crafted measure falls well within the trade rules. A separate analysis of New Zealand's free trade agreements found nothing that would prevent this policy.

Do New Zealanders actually want a policy on imports?

Yes, and clearly. In polling from 2023 and again in 2024, over 80% of New Zealanders agreed that imports should meet the same animal welfare standards applied here. Support held steady across regions, income levels and party vote. 

And it is not only the general public: in 2026, Curia polling found that almost 80% of farmers support it too.

What the policy is, and what it is not

It is:

• Targeted: two clearly defined practices, in two species, both already banned in New Zealand.

• Even-handed: the same standard for every country that exports here, and for any New Zealand producer.

• In line with what already happens: just as imported food already meets New Zealand's biosecurity and food-safety rules, it would meet New Zealand's welfare rules.

It is not:

• A blanket ban on imports, or on any country's products.

• A tax or tariff at the border.

• A rule aimed at any particular trading partner.

Is it fair to our trading partners?

Yes. The standard would apply equally to everyone who sells here, alongside New Zealand producers. It names no country and follows a long-standing public mandate.

It is also the kind of measure New Zealand itself favours: narrow, proportionate, and based on production methods already used around the world, rather than broad, one-size-fits-all import rules that pile compliance costs onto producers with little regard for how farming actually works. A clear, feasible standard like that proposed sits comfortably with the trade positions New Zealand already holds.

What about countries with different farming conditions?

This  is exactly why the policy is narrow. Some welfare standards depend on climate and landscape, such as pasture-based grazing. Pork and egg production do not.

Pork and egg production are highly standardised the world over: a sow stall is the same crate in Iowa, Ontario or Denmark, and a cage is the same cage everywhere - only a few companies globally even make the industrial scale cages for hens. No country's climate or geography makes it necessary to confine a sow in a stall or a hen in a cage. Higher-welfare alternatives are already produced at scale in the very countries that export to New Zealand.

Is it practical?

Very. The countries that supply us already produce far more stall-free pork than New Zealand needs: the United States around 176 times more, and Germany around 251 times. For every major pork exporter, trade with New Zealand is less than 2% of what they produce, so meeting our standard is a modest adjustment. The cost to shoppers is small too: an estimated 25 cents a week per person.

Where has this been done before?

Some examples include: 

• California's Proposition 12 (2018) sets welfare standards for pork, eggs and veal sold in the state, including imports. The world's largest meat companies adjusted their operations to keep selling there.

• The European Union requires imported meat to meet equivalent slaughter standards.

• Import bans on foie gras and fur operate in places including California, India, Switzerland and Israel.

None of these has been challenged at the WTO. When a clear standard is set, major producers adapt.

What does it mean for New Zealand farmers?

New Zealand has already decided that sow stalls and battery cages have no place in its farming. Applying the same standard to imported products means that decision holds for everything sold here, not only what is produced domestically.

For producers who already meet these standards, that consistency matters: at present they are held to rules that the products beside them on the supermarket shelf are not. A single standard for all animal products sold in New Zealand - wherever they come from - gives everyone a fair go.

Research found that a policy change requiring imports to match domestic animal welfare standards could potentially boost the domestic pig industry by up to $29 million.

How would it actually work?

The Animal Products (Closing the Welfare Gap) Amendment Bill, tabled by MP Steve Abel and currently in the biscuit tin, is one to create the mechanism. It lets the Minister set welfare standards for animal products sold in New Zealand, and requires regulations for pigs and hens within two years.

It works through the Animal Products Act, the law that already governs the sale of animal products, and would be administered by the Ministry for Primary Industries, with regulations developed alongside industry and a fair transition period.

Are there any downsides to a policy on imports?

Potential downsides are minimal and resolvable.

The main one is market adjustment. However, the scale of the adjustment is modest (less than 2% of any trade partner’s production) - there would be a transition period, and, importantly, the countries that supply New Zealand already produce far more sow stall-free pork and cage-free eggs than what they export to New Zealand.

There is also a cost to the consumer, which would be minimal - calculations put the price increase for pork at around 25 cents per person per week. 

A third concern sometimes raised is trade relations: that partners might object, or that the measure invites a dispute. The policy is deliberately narrow, applies equally to every country and to New Zealand's own producers, and rests on standards New Zealand has already adopted at home. Those are the features that keep it within WTO rules and make challenges by trade partners unlikely. It names no trading partner and asks nothing of other countries beyond what they choose to sell here.

The effect on shoppers is small, as set out above. Weighed against these adjustments is the alternative: continuing to apply New Zealand's welfare standards only to domestic production while most of what is sold here is not held to them at all.

What needs to happen next?

Applying animal welfare standards to imports is legal, practical and widely supported. What it now needs is political leadership to act.

The route exists. The Animal Products (Closing the Welfare Gap) Amendment Bill, would give a Minister the power to set the standard. The Government could also choose to take the approach forward directly, developing the detail and timetable. With a general election in 2026, there is a clear opportunity for parties to set out where they stand.

What can people do to support a policy on imports?

New Zealanders have already made their view clear. The people who can turn that into law are Members of Parliament, so the most useful thing people can do is ask your MP where they stand.

Contact your local MP and your party, and ask a simple question: what will you and your party do to close the welfare gap? Let them know it matters to you that food sold in New Zealand meets the welfare standards we have already chosen.