Pork from up to 14 countries sold under NZ branding, new analysis finds
New analysis by Animal Policy International documents what shoppers can, and cannot, establish from pork labelling in New Zealand supermarkets, days after the Minister declined to strengthen country of origin labelling rules.
Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Cameron Brewer acknowledged that imported meat could be "branded in a way that misleads consumers about the product's origin", but said he was not aware of evidence on a scale that would justify further regulatory change. Our new analysis, One Market, Different Standards, provides a snapshot of what shoppers actually encounter.
What did the audit of pork labels find?
The audit covered 101 pork products from 26 brands, owned by 20 companies, in New World, Woolworths and PAK'nSAVE stores, and found:
Pork belly with "100% owned by Kiwis" and "Product of Spain" on the same face of the pack, and pancetta labelled "Product of New Zealand" with small print reading "meat origin: NZ and EU"
A bacon label listing pork from up to 14 possible countries of origin
Woolworths' own-brand ham stating the countries listed "may not always reflect the country the animal has been raised in"
A frozen pork meal that names the origin of its potatoes but not its pork
What can pork labelling in New Zealand actually tell shoppers?
Each of these labels is permitted under current rules. The analysis documents what the rules allow at the point of sale, rather than measuring how widespread any particular practice is. In 2023, Parliament's Regulations Review Committee found that fine-print origin lists on packs prominently labelled "made in New Zealand" could be "materially confusing or misleading" and recommended the Government consider amending the regulations. Three years on, and following the Ministry for Regulation's Product Labelling Review, the rules remain unchanged.
New Zealand has prohibited sow stalls in domestic pig production since 2016, but imported pork is not required to meet equivalent welfare standards. Around 63% of the pig meat consumed in New Zealand is imported, with around 96% of those imports coming from countries that still permit sow stalls.
Why is better labelling not enough?
The report proposes a single welfare standard for everything sold in New Zealand, domestic and imported alike, set in legislation.
The labels are evidence of the problem, not the problem itself. The Minister's alternative is existing consumer law: he has suggested specific complaints go to the Commerce Commission under the Fair Trading Act. That addresses misleading claims case by case. It cannot make an accurate origin list covering 14 countries informative about how the pigs were raised, and it does not apply to restaurants and foodservice, which no labelling scheme covers.
The analysis distinguishes between transparency and market requirements. Even accurate country of origin labels would leave shoppers to research welfare law country by country.
"Information and market requirements are not the same thing"
"The Minister says he has not seen evidence of a labelling problem occurring on a scale that would justify further regulatory change. Our audit provides a snapshot of what shoppers actually encounter on supermarket shelves, finding Kiwi branding on imported pork and origin lists covering up to 14 countries," said Rainer Kravets, Co-Executive Director of Animal Policy International.
"New Zealanders made a decision about sow stalls ten years ago. Most people assume that decision covers what they put in their trolley. It doesn't, and our audit shows even the most careful shopper likely can't work it out from the label."
"Better labelling can improve transparency, and consumers should have clear information about the products they are buying. But information and market requirements are not the same thing. If New Zealand wants to close the welfare gap, it needs legislation applying the relevant welfare requirements to pork sold in New Zealand, whether it is produced domestically or imported. With an election in November, parties have an opportunity to say where they stand."
Would import welfare standards breach trade rules?
Independent legal analysis has found nothing in New Zealand's free trade agreements that would prevent such a policy, and the European Commission committed in July 2026 to the same approach for the EU's own imports. Requiring imported pork to be sow-stall-free would cost the average New Zealand consumer an estimated 25 cents per week.
Public support is broad. Horizon Research polling (September 2024) found 81% of New Zealanders agree imported products should respect the same animal welfare standards as those applied in New Zealand, and a Curia Market Research poll of 1,000 New Zealand farmers (April 2026) found 79% agree imported animal products should be required to meet New Zealand's animal welfare standards.
What happens before the November election?
The Animal Products (Closing the Welfare Gap) Amendment Bill, a member's bill lodged by Green MP Steve Abel and currently awaiting selection in the member's bill ballot, is one mechanism to deliver the policy. The New Zealand Government could also take the approach forward directly. With a general election on 7 November 2026, parties have an opportunity to set out their positions.
Read the full report: One Market, Different Standards
Frequently asked questions
Does the proposed policy apply to imports or only to New Zealand production? Both. It ensures that the standards Kiwi farmers have to meet are also required from imported products. It is a single welfare standard for animal products sold in New Zealand, applied equally to domestic and imported products. It is not a border tariff and not an import ban on any country.
What would it cost consumers? Requiring imported pork to be sow-stall-free is estimated to cost 25 cents per consumer per week.
Would it breach New Zealand's trade agreements? Independent legal analysis identified no provisions in New Zealand's free trade agreements that would prevent applying domestic welfare standards to imports. Comparable measures, including the EU Slaughter Regulation and California's Proposition 12, have not been challenged through WTO dispute settlement.
Why not just fix the labelling rules? Better labelling improves transparency and Animal Policy International supports clear consumer information. But even accurate labels leave shoppers to research welfare law country by country, and labelling does not cover restaurants and foodservice. Information and market requirements are not the same thing.
What about food bought in restaurants? No labelling scheme covers foodservice. A welfare standard applied to all pork sold in New Zealand would cover it; labelling reform would not.
Media Release
Read the full media release.
