-Phyllis Tichinin, soil scientist, founder of True Health Ltd

 The health narrative is increasingly moving away from processed food, especially ultra-processed foods (UPFs).  More emphasis is being put on vitamin and mineral, antioxidant and polyphenol content, also called nutrient density or ORAC.

Consumers are becoming concerned about pesticides and packaging chemicals in what they eat. They are looking for food that fully nourishes and heals cells.

Ultra-processed items are receiving bad press and labelled as the cause of chronic disease.  In America, ninety three percent of Americans have some form of inflammatory chronic disease: cancer, diabetes, fatty liver, Alzheimer’s, allergies, etc.  

More than half of the population is obese. Seventy-seven percent of young men are unfit for military service. These figures are mirrored in health statistics worldwide.

While sedentary screen time, air and water toxins, and stress are implicated, Influential functional medicine doctors and health celebrities are placing the majority of the blame on consumption of processed food. (Check out Dr Casey Means interviews on the Web or Spotify)

Our NZ consumption of UPFs is only slightly lower than in the USA and the UK – around 50%, even for children under 5.

This global trend has implications for NZ’s food and packaging industries.  Most of the food we export is minimally processed, compared to the ultra-processed foods like packaged snacks, desserts, energy bars, etc.

We are presently well positioned with a reputation for natural quality, but in most food categories Italy and France have international reputations superior to ours.   We can’t cruise on our laurels in this space and we certainly can’t afford to lose any ground.

Food wrapping and containers that preserve vitamins, minerals and flavour components without the use of any chemical, heavy metal, or plastic need to be a focus of innovation.

Hand in hand with packaging is growing produce that is less likely to degrade or rot enroute to our far flung markets.

We do have good NZ controlled atmosphere systems but more innovation will be needed, especially in the growing of nutrient dense produce.

Our agricultural science is catching up with the realisation that the level of minerals and flavour depends more on how the produce is grown than it does on variety.

We want to strive for high total dissolved solids, or Brix, which can’t happen if the soil microbiome is damaged by synthetic fertilisers or pesticides.

We need to aim for pesticide-free systems that restore soil health and deliver long storage, extra high flavour profiles for elite markets.

Organic food is getting increasing airtime as a pathway to healing. A recent US Senate discussion of these chronic disease problems and food quality solutions is a potent indicator of where our preferred customers will soon be heading.

If we ignore these shifts in market demand, our premiums fall away and export revenues decline overall, and along with your profits.

People worldwide are much more interested in the health engendering qualities of their food than even several years ago.   We are in a perfect position to capitalise on this trend and to improve our delivery of truly healthy food at a premium that benefits the whole economy.

For NZ, while the Government focus is on increasing food production as our economic engine, the real money and benefit to the nation is on that food’s quality and anticipating market trends.

The consumer narrative on meat and pesticides is also shifting.  Plant-free ketogenic (meat, animal fat and organ meat only) diets are being touted for reversing gut dysbiosis, autoimmune disorders as well as curing depression, epilepsy and Parkinson’s.

While pesticides are being labelled as The New Smoking and a major cause of cancers.

Whole, unprocessed (not made in a factory) food from organic farms is increasingly seen as the path to reversing chronic disease of all descriptions.

Given the present epidemic of chronic disease and metabolic dysfunction worldwide, the consumer spotlight will increasingly be on pesticide-free, completely natural, minimally processed produce and grass-fed meat.

This can be NZ’s sweet spot and includes the market cachet of GE free.  We have a no cost advantage with our existing GE free status.  Our high end customers value that naturalness and are willing to pay extra for it.

Plus countries don’t appear to be lining up to pay us more for GE produce, if we did go there by easing the existing GE regulations as the National Party Coalition Government is signalling.  

Innovation going forward needs to respond to the demand for verifiably nutrient dense, pesticide free food. We’re 5 or fewer years away from having apps that assess these food attributes through our cell-phone cameras. Imagine a health-savvy professional mother of young children shopping with one of these devices.

There will be no place to hide. On the other hand, if we can verifiably deliver the goods, our market standing and even higher premiums is assured.

We can farm profitably without the agrichemicals that are increasingly under the spotlight.  We did it before WWII and organic growing techniques have become more sophisticated since then.

The yields are similar, except in droughts when organic farming does better than conventional.

Costs are lower, worker safety concerns are lessened and, this is key, the vitamin, mineral and flavour levels are higher.

In addition to tasting better, this means the produce lasts longer in storage.  This science-based phenomena was demonstrated in a 2007 squash rot trial in HB where squash from a biological field had 50% less rot upon arrival in Japan than the adjacent conventional field due different fertilisers resulting in a higher mineral content.

We need future-oriented systems of packaging and transport to ensure NZ produce is delivered in optimal condition:  pesticide free, nutrient dense, flavourful and free of plastic, heavy metal or chemical contaminants, knowing that soon these things can be measured at dockside and in the supermarket.

Delivering that level of food quality will improve NZ’s GDP better than trying to double volume production in a race to the bottom of the commodity food barrel.

As you can imagine, premium-paying consumers who care about their health are fixated on Natural. Chemically altered gene sequences from gene splicing techniques like CRISPR are not going to appeal to them.

They are likely to feel that we has betrayed our own NZ narrative, and their trust, if we introduce genetically modified plants into our agricultural crops or environment.

The question is ‘What NZ problem does gene engineering solve… who stands to benefit and who bears the cost?’

The spin on the street is that these GE techniques for agriculture are widely used overseas and we’re lagging behind in not adopting them.

Since the first genetically modified organism (GMO) was introduced into agriculture 50 years ago, there have been numerous promises of eliminating plant diseases or pests and better production.  None of those have come to pass.

In North America, where GE corn, soy, canola and sugar beet are the main commodity crops, there have been yield drags, increased ag chemical use, weed resistance issues and soil fertility collapse.

Recent GE forays into the food arena with wheat and salmon have been market failures.  Bulk wheat buyers wouldn’t purchase it for fear it would contaminate their supply chain and discourage customers from purchasing wheat full stop. 

The GE salmon company Aqua Bounty has sold its tank farms and ceased operations despite government subsidies, apparently due to widespread market rejection in Canada.

We are a quality food producing nation. In our markets’ eyes, genetic engineering does not equate with quality. We are not lagging behind in any GE technology ‘race’.

Our farmers and animal scientists already use cutting edge bio technology to direct breeding programs, we just, and I believe wisely, have not taken the next step of chemically altering gene sequences, since we can efficiently and cheaply do it naturally.

There are no new successful GMO crops in agriculture overseas. The GMO crops cited as successes overseas are all commodity crops like soy, canola and corn most of which goes to animal feed or ethanol, not directly into human consumption.

Like here, however, there are plant scientists and research organisations attracted to the funding and allure of patent royalties and venture capital schemes.

Our innovation in the manufacturing and agriculture space needs to focus on delivery of ever higher levels of quality that track with high end consumer demand. We can lead international innovation in this sector if we anticipate the growing demand for verifiable quality that focuses on natural, flavourful and chemical free.

There will be temporary uncomfortable mind-set adjustments at the farm level, but as a soil scientist and farm consultant, I can confirm that a transition to healthy soils, nutrient dense and chemical-free crops can happen within 3 years at the same or lower cost.

We need to get ready for the healthy food paradigm shift that is brewing or it will broadside us causing a slip in our international food ratings.  In the eyes of our overseas consumers, embracing genetic engineering would pull our top quality ladder out from under us.

 Caution, independent analysis and consultation are needed before allowing the proposed unregulated introduction of gene spliced organisms into our economic life blood – high end NZ food exports.

www.foodinnovationist.com

www.nzmanufacturer.co.nz