Infringement notices are coming to organics. They are not the penalty you should be worried about.

What is proposed

An infringement notice is an enforcement response to minor, clear-cut non-compliance that does not need to go to court. These are typically strict liability offences: the regulator has to show the prohibited thing happened, not that anyone intended it or was reckless. MPI's own analogy is a speed limit. You either drove at 60 in a 50 zone or you did not. No conviction or criminal record results.

MPI proposes five severity categories. The fee is the amount usually payable when a notice is issued. The fine is the maximum a District Court could impose if the matter goes to court, for example because the notice is challenged. You would not pay both for the same offence.

The second figure in each pair applies to a body corporate or to a person with higher responsibilities under the Act, such as a verifier or a recognised entity.

Section 133(1)(q) of the Act sets the maximum infringement fee at $1,000 and section 133(1)(r) sets the maximum infringement fine at $2,500. So the category 5 body-corporate figures are not a policy choice about severity. They are the ceiling the Act allows.

The escalation mechanism

Section 133(1)(p) allows higher fees for second and subsequent offences, and MPI proposes a single, uniform rule: any infringement escalates by one category for each subsequent offence of the same regulation. A category 3 offence repeated becomes category 4, then category 5.

MPI is clear that this reflects repeated non-compliance rather than a reassessment of how serious the underlying conduct was, and that beyond that point a different response is needed: prosecution under the Act, or suspension of approval.

That last point deserves emphasis, because it is where the design runs out of road. For a body corporate, category 5 is $1,000, which is the statutory maximum fee. Escalation cannot go further. Anything beyond a third infringement has to move to the District Court for a fine of up to $2,500, or out of the infringement system altogether. If the benefit of non-compliance exceeds $2,500, the infringement pathway stops being a deterrent and becomes a cost of doing business. Whether MPI intends to publish the trigger for stepping outside it is a fair thing to ask under question 9.

What the infringements actually cover

The proposed offences are grouped by the type of obligation, and the grouping tells you what MPI thinks is important.

Information and document provision, generally category 1. Failing to provide your organic management plan or related documents to MPI, a verifier or another authorised person on request.

Approvals and notifications, generally category 2. Obligations to get approval or notify at defined trigger points. Failing to notify a recall in writing within 24 hours under OPP regulation 47. Using a container growing system without approval under OS regulation 46(2)(b). Confining livestock for more than 60 days a year without approval under OS regulation 71(1). Failing to notify before giving non-organic protein feed to pigs or poultry under OS regulation 84(5).

Record-keeping and traceability, generally category 3. Failing to keep records showing products comply with the Organic Standards Regulations, or failing to retain them for the required period. MPI's stated reason for pricing these higher is that record keeping is such an important part of the organic regulatory system, which is the correct instinct.

Regulatory system integrity, generally category 5. Requirements that keep verification independent and recognised entities operating properly. MPI proposes that second and third offences here either escalate to the District Court or trigger a review of the verifier's recognition status.

Read that list again and notice what it is. Every one of those offences is committed by someone already inside the system: an approved operator, a verifier, a recognised entity. These are the failures of the disorganised, not the dishonest.

The penalties that actually cover false organic claims

This is the correction worth making loudly, because it changes what a submission on this section should say.

If someone sells product described as organic that does not comply, or trades as organic without being approved at all, they are not looking at a $400 infringement fee. They are looking at the offence provisions in the Act:

• Section 106, breach of section 11(1), selling or marketing a non-compliant product described as organic: up to $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a body corporate.
• Section 107, breach of section 15(1) or 15(3), marketing as organic without being approved as an operator: up to $20,000 for an individual and $100,000 for a body corporate.
• Section 102, deception for material benefit: up to $200,000 for an individual and $600,000 for a body corporate.

The Fair Trading Act 1986 sits alongside all of that, currently at $200,000 and $600,000. The Fair Trading Amendment Bill introduced on 13 May 2026 would raise those maxima substantially. It is before the Finance and Expenditure Committee, submissions closed on 16 July 2026, and it is not enacted. Do not cite it as though it were.

So the penalties for the conduct people actually worry about are not small. On paper, New Zealand's organic regime will be adequately armed.

The question nobody is asking

Deterrence is the penalty multiplied by the probability that it is applied. The Act's penalties are the first term and they are fine. The second term is where the regime is thin, and this discussion document does not address it at all.

Nothing in the four proposals sets out how a false organic claim is detected in the first place. The infringement offences apply to people already inside the system, who are already visible, already verified, and already the least likely part of the market to be a problem. Someone selling as organic without ever having been approved does not fail to file a record, because there is no record to fail to file. They are outside the system, and the system's tools all point inward.

That is not an argument against infringement notices. Proportionate enforcement for minor administrative breaches is sensible, and it is better than the alternative of guidance alone or prosecution for everything. It is an argument that the sector should ask, in its submissions, what the detection pathway for section 106 and section 107 offences is and what resourcing sits behind it. Question 7 asks whether infringement notices are an appropriate response to minor non-compliance. The honest answer is yes, and that this is not the part of the regime that decides whether an organic claim in New Zealand means anything.

Two things to raise under questions 8 and 9

A pricing inconsistency. Sections 2.7.1 to 2.7.3 of the discussion document describe the categories using natural-person fees: category 1 as $100, category 2 as $200, category 3 as $300. Appendix 1 then prices every corresponding entry in the business column: $200, $400, $600. Both are internally consistent within themselves, but a reader moving between the narrative and the appendix will draw the wrong conclusion about what a business would pay. Worth flagging so it is fixed before the regulations are drafted.

A notification asymmetry. Failing to notify a product recall within 24 hours, under OPP regulation 47, is proposed at category 2. Some export-related notification failures are proposed at category 5. A recall is the event most directly connected to consumer harm. If the asymmetry is deliberate, MPI should explain it. If it is not, one of the two should move.

If you are comparing fees between offences in Appendix 1, check which column each one is priced in before concluding the gap is unfair. Argue the category, not the dollar figure.

Submissions close 11:59pm, 22 September 2026.