A New Year for Freerange Living – Health, Choice and Common Sense
- Gary Moller
- 1 minute ago
- 12 min read
Here's your busy person summary
This article explains why New Zealand must stay vigilant after defeating the Therapeutic Products Act in December 2024. It also explains why nutrient regulation already hurts health, and why free choice, better nutrition, and civic courage are more important than ever.
Key points at a glance
We defeated the Therapeutic Products Act, but this fight is far from over
Nutrients are regulated as if they are drugs, despite an extremely low risk profile
Restrictions already exist, with iodine in kelp being a current example
RDA-level dosing maintains deficiency rather than restoring health
Restricting nutrients funnel people into drugs, polypharmacy, and lifelong medical dependency
Polypharmacy is one of the defining diseases of our time
The next major threat is the Gene Technology Bill
The antidote is vigilance, community action, and living like a freerange human being
New Year takeaway
Set modest, achievable goals. Build health, resilience, and connection. Walk the talk. Stay alert, but live well.
Gratitude is the word of the year.
Introduction
I want to slow down and explain what has just happened, what we have already done, and what needs our attention now.
This is not a victory lap. It is a reminder, a thank you, and a call to stay awake. We defeated the Therapeutic Products Act a little over a year ago. That was a fantastic victory, but we must not be complacent. Our opponents are powerful and cunning. They may have gone quiet, but they have not given up. Of that we can be sure.
The Therapeutic Products Act
The defeat of the Therapeutic Products Act was not accidental, and it was not inevitable. It was the result of sustained, principled resistance by people who understood exactly what was at stake and were prepared to act.
At its core, that legislation rested on a profound category error. Natural health products, vitamins, minerals, herbs, and whole-food supplements were being treated as if they were a sub-category of pharmaceutical medicines. That assumption is wrong.
Medicines are foreign agents designed to override physiology. Nutrients are inputs that human physiology requires to function, adapt, repair, and heal. Supplementation exists largely because modern soils, food processing, storage, and lifestyles no longer reliably provide what should have been there in the first place.
But there is another critical factor that has been almost entirely ignored. We are now living far longer than at any point in human history, while being exposed to an unprecedented chemical burden. Over the past 100 years, thousands of novel toxins have entered our environment, our food, our water, our air, and our homes. Pesticides, herbicides, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, plastics, solvents, combustion by-products, pharmaceutical residues, and endocrine disruptors were never part of the evolutionary landscape that shaped human biology.
We are poorly adapted to resist many of these exposures, especially over decades.
Longevity without nutritional resilience is not a gift. It is a stress test.
The longer we live, the greater the cumulative burden of oxidative stress, inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, endocrine disruption, immune dysregulation, and impaired detoxification. In that context, better nutrition is not optional. It is foundational.
To respond to longer lifespans and higher toxic loads by restricting access to meaningful nutrition is not protective. It is perverse.
An undeclared war on the natural
Since the early 1980s, we have been facing a slow but steady attack on everything natural. There has been no official acknowledgement, nor any recent open discussion, yet the campaign has continued without pause. We think we may have won, but the bell for the next round may sound at any moment.
Natural therapies have been pushed to the sidelines. Ancestral wisdom has been disregarded. Nutrients are now often labelled as "possible risks." Meanwhile, laws have steadily increased, and the supremacy of pharmaceuticals is accepted as the unquestioned rule. Each restriction is presented as minor, technical, or "for safety". But taken together, they form a clear pattern: the steady narrowing of what people are allowed to access outside the pharmaceutical model. The Therapeutic Products Act was simply the most obvious and aggressive expression of that trend.
What the legislation proposed
Versions of the Therapeutic Products Act proposed:
Severe restrictions on permitted ingredients and potencies
A default assumption of harm rather than benefit
Sweeping discretionary powers for regulators
Punitive penalties, including very large fines and potential jail terms
For practitioners and small suppliers, the signal was unmistakable. Even if you were ethical, careful, and evidence-based, a single regulatory action could trigger legal costs well north of $100,000.
In reality, it would rarely stop there. Investigations and enforcement actions can drag on for years. During that time, a practitioner may be unable to practise at all, or only under severe and commercially unviable restrictions. Products may be withdrawn. Accounts frozen. Insurance cancelled. Reputations quietly destroyed long before any finding is made.
By the time a case is resolved, even if the practitioner is ultimately vindicated, the damage is often irreversible. Income is gone. Professional standing is compromised. Families carry the stress. Justice delayed becomes justice denied.
This is how regulatory pressure works in practice. You do not need mass prosecutions to achieve compliance. The threat alone is enough to drive good people out of practice and enforce conformity through fear.
The kelp capsule problem — not hypothetical, already happening
It is important to understand that this is not just about what might happen under future legislation. We are already living with the consequences of this mindset. Ridiculous limitations already exist, with iodine in kelp being a present-day example.
A supplement as simple and traditional as kelp, a food humans have consumed for millennia, is already tightly constrained by iodine limits that bear little resemblance to real-world nutritional needs. Under current regulatory thinking, if the iodine content in a kelp capsule exceeds an extremely low upper limit, it may only be supplied or recommended under medical supervision.
A note on iodine safety, proportionality, and historical reality
It is important to be clear and fair here. Yes, iodine can be harmful if taken inappropriately and in excessive amounts. Acute overdosing and long-term excessive intake can disrupt thyroid function in susceptible people. No serious practitioner disputes that. Safety matters. But safety is not the same as extreme restriction. In New Zealand, the Recommended Dietary Allowance for iodine for adults is around 150 micrograms per day. This figure is often treated in regulation as if it were not only a daily target, but an implicit upper ceiling. It is not. The internationally recognised tolerable upper intake level for iodine in adults is approximately 1,100 micrograms per day, more than seven times the RDA. Even that upper level is designed to be conservative and protective across populations, not a toxic threshold. Yet under current regulatory thinking in New Zealand, supplements are often constrained to doses close to the RDA, sometimes only marginally above it. In practical terms, this means permitted iodine levels in kelp or iodine supplements can be hundreds of times below levels that are widely accepted as safe. This is not a safety margin. It is a straitjacket. To understand how disconnected this is from real-world human experience, it helps to look at history rather than theory. Before the widespread introduction of globalised, industrialised, and heavily processed foods, the traditional Japanese diet provided vastly higher iodine intakes than those seen in most Western populations today. Estimates vary, but conservative figures place traditional Japanese iodine intake in the range of 1,000 to 3,000 micrograms per day, largely from regular consumption of seaweeds such as kelp, wakame, and nori. That is many times higher than the New Zealand RDA. And yet, prior to dietary westernisation, the Japanese population was renowned for longevity, low rates of cardiovascular disease, and relatively low incidence of many chronic degenerative conditions. Thyroid disorders certainly existed, as they do in all populations, but they did not dominate public health. What changed was not iodine intake. What changed was diet. Refined sugars, industrial seed oils, ultra-processed foods, environmental toxins, and chronic metabolic stress entered the picture. Nutritional context shifted dramatically. This matters, because nutrients do not operate in isolation. The effects of iodine depend on selenium status, iron status, protein intake, overall thyroid health, toxic load, and metabolic resilience. Stripping iodine down to near-RDA trickles while ignoring the broader nutritional and toxic context is not intelligent safety. It is reductionism. To acknowledge that iodine can be harmful in excess is sensible. To use that fact to justify iodine limits that are hundreds of times below well-established safe upper levels is not. It reflects fear-driven regulation, not evidence-based public health. And when a whole food such as kelp is treated as a pharmacological threat rather than a nutrient-dense traditional food, it becomes clear just how far regulatory thinking has drifted from biological reality.
Kelp is not a synthetic drug. Not a novel compound. It is just dried seaweed in a capsule form. In effect, when an 'excess" is placed in a capsule, this would mean that a doctor would be required to prescribe kelp.
The only practical way around this, given that doctors will rarely, if ever, stray outside the approved medicines listed on the Pharmac database, is for manufacturers to reduce the amount of kelp in the capsule so that the iodine content falls below the imposed upper limit. The outcome is entirely predictable. The dosage is diluted to the point of near-irrelevance.
Note: The average doctor has only a few hours of formal nutrition training. Most of this training is about how drugs interact with nutrients, like fish oil and blood-thinning drugs.
The product may technically comply with the law, but it is no longer fit for purpose. The amount of iodine becomes so low as to be of little nutritional benefit, particularly for anyone starting from a depleted position, or for those who need more than a minimal intake to restore tissue reserves and normal thyroid function.
This shows another big mistake in the regulatory system: the misuse of the Recommended Daily Allowance. The RDA is not an optimal intake. It is the minimum amount required to prevent overt deficiency and maintain basic function from one day to the next. It was never designed to rebuild depleted stores, correct long-standing insufficiency, or support recovery from chronic stress, illness, ageing, or toxic exposure.
Many people need intakes above the RDA, sometimes for extended periods, to replenish reserves and restore normal physiological resilience. Simply replacing what is used in a single day does little or nothing to improve long-term health.
Laws that force nutrients down to RDA-level trickles do not protect the public. It quietly guarantees ongoing insufficiency. When meaningful nutritional doses are effectively removed from reach, the individual is left with only one remaining pathway: pharmaceutical drugs or synthetic, medically sanctioned substitutes offered through their doctor. At that point, the choice is no longer about restoring health. It is about managing decline.
Instead of rebuilding nutrient reserves, supporting detoxification, restoring endocrine balance, or strengthening physiological resilience, the person is funnelled into a system designed to suppress symptoms and compensate for failure. One prescription replaces another. Side effects are managed with further drugs. Nutrition is sidelined as irrelevant or "unproven".
The outcome is predictable. Lifelong dependency replaces recovery. This is not an accident. It is how the system is structured. A population that is nutritionally replete, resilient, and largely self-reliant is not profitable. The only profitable human within this model, is one who requires drugs and other medical interventions from the womb to the tomb. That may sound blunt, but it accurately describes the economic reality underpinning modern healthcare. Wellness is not a revenue stream. Chronic disease is.
The only profitable human within this model, is one who requires drugs and other medical interventions from the womb to the tomb.
Polypharmacy: the disease of our time
The end point of this pathway is what I now regard as one of the defining diseases of our age: polypharmacy.
Polypharmacy is the layering of many prescription drugs, often taken for many years or decades. Each drug is prescribed to treat a specific problem or the side effects of another drug. It has become so common that it is now normalised, particularly among older people, but increasingly among middle-aged adults and even younger populations.
Once meaningful nutrition is removed from the equation, decline accelerates. Blood pressure rises. Blood sugars creep upward. Sleep deteriorates. Mood flattens. Joints ache. Digestion falters. Each problem is treated in isolation, with a new prescription layered on top of the last.
Very few people are ever told that many of these conditions are strongly influenced by nutrient depletion, toxic burden, mitochondrial dysfunction, and chronic inflammation. Fewer still are supported to rebuild reserves and restore function. Instead, they are managed. Polypharmacy becomes self-perpetuating. Each additional drug increases metabolic burden, nutrient depletion, liver load, gut dysfunction, and interaction risk. The person becomes increasingly fragile, increasingly dependent, and increasingly distant from real recovery. I have written about this in detail here:https://www.garymoller.com/post/are-you-trapped-by-polypharmacy
Polypharmacy is not a failure of individual doctors. It is the logical outcome of a system that marginalises nutrition, restricts access to meaningful nutrient doses, and defaults to pharmaceutical intervention as the primary response to almost every deviation from "normal".
Risk, reality, and the facts that were avoided
One of the most frustrating aspects of this entire process was the refusal to honestly discuss risk.
Vitamins and minerals, used sensibly, have an extraordinarily low rate of serious harm. This is not ideology. It is an observable reality across many decades. When adverse events do occur, they almost always involve:
Gross misuse or extreme dosing without guidance
Poor manufacturing standards or contamination (extremely rare) — almost always, or entirely the contamination is with pharmaceutical drugs, it should be noted!
Incorrect labelling
Specific clinical contexts where interactions matter
Those risks are real and should be addressed. But they justify targeted laws focused on quality, purity, labelling, and truthful claims. They do not justify treating nutrients as if they carry the same risk profile as drugs.
Rolf Hefti: https://www.rolf-hefti.com/supplement-regulation.html has articulated clearly this contradiction. He points out that products with exceptional safety records are increasingly constrained, while far more dangerous medical interventions are treated as routine and unquestionable. He also highlights a pattern seen repeatedly overseas.
Let's face it — heavy-handed and complicated laws do not treat everyone, and every product evenly. They favour large corporate players who can afford compliance departments and lawyers. Smaller NZ producers, NZ practitioners, and companies with new ways of making and doing things are not squeezed out because they are unsafe, but because they are unable, unlike obedient dogs, to jump through all of the flaming hoops of the law to bring things to market.
The coroner story
There is a long-standing account within the natural health community that a Christchurch coroner once reviewed decades of death records about vitamin use and found only one associated death, a tragic case involving a child who choked on a vitamin pill. Importantly, that death was mechanical, not toxic. That's an important distinction.
When the most serious documented outcomes involve choking rather than biochemical harm, it tells us something fundamental about relative risk. Vitamins are not killing people through toxicity. Their risk profile is far closer to food than to medicine.
I have lost the article about the Christchurch coroner's report that documents the 50-year review. If any reader can locate the Christchurch coroner's review, or any similar official analysis of vitamin-related deaths in New Zealand, I would really appreciate receiving it.
Those who stood up, and why they deserve our thanks
This is where gratitude is due. I hear that word a lot these days. Gratitude might be the word for 2026 — just saying.
The Natural Health Alliance provided invaluable, principled, and brave leadership:https://www.naturalhealthalliance.co.nz/
The Hatchard Report, through Guy Hatchard’s work, stuck to the science, and brought clarity:https://hatchardreport.com/
NZDSOS and those connected with them defended bodily autonomy and democratic process:https://nzdsos.com/
And all the other groups and the many brave people who stood up and spoke up for common sense, decency, and fairness.
A battle won two years ago, vigilance still required
Yes, we defeated the Therapeutic Products Act. That was a significant win.
But regulatory ideas do not die. They retreat, regroup, and stealthily return under new names. We must not be complacent.
The most immediate challenge now facing New Zealand is the Gene Technology Bill:https://nzdsos.com/2025/02/13/new-zealand-gene-technology-bill-an-act-of-war/
This is a big problem, and once released into our pristine environment, genetic material cannot be taken back into the laboratory. It directly affects food quality, protecting the environment, our clean, green image, our personal freedom, and our long-term rights over our bodies. Since the public is overwhelmingly against any change, any threat to New Zealand's clean, green reputation will probably not be obvious. Instead, it will be done by stealth with small, gradual changes to rules that might seem small and easily ignored.
Think and behave like a free-range creature
As we move into this year, I want to leave you with something practical. Think and behave like a free-range creature, the opposite of a caged and fearful one. Set your goals for the New Year to be modest, gentle, and achievable:
Aim for a 10 percent improvement in fitness
Do some good works for your community
Take your children for walks in the forest
Help restore some native forest
Learn to swim
Grow a little of your own food
Say “hi” to strangers and smile
Walk the talk. Live in a way that quietly shows confidence and calm. Infect others with your positivity through example.
A New Year's wish
As this year begins, I wish you and your families excellent health and real well-being.
Good health is not granted by regulators or authorities. It is built quietly, day by day, through informed choices and personal responsibility.
Thank you to everyone who stood up for what is right and sensible — you are all heroes! Thank you for staying the distance. And thank you for remaining alert as we move forward.
Disclaimer:
You should not use the information on this site for diagnosis or treatment of any health problem or for prescription of any medication or other treatment. You should consult with a healthcare professional before starting any diet, exercise, or supplementation program, before taking any medication, or if you have or suspect you might have a health problem. You are solely responsible for doing your own research on any information provided. This information should not substitute professional advice. Individual results may vary. Database references herein are not all-inclusive. Getting well from reading or using the information contained herein is purely coincidental.