Iconic Jaffas to be discontinued for good after decline in sales
Supplied
Iconic kiwi sweet treat Jaffas is being discontinued indefinitely and will no longer be available on any New Zealand shelves.
Jaffas' parent company RJ's Confectionery told RNZ the decision to stop manufacturing the lolly was "due to declining sales".
"We know this will be disappointing news for many Kiwis and loyal Jaffas fans around New Zealand.
"Many of us have grown up enjoying the classic flavour combo of the crispy orange shell and smooth chocolate centre.
"However, there have sadly not been enough people buying Jaffas in recent times to support its continued ranging on shelves," a company spokesperson said.
While held dear to many kiwis, Jaffas was originally produced in 1931 by James Stedman-Henderson's Sweets Ltd in Australia.
But the lolly is so iconic here in New Zealand, there was even an annual Jaffas race down the steepest street in the world - Baldwin Street Dunedin.
RJ's Confectionery said it was sad to the iconic treat go.
"While it is extremely tough for us to say goodbye to Jaffas, we are committed to continuing to innovate across our extensive RJ's range with delicious new products to excite and delight consumers".
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
Kainga Ora cuts new developments as the housing crisis escalates
In Onehunga, Auckland, the site where a 186-apartment Kainga Ora development was planned now sits empty, after tenants of the previous building moved out and the new project was cancelled. Photo: Sharon Brettkelly New Zealand is short tens of thousands of social houses, and billions of dollars to fund them, while the numbers of "stressed" renters is growing, but a community housing leader says we can still fix the crisis that has dragged on for decades. "I actually believe as New Zealanders if we put our minds to this and we make some different choices we can absolutely solve this housing crisis," says Community Housing Aotearoa chief executive Paul Gilberd. But it will not happen overnight, and as demand grows he warns that overall investment in new social housing is falling. The "magic thing" that unlocks the ability to build the houses at scale is government funding of the community housing sector, he says. "If the government is willing to turn that dial up, we can as a sector walking alongside Kainga Ora, deliver the things that I think New Zealanders want in terms of the vision of the sort of country they live in," he says. Gilberd has worked in the sector for decades and in his current role oversees 100 community housing providers (CHPs) that run more than 30,000 homes. He says Kainga Ora's announcement last month that it has cancelled plans to build nearly 3500 new homes around the country and is capping the numbers of state-owned homes it provides at 78,000 is a reflection of a government that sees itself in a diminished role in commissioning new affordable housing, while backing the CHPs to fill the gap. He is telling his members to find partners such as church groups and local councils to deliver as many affordable homes as they can. The new Community Housing Funding Agency is a step in the right direction to finding the tens of billions of dollars needed to build more than 20,000 extra homes, he says, but it falls short of similar agencies in other countries which have the gold standard full government guarantee. "Then it becomes a gamechanger because it reduces the risk to investors," he says. Jeremy, a neighbour of a cancelled Kainga Ora project in Onehunga, Auckland tells The Detail of the saga of the on/off development that went on for years before the final announcement last month. Jeremy and his wife bought their house in 2018, believing that they would be living next door to architecturally designed, state-owned apartments. "It's been an empty site for over a year now and that peace is lovely for us right now but it's not a long-term solution. The thing that I wonder about is how much of this development next door is now going to be completely piecemeal," he says. For Newsroom Pro managing editor Jonathan Milne, the development on Jordan Avenue is close to his heart, as an Onehunga resident and former local school board member. He says that the tenants who were moved out of the development for the rebuild were promised first dibs on the new apartments. When he tried to track down families who had lived there before it was demolished, they were nowhere to be found. "I spent days trying to find former tenants of Jordan Ave, I couldn't find any. No one knows where they've gone, no one knows their phone numbers anymore, they've just disappeared." He says the dramatic change at Kainga Ora is difficult for the tenants. "In all this discussion we've heard a lot about dollars and hectares and numbers of residences and square metres, but we haven't heard from the voices of the tenants." Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here . You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter .
Otago Daily Times
4 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
A masterclass in how to block progress
Dunedin is doing development all wrong, Lyndon Fairbairn writes. I was born and raised in Dunedin. I am a passionate Dunedite. I have travelled the world, lived overseas, and returned to raise my family here because I believe in this city. I'm a glass half full type of guy and Dunedin has a lot going for it; great people, a rich heritage, a strong sense of community and a great place to raise a family. But it's also facing some serious challenges, and many of them are of our own making. We're making headlines on housing for all the wrong reasons: cold, damp student flats that don't meet healthy home standards, doubling the development contribution rates that stifle progress, and a controversial soil removal policy that can cost developers up to $100,000 per site. Add to that a growing mountain of red tape, and it's no wonder people are questioning how committed our city really is to growth and progress. I have been involved in both international and New Zealand-wide property development for more than 25 years. I've seen what happens when councils embrace change: cities grow, homes are built, and people thrive. Unfortunately, Dunedin is falling behind. Once New Zealand's fourth-largest city, it's now often referred to as a regional centre and it shows. Housing is a fundamental human need. Yet Dunedin has some of the poorest quality housing stock in the country. Many homes are well past their use-by date, and in our cold climate that means people are living in cold, damp homes and therefore spending more on power, maintenance, and medical bills. We need new homes; warm, dry, and healthy homes. And we need more of them to meet the demands of a growing population. Here's the reality: building in Dunedin costs more than it does in other cities and much of this increased cost is due to excessive red tape. It's around $100,000 more expensive per build than in Christchurch. And because supply is so constrained, rents have surged. A two-bedroom townhouse in Christchurch currently rents for around $450 a week. In Dunedin, you'll pay $650 for a similar place. That's a huge gap. Imagine a tenant having an extra $200pw in their back pocket. Saving for a house deposit and or spending at cafes, restaurants and retail. What a boost. Look at Christchurch. They were hit hard by the earthquakes, but they stood up, faced the challenge, and rebuilt on a fault line, no less. Their housing supply, infrastructure, and city planning are back on point. It's now one of the most attractive places to live in New Zealand. Why? Because their council rolled up its sleeves and got to work. Meanwhile, here in Dunedin? It's been over 10 years since the South Dunedin floods, and we've barely touched the core infrastructure issues. Instead of investing, we've doubled down on fear, scaring off residents and developers alike. Our city has some of the lowest average incomes in the country, but some of the highest rents. The result? Young people pack up and leave the minute they graduate. We can't hold on to our own talent because we have cold, damp, expensive homes and make it too hard to live here. We're pricing people out and pushing our talented young people to cities with better opportunities and lower costs. We need a council that understands this bigger picture. Building and development creates jobs, supports small business, and brings in outside investment. Developers are being forced to remove soil at an enormous cost, up to $100,000 per site and the process requires both DCC and ORC consents. One developer has spent over $300,000 on soil removal on 4 or 5 homes. That's more red tape, more delays, and more projects stalled before they even begin. One councillor sitting across from me proudly claimed they were ''leading the industry''. That was the moment I knew the conversation was over. Because this isn't leadership, it's sabotage. Forcing homeowners and developers to spend up to $100,000 to remove soil that national health authorities deem safe isn't protecting Dunedin, it's decimating it. If the council truly believes this is a serious public health risk, then why aren't they treating it like one? Why haven't they issued a formal public health warning to all residents? And if they're so concerned about contamination, why isn't the council removing soil from its own properties, local sports fields, playgrounds, kerbs, and reserves? Almost all urban soils will contain some traces of lead. That's what happens after decades of using leaded petrol and lead-base paint: it is not unique to Dunedin. If we're going to treat every slightly elevated reading as a hazard, then we're talking about a city-wide remediation effort that could easily top $1 billion. And somehow, we're the only council in New Zealand who thinks this is the right way forward. The truth is, this appears to be a selective enforcement of policy, one that unfairly targets development, not public health. Is it only dangerous when a developer tries to build a home? Has there been any studies that link lead soil health issues to occupants of new-build homes? Or renovated extensions to a home? I think that's the underlying big question: Do we actually have a health issue here? The Ministry of Health doesn't think so. I've got a simple solution: pause the soil removal policy. Not tomorrow, not next year, but right now. Before another dollar is wasted or another project abandoned, let's take a breath and get some clarity. We need independent scientific advice to confirm whether there's truly a public health issue here. If there is, let's treat it seriously and apply it consistently across New Zealand and all properties not just new developments. Until we have that science and that clarity, this policy has no business holding our city back. In addition, the recent doubling of development contributions by the DCC means many projects in Dunedin are no longer economically viable. Developers are already looking elsewhere and have been invited by more forward-thinking councils who understand the long-term benefits of building. We have a government calling for the removal of red tape. Yet here in Dunedin, we're adding more hurdles. more compliance, more costs, more hoops to jump through and longer processing times. All in a city that desperately needs housing, jobs, and growth. It's frustrating, short-sighted, and frankly damaging. Without change, Dunedin risks falling further behind. The bottom line? Dunedin is making itself unattractive to invest in. The numbers don't stack up. The rules don't make sense. And the leadership is missing in action. We're not competing, we're retreating. There is still time to turn things around, but we need leadership that prioritises housing, cuts unnecessary barriers, and sees development not as a threat but as an opportunity for Dunedin's future. • Lyndon Fairbairn is a Dunedin developer.
1News
12 hours ago
- 1News
'Disappointing news': Jaffas discontinued by RJ's due to low sales
New Zealand confectionery company RJ's has confirmed it will no longer manufacture Jaffas, the iconic orange-coated chocolate sweets, citing declining sales. The Levin-based sweetmaker confirmed to 1News today that the treat had been pulled. "We are unfortunately unable to keep making Jaffas due to declining sales," a company representative said. "We know this will be disappointing news for many Kiwis and loyal Jaffas fans around New Zealand. Many of us have grown up enjoying the classic flavour combo of the crispy orange shell and smooth chocolate centre. "However, there have sadly not been enough people buying Jaffas in recent times to support its continued ranging on shelves." ADVERTISEMENT Jaffas, known for their distinctive orange shell, have been an iconic treat for years. The orange chocolate balls do not appear on the product page of the RJ's website. RJ's said it was "extremely tough" to say goodbye to Jaffas but emphasised the company continued to innovate. "We are committed to continuing to innovate across our extensive RJ's range with delicious new products to excite and delight consumers." RJ's took over manufacturing and production of Jaffas in 2018 after Mondelez International, then making Cadbury products, confirmed the closure of its Dunedin factory. The spherical treat had already been quietly removed from supermarket shelves across the ditch in 2023, also citing declining sales.
