Following our recent flour testing, No More Glyphosate NZ independently tested two more wheat products—Edmonds Wheat Bran and Edmonds Wheat Germ. Both were purchased through normal retail channels and analysed by Hill Laboratories using LC-MS/MS. This article publishes the laboratory results in full, continuing our commitment to independent food testing and transparency.
Every time No More Glyphosate NZ publishes independent food testing results, one question comes up: who actually does the testing, and can they be trusted? This article explains why we use Hill Laboratories, what IANZ accreditation means, why LC-MS/MS is considered the gold standard for glyphosate analysis, and what laboratory results can—and cannot—tell us about glyphosate residues in New Zealand food.
Independent testing commissioned by No More Glyphosate NZ found low levels of glyphosate in two of five honey products tested. Three samples were below the laboratory reporting limit, while no AMPA or glufosinate was detected in any sample. The results highlight how independent testing helps reveal what is actually present in foods New Zealanders buy.
Flour has been one of the most requested foods in our independent testing programme. Four supermarket flour products were independently tested by Hill Laboratories for glyphosate, AMPA and glufosinate. Three samples returned non-detect glyphosate results, while one contained a measurable residue. This article presents the laboratory findings in full and explains what the results do—and do not—tell us.
Correlation doesn't equal causation" sounds like a rule of science. It isn't — it's a caveat, turned into a conversation-ending weapon by whoever's losing the argument. NMGNZ investigates who actually reaches for that phrase, and when, tracing the same pattern from the tobacco industry's decades-long denial of the smoking-cancer link to the glyphosate debate playing out today.
New Zealand's EPA still leans on a 2016 report built from three Monsanto-shaped reviews — one retracted for ghostwriting, two more under active investigation. One of them even repeats a fabricated claim about a viral infection. This isn't about who you trust. It's about what they were given to work with.
Roundup has been sprayed across New Zealand for fifty years without a single independent risk assessment of the product as it's actually formulated and sold. A 2008 legal paper on "man-made disease" — and a real compensation scheme in Denmark — suggest ACC's accident-vs-sickness divide may be leaving glyphosate-related illness with nowhere to go.
IARC has rated glyphosate "probably carcinogenic" since 2015 — the same rating given to red meat, talc and night shift work. Three prompted swift regulatory or compensatory action. Glyphosate got a $17 million industry campaign instead, and New Zealand's EPA has never reassessed it.
Canterbury has one of the highest Crohn's disease rates ever recorded anywhere on earth — and cases have nearly tripled since 2006. New Zealand has no dedicated research programme asking whether glyphosate exposure plays a role. This investigation examines the emerging science, the regulatory gaps, and the questions nobody is asking.
When Alan started reacting to certain foods with violent diarrhoea, he had no idea it would lead back to a mystery illness that began in a plastic greenhouse in 1991. Through years of careful observation — including a simple experiment swapping pork for beef — he pieced together a connection to glyphosate that changed the way he eats, shops, and grows his own food.
Seventeen independent scientists classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic. Over 100,000 people sued. Bayer paid billions. And in New Zealand, you can still buy it next to your groceries — with no warning on the label. The precautionary principle was built to prevent exactly this. So what happened to it?
Two of the world's most authoritative scientific bodies examined the same evidence on glyphosate — and reached opposite conclusions. One decade, US$18 billion in litigation, a court-rejected EPA assessment, and a trade agreement that lets food exceed New Zealand's own residue limits onto our supermarket shelves later, the question of who is actually being protected — and from what — deserves a straight answer.
You can buy glyphosate-based weedkillers at your local New Zealand supermarket. No cancer warning on the label. The EPA says it's safe — but a US court vacated that very finding, Bayer has paid billions to settle lawsuits, and New Zealand's own reassessment was declined. Here's why the chemical stays on the shelf regardless.
Over a million New Zealanders may be living with fatty liver disease without knowing it. Peer-reviewed research is now linking glyphosate — the world's most widely used herbicide — to its rise. Children near agricultural areas are among the most vulnerable. This investigation explores the evidence, the mechanisms, and what New Zealand isn't yet measuring.
On June 25, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favour of Monsanto, blocking cancer liability claims from thousands of Roundup users. The ruling cites international regulatory consensus — including New Zealand's. No More Glyphosate NZ asks what that consensus is actually worth, and whether our regulators are paying attention.
A landmark scientific review has confirmed that gut microbes act as gatekeepers of oestrogen metabolism — and that disrupting them may contribute to hormone-driven cancers. No More Glyphosate NZ asks the question the researchers didn't: what role might glyphosate, a patented antimicrobial present in our daily food supply, be playing in that disruption?
Regulatory approvals are snapshots in time — but science never stops moving. As the US Supreme Court's Roundup ruling places chemical safety decisions firmly in regulators' hands, the question becomes: how quickly do those regulators respond when the evidence changes? Canada's new continuous oversight model for glyphosate offers one answer. New Zealand should be asking the same questions.
A US Supreme Court ruling has limited Roundup cancer warning lawsuits against Monsanto. While the decision does not change New Zealand law, it raises important questions about glyphosate regulation, scientific evidence, and public accountability here.
Celiac disease has risen nearly tenfold in New Zealand over three decades. Genetics cannot explain it. But emerging research points to a specific biological mechanism: glyphosate may be depleting the gut bacteria — called Rothia — that break down gluten before it can trigger an immune response. The question is whether anyone in authority is paying attention.
