The first day of the High Court hearing over the EPA’s glyphosate decision has come and gone.
And if anyone hoped this case would shine a light on glyphosate’s risks or spark overdue regulatory action—they might be disappointed.
Because Day One made one thing very clear:
This case is not about glyphosate’s safety.
It’s about whether the EPA followed the law when it refused to reassess that safety.
And according to arguments heard in court, the EPA seems to believe that even if new scientific risks come to light—it has no duty to act unless it chooses to.
Let that sink in.
What the Court Heard on Day One
The Environmental Legal Initiative (ELI), which brought the case, laid out its central claim:
That the EPA ignored its legal obligations when it when it declined to reassess glyphosate in August 2021, despite widespread concern and emerging research.
ELI argues that the decision was legally flawed, irrational, and inconsistent with the EPA’s own duty to protect human health and the environment.
But the EPA’s legal team took a different approach.
According to ELI’s report from inside the courtroom, the EPA is arguing that it has no legal obligation to reassess a chemical—even when new risks become apparent—unless it decides to. It’s a discretionary power, they claim, not a duty.
In other words, even if the science changes, the EPA doesn’t have to.
Why That Should Concern Everyone
This case might be about glyphosate on paper, but what’s really being tested is the strength of New Zealand’s regulatory framework.
Because if a regulator can ignore new evidence of harm—simply because the law allows them to—then the public is left unprotected by design.
It raises urgent questions:
- What good is a regulator that won’t respond to evolving science?
- Why should public confidence be placed in decisions that never get revisited?
- And how many other chemicals could be hiding behind this same loophole?
Is This Regulatory Capture in Action?
When a regulator argues that it doesn’t have to reassess safety—even when risks increase—that’s not just bureaucratic defensiveness.
It borders on regulatory capture: a system where public institutions serve industry interests by doing less, not more.
And when it comes to something as widely used and heavily debated as glyphosate, that silence becomes policy.
This Isn’t Just About Glyphosate
We don’t need regulators who are only accountable when forced into a courtroom.
We need ones who respond to risk, adapt to science, and put public health first—by default, not by demand.
Day One of this court case didn’t tell us anything new about glyphosate. But it told us a great deal about the system that’s supposed to keep us safe from it.
What You Can Do
Help raise awareness:
– Share this update
– Follow the case at eli.org.nz
– Contact your MP and ask whether they support a reassessment of glyphosate
Resources & References
Environmental Legal Initiative – Day One Recap:
https://www.eli.org.nz/updates/glyphosate-hearing
A summary of what happened in court on the first day of the judicial review challenging the EPA’s decision.
Case Overview – ELI’s Judicial Review Against the EPA:
https://www.eli.org.nz/cases/glyphosate
Full background on the legal challenge, including key arguments, filings, and why this case matters.
Statement of Claim (PDF):
Glyphosate Statement of Claim – Full Legal Document
The official legal filing outlining the grounds for judicial review.
Original Article: Judicial Review Begins
EPA in Court: Landmark Case Over Glyphosate Decision Begins
Our first article explains the court case, what a judicial review is, and why it matters.
Disclaimer: NoMoreGlyphosate.nz is not affiliated with the Environmental Legal Initiative (ELI) or involved in this legal case in any way. We have no connection—formal or informal—with the legal team or proceedings.
However, we wholeheartedly support the effort to hold regulators accountable and believe this case is of significant public interest. Our goal is to inform, amplify, and stand with those demanding transparency and scientific integrity in chemical regulation.
Image Source & Attribution
A big thank you to the creators at Unsplash for making their images freely available for projects like ours. Getty Images created the image featured on this page. You can explore more of their work here: https://unsplash.com/@gettyimages.
