When “Safe” Doesn’t Mean Harmless
In 2017, kids and teachers at a middle school in Hawaii began reporting unusual symptoms—throat irritation, dizziness, and a lingering chemical odor. Their classrooms backed onto farmland. A later investigation confirmed that pesticides, including glyphosate, were present in both indoor and outdoor air samples.
Officials were quick to reassure the community: the levels were “below concerning thresholds.”
But here’s the question no one seemed to ask—what if the thresholds are part of the problem?
From Soil to Air to Us
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is often talked about as a soil-bound chemical. But in practice, it doesn’t always stay put. Spray drift is real, and under certain weather conditions, glyphosate can vaporize and travel through the air—sometimes settling where it doesn’t belong: in classrooms, homes, playgrounds.
What happened in Hawaii was not a one-off.
It was a warning.
And yet, despite air and surface contamination being confirmed, the response followed a familiar script: the detected levels were “within safe limits.”
Measuring Exposure, Not Just Assumptions
That’s where the 2018 review by Taioli et al. becomes so important. This peer-reviewed study did something regulators rarely do—it looked at actual biomonitoring data, meaning real levels of glyphosate found in the urine of real people.
It pulled together findings from 19 studies covering over 3,700 individuals, from farmers to everyday consumers. And the results were eye-opening:
- Glyphosate was consistently detectable in people who weren’t working with it directly.
- In general populations (including children), urinary glyphosate levels ranged from 0.16 to 7.6 µg/L.
- For those occupationally exposed, levels soared as high as 73.5 µg/L.
And most notably? The review documented a rising trend in exposure levels over time.
In short: people are absorbing glyphosate—not just in theory, but measurably. So why are we still pretending this is a non-issue?
Safe According to Whom?
Regulatory agencies often use phrases like “no risk at current exposure levels” or “within acceptable limits.” But limits are not immutable facts. They are policy choices—negotiated compromises between science, industry, and politics.
Thresholds are based on models, assumptions, and often outdated data. They don’t account for:
- Cumulative exposure (from food, water, air, and skin contact combined)
- Synergistic effects (glyphosate interacting with other chemicals)
- Sensitive populations (like children or pregnant women)
- Chronic low-level exposure over decades
Just because something falls “below the limit” doesn’t mean it’s harmless—especially when it accumulates in the body or environment over time.
Why This Matters for New Zealand
New Zealand does not conduct nationwide biomonitoring for glyphosate. There is no regular urine testing, no mandatory drift studies near schools or playgrounds, and limited air quality monitoring for pesticides.
Yet officials confidently claim that glyphosate residues in food, water, and air are “within safe limits.”
But how would we know?
If we’re not measuring, we’re guessing. And if the international data tells us anything, it’s that exposure is rising—even in people who’ve never picked up a spray wand.
We’re Not Waiting—We’re Testing
If the government won’t track glyphosate exposure in New Zealand, we will.
NoMoreGlyphosate.nz has launched an independent testing initiative to uncover where glyphosate is showing up—in our food, our water, and possibly even in our bodies. We’re starting with honey, one of nature’s purest foods, and expanding from there.
This isn’t just data collection. It’s accountability.
Look for the “Test Series” banners across the site to learn more, view results, and support future tests.
We can’t do this alone.
Your donation—no matter how small—helps fund lab tests that no one else is doing.
Help us expose the truth, one test at a time.
Final Thought
When a chemical designed to kill is routinely found in people who never chose to use it, we have a problem. And when we dismiss that problem by hiding behind “thresholds,” we’re not protecting public health—we’re protecting the illusion of safety.
It’s time New Zealand stopped relying on outdated reassurance and started asking better questions. Because:
being below the threshold doesn’t mean we’re out of danger.
Resources & References
Human Exposure Review
Taioli E. et al. (2018). The evidence of human exposure to glyphosate: a review. Environmental Health.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28934654/
— A foundational review of biomonitoring data showing glyphosate is now detectable in most populations studied.
Book Recommendation
Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science
Ny Carey Gillam
— Investigates the regulatory and industry narrative that keeps glyphosate looking “safe” despite growing evidence to the contrary.
Related articles on NoMoreGlyphosate.nz
MPI’s Missing Data: Why We Can’t Trust the Glyphosate Reassurance
MPI claims glyphosate levels in New Zealand food are safe—but recent admissions reveal a worrying lack of updated testing. This article explores how regulatory reassurance may be built on outdated or missing data.
Read more
Why Raising MRLs Threatens Public Health
New Zealand is proposing to increase the allowable glyphosate residue limits on some food crops. This article unpacks why even “small” changes in MRLs matter—and how they could put long-term health at risk.
Read more
Glyphosate in Waterways: A Contamination Crisis
From streams to storm drains, glyphosate is increasingly being detected in aquatic ecosystems. This piece explores the science behind water contamination—and why it’s a red flag for both human and environmental health.
Read more
Image Source & Attribution
A big thank you to the creators at Unsplash for making their images freely available for projects like ours. Luke Brugger created the image featured on this page. You can explore more of their work here: https://unsplash.com/@lukebrugger.
