On 19 June, we wrote to the Minister of Health with a simple question:
Why is there no public process or facility in New Zealand to test human urine for glyphosate?
Today, we received a reply. And it confirms what we feared — not only is there no way to get tested, but there are no plans to change that.
“The urine test is not readily available in New Zealand… The Ministry of Health does not routinely undertake population level biomarker surveys and is not currently exploring options to review public access to glyphosate testing.”
So yes — you read that correctly.
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in New Zealand. It’s sprayed on food crops, roadsides, school fields, playgrounds, and council land. It’s been detected in our honey, in our cereals, and possibly even in breast milk. And yet — no testing. No tracking. No data.
And apparently, no interest in collecting any.
One recent case involving Auckland Council highlights just how vulnerable the public can be to unmonitored glyphosate spraying — and how few protections are in place when exposure occurs.
The Half-Life Excuse: Convenient, But Misleading
The Ministry’s letter offers a justification. Glyphosate, they say, has a short half-life in urine (about nine hours), so testing would only show recent exposure — not long-term accumulation.
But that’s not a reason to avoid testing. That’s a reason to start.
Yes, glyphosate clears from the body quickly. But that doesn’t make testing pointless. If someone is exposed regularly — through food, water, or the environment — glyphosate will keep showing up in their urine. And that’s exactly what researchers overseas are finding.
So no, urine testing doesn’t measure lifetime accumulation. But it does reveal patterns of ongoing exposure — especially when you test large groups of people over time.
That’s the entire point of biomonitoring: to understand how often people are being exposed and how widespread that exposure is.
It’s how countries like the U.S., Canada, and members of the EU have found glyphosate in 70%, 80%, even 90% of people tested — including many who live in urban areas, nowhere near active spraying.
In fact, New Zealand has already been included in such a study. A 2022 peer-reviewed paper measured glyphosate in pooled urine samples from the general population in Australia and a group of New Zealand farmers. It found glyphosate in 8% of general population samples — and in a staggering 96% of New Zealand farmers. The study used the exact same method our Ministry has dismissed as not useful. It worked just fine.
So when the Ministry uses half-life as an excuse to avoid testing, it’s hard not to hear it as something else entirely: a reason not to know.
Maybe it’s not deliberate. Maybe the people replying to us believe what they’ve been told. But when a chemical is this widely used — and this controversial — refusing to test feels less like science and more like institutional denial.
We’re not here to speculate. We’re here to ask fair, evidence-based questions — and expect honest answers.
We’re not demanding alarmism. We’re asking for access.
And we’re not claiming glyphosate is in everyone’s body — we’re asking why nobody’s looking.
The Ministry says it doesn’t routinely carry out population-level biomarker surveys. That’s concerning in itself.
But what’s worse is that there’s no alternative route — no way for individuals to access testing even if they want to. Not through the public health system. Not through regional health providers. Nothing.
We explored this in detail in our article on why glyphosate urine testing remains out of reach in New Zealand. And the answer, frustratingly, isn’t that testing doesn’t exist — it’s that no one in authority seems willing to provide it.
What We’re Up Against
The Ministry’s reply follows a familiar script:
- “The test exists — but it’s not useful.”
- “Other regulators say glyphosate is safe — so we’re not concerned.”
- “You can read more on the EPA website.”
It’s the same pattern we’ve seen before: shift the responsibility, downplay the concern, and hope the public quietly moves on.
But we’re not moving on.
We’ve started testing the food. We’re getting results. And the more we test, the more questions we have. If glyphosate is turning up in honey, in cereal, and potentially in other common products — shouldn’t we want to know what’s showing up in us?
Final Thought
If the government won’t look — we will.
If the system won’t test — we’ll find ways to fund it ourselves.
And if the people in charge won’t ask the hard questions — we’ll ask them out loud, until they can’t be ignored.
Because “no evidence of harm” isn’t the same as evidence of no harm.
And you can’t find what you’re not even looking for.
And those already exposed? Many are left behind. You can read more about the forgotten victims of glyphosate exposure — workers, contractors, and everyday people who have been left without answers or support.
Resources & References
We’re told there’s no need to test — but other countries are doing it, and the data is clear. So what exactly is New Zealand afraid to find?
Human Biomonitoring for Glyphosate – Global Studies
Examples of peer-reviewed studies detecting glyphosate in population samples, including urban dwellers:
US CDC NHANES Biomonitoring Program
A large-scale government study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found glyphosate in 80% of urine samples collected from adults and children across the country — including people with no occupational exposure.
CDC Feature: Diet Is a Factor in Glyphosate Exposure
The CDC explains how diet plays a key role in glyphosate detection, reinforcing that exposure is not limited to agricultural workers.
European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (HBM4EU)
The EU-wide HBM4EU project tested urine from adults and children in several countries. While median detections were low, the 95th percentile values ranged from 0.18 to 1.03 μg/L, confirming widespread exposure
Australia/New Zealand Urine Study (2022)
A study analyzing pooled urine samples from the Australian general population (covering over 1,875 people) detected glyphosate in 8% of pools, with notably higher detection rates (96%) among New Zealand farmers.
Related articles on NoMoreGlyphosate.nz
Glyphosate in NZ Honey: Our First Test Results
Our independent testing found glyphosate in multiple retail honey samples, raising serious questions about environmental contamination.
Glyphosate in Breakfast Cereal: What We Found
One of the most popular cereal brands in NZ tested positive for glyphosate — despite no label warnings and a “natural” marketing image.
Glyphosate in Breast Milk? Why It Matters
With no testing system in place, we’re left guessing whether glyphosate is entering the bodies of our most vulnerable.
Final Reflection:
When other countries are finding glyphosate in urine samples from ordinary citizens — and we’re not even looking — that’s not just a gap in data. It’s a gap in leadership.
Image Source & Attribution
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by anyaivanova@gmail.com.
