In July 2025, we submitted a straightforward question to the Ministry for the Environment.
Two, actually.
We weren’t trying to trip anyone up. We weren’t asking for secret files or some long-forgotten study. Just a basic check-in. Has anyone at the Ministry been thinking about glyphosate?
Here’s exactly what we asked under the Official Information Act:
1. Has the Ministry sought, received, or commissioned any independent expert advice over the past five years regarding glyphosate-based herbicides and their potential impacts on human health or the environment?
2. Has the Ministry considered or been briefed on any disproportionate impacts of glyphosate-based herbicide exposure on Māori, rural workers, or other more exposed or vulnerable communities?
Their answer?
No.
Not once.
Not a single report. No advice. No briefings. No emails. Nothing.
They pointed us to a single rat study dated June 2025, which someone else had sent recently. That’s it.
Meanwhile… The Rest of the World Is Asking Questions
Since 2015, when the World Health Organization’s cancer agency declared glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen,” the rest of the world has been doing exactly what our Ministry hasn’t: asking tough questions.
France, Austria, Germany, Mexico? They’ve all moved to restrict or phase out glyphosate.
Lawsuits in the U.S. have linked glyphosate to cancer — and cost Bayer billions.
New research keeps raising flags — about soil health, gut bacteria, hormone disruption, and more.
So what’s New Zealand doing?
Nothing.
Not even looking.
Isn’t This Literally Their Job?
The Ministry for the Environment is supposed to look after — well — the environment. You’d think that would include keeping an eye on the country’s most widely used herbicide. The one sprayed on food crops, school fields, council parks, roadside ditches, and even around waterways.
But no. When it comes to glyphosate, they’ve done zero homework. They haven’t even checked if the people most exposed — like rural workers, children playing in sprayed parks, or Māori living near farmland — might be facing higher risks.
Apparently, that’s someone else’s problem.
How Does That Even Happen?
Let’s be honest — this isn’t just a missed memo.
It’s not that they looked and didn’t find anything.
It’s not that they tried and hit a wall.
It’s that they didn’t even ask.
No questions. No experts. No reviews. No plans.
It’s hard not to wonder: Is that by accident — or by design?
Because if you don’t go looking for a problem, you never have to deal with what you might find.
Haven’t We Been Here Before?
This isn’t new.
We’ve heard the same reassurances before:
“It’s safe when used properly.”
“There’s no proven harm.”
“The science isn’t settled.”
And over and over again, we’ve paid the price for waiting too long to act:
Tobacco
Asbestos
Lead in petrol
DDT
Thalidomide
PFAS (“Forever chemicals”)
Radiation exposure
Agent Orange (2,4-D + 2,4,5-T)
2,4,5-T (Half of Agent Orange)
Glyphosate’s Cousin — Atrazine
PCBs (Polychlorinated Biphenyls)
Mercury in Medicine and Industry
BPA (Bisphenol A)
Vioxx
Talcum Powder Containing Asbestos
Chlorpyrifos
Formaldehyde in Building Materials
Every one of these was once sold as safe.
Every one came with government assurances.
And every one ended in harm — sometimes catastrophic.
So here’s the real question:
Why are we still treating glyphosate like this time will be different?
What Happens When No One’s Watching?
When no one asks questions, the risks go unnoticed.
When no one’s looking, nothing gets challenged.
And when a government agency charged with environmental protection won’t even investigate a chemical used on our food and in our soil — what does that say about their priorities?
This isn’t just a paperwork problem.
It’s a trust problem.
Stewardship in Name Only?
According to the Ministry for the Environment’s own website, they’re committed to:
“Proactively identifying and addressing risks in the regulatory system…”
“Monitoring the performance of regulatory systems to ensure they are effective, efficient, and fit for purpose…”
“Protecting current and future generations.”
That’s their public promise.
But when it comes to glyphosate — one of the most widely used and hotly debated chemicals in New Zealand — the story doesn’t match the slogan.
No expert advice sought in over five years.
No internal briefings.
No consideration for those most at risk.
Stewardship, it seems, is easier to claim than to carry out.
Final Thought
We’re not conspiracy theorists.
We’re not demanding panic.
We’re just asking for something really basic: independent advice. Transparent decisions. Actual oversight.
And we’re not getting it.
So if the Ministry for the Environment won’t ask the questions, we will.
And we’ll keep asking until someone starts listening.
Resources & References
We’re not the first to ask questions — and we won’t be the last.
From groundbreaking books to official documents and overlooked studies, the resources below offer a deeper look at the patterns we keep repeating: corporate influence, regulatory silence, and the high cost of waiting too long to act.
Study cited by the Ministry:
Carcinogenic effects of long-term exposure from prenatal life to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides in Sprague–Dawley rats
This is the only document the Ministry mentioned — a rodent study someone else had sent them.
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-025-01187-2
Also on NoMoreGlyphosate.nz:
Raising MRLs: Why It’s a Public Health Risk
New Zealand is proposing to raise allowable glyphosate levels in food — but at what cost?
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/raising-mrls-public-health-risk
If New Zealand Tested for Glyphosate, What Would They Find?
New Zealand regulators haven’t tested for glyphosate residues in nearly a decade. What might they discover if they actually looked?
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/if-new-zealand-tested-for-glyphosate
What Do Asbestos, Lead, Tobacco, and Glyphosate Have in Common?
History repeats itself when it comes to harmful substances. Once deemed safe—until overwhelming evidence proved otherwise. Could glyphosate be next?
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/asbestos-lead-tobacco-glyphosate-common
Suggested Books for This Article
Whiatewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science
Author: Carey Gillam
A deep dive into glyphosate, Monsanto, and the manipulation of science and regulation. A must-read for understanding how we got here — and why so few questions are being asked.
The following books are linked to Amazon.com for your convenience. If you decide to purchase through these links, we may earn a small commission — at no extra cost to you.
Poisoned Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA [amazon.com]
Author: E.G. Vallianatos
Written by a former EPA insider, this book exposes systemic regulatory failures and the deep ties between industry and environmental oversight.
Silent Spring [amaozon.com]
Author: Rachel Carson
The book that started the environmental movement. Still powerful and eerily relevant today, especially in how it exposes early denial and chemical industry pushback.
Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival? [amazon.com]
Authors: Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers
Focuses on endocrine disruptors like those found in many pesticides. A key work in understanding low-dose effects and chemical legacy.
Final word? The warning signs are always there — if someone’s willing to look.
These resources don’t just tell a story about glyphosate. They show us what happens when we stop asking questions — and who pays the price when we do.
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 maxkabakov.
