In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
That single word — probably — has carried enormous weight ever since.
It gave regulators and industry just enough wiggle room to downplay the risks. Instead of treating it as a blaring red flag, governments, including here in New Zealand, shrugged and carried on.
Meanwhile, juries in the United States have seen the evidence and drawn a different conclusion. Starting with Dwayne Lee Johnson’s landmark case, Bayer has paid out billions of dollars to people who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after glyphosate exposure. Courts have said what regulators will not: the link is real enough to warrant accountability.
But here in New Zealand? Those same red flags are being ignored. Not only is glyphosate still sprayed on our food crops, roadsides, and playgrounds, but our regulators are actively considering raising the allowable residue levels on wheat, oats, and barley by nearly 10,000%. If “probably carcinogenic” and billions in lawsuits aren’t enough to spark precautionary action, then what is?
Red Flags Ignored
When a chemical is suspected of causing cancer, most people would expect regulators to act quickly. Yet glyphosate has become the exception to that rule.
The first red flag came with the IARC classification. “Probably carcinogenic to humans” should have triggered a precautionary review, especially since New Zealand’s approval system already claims to weigh public health risks. Instead, officials leaned on assessments from other regulators that were friendlier to industry interests, dismissing the IARC’s independent stance.
The second red flag came in the form of courtroom verdicts. Beginning with Dwayne Lee Johnson’s case in California, where a jury concluded glyphosate contributed to his terminal cancer, Bayer has faced a cascade of lawsuits. Thousands of people, many of them agricultural workers and groundskeepers, have won or settled claims for non-Hodgkin lymphoma linked to glyphosate exposure. Bayer’s payouts now run into billions of dollars.
If regulators were truly watching out for us, those developments alone would have been enough to slam the brakes. Instead, the response has been silence — or worse, moves to make glyphosate even harder to avoid in our daily lives.
The Silence at Home
New Zealand is not some outlier of health and safety. We pride ourselves on being a “clean, green” food producer, yet our cancer statistics tell a different story. We have one of the highest rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in the world — the very disease at the centre of the Bayer lawsuits. That alone should raise alarm bells when considering the continued, widespread use of glyphosate-based weedkillers like Roundup.
And it doesn’t stop there. New Zealand also has some of the highest colorectal cancer rates globally, particularly among young Māori men. To date, regulators insist there is no proven link between glyphosate and colorectal cancer, but the question lingers: why are our numbers so extreme? Could long-term, low-level chemical exposure be playing a role? Or is the reluctance to even ask those questions part of the problem?
If other countries see enough red flags to take glyphosate to court, why do we pretend that nothing is happening here? At what point do cancer rates themselves become evidence that something is deeply wrong?
Delay Equals Harm
Courtrooms overseas have already weighed the evidence and forced Bayer to pay out billions. Regulators in Europe are tightening restrictions, and some countries are moving toward outright bans. Yet here in New Zealand, we carry on as though none of it applies to us.
At what stage do rising cancer rates and global red flags become enough to demand action here at home? A precautionary approach would mean introducing restrictions or bans on glyphosate-based weedkillers — at the very least in public spaces like schools, parks, and playgrounds. France and Germany are on that path already. Dozens of cities worldwide have followed suit.
New Zealand, however, is heading in the opposite direction: considering a 10,000% increase in allowable residues on our staple food crops. That isn’t precaution — it’s denial.
Where This Leaves New Zealand
The truth is, New Zealand cannot keep ignoring the red flags. Glyphosate has been called out by international cancer experts, it has cost Bayer billions in courtrooms, and our own cancer statistics raise serious, unanswered questions. Yet our regulators still act as though nothing is wrong — or worse, as though higher residue limits on food crops are somehow acceptable.
If our agencies won’t act on precaution, then the responsibility falls back on the public. Communities, schools, and councils can lead the way by demanding safer alternatives. Independent testing, like the work we’ve begun through No More Glyphosate NZ, shows that citizens are willing to hold industry and government accountable when they won’t do it themselves.
Other countries are already moving to restrict or phase out glyphosate. The question is whether New Zealand will remain a follower, clinging to outdated approvals, or finally step up and put health before chemical convenience. Because if “probably carcinogenic” and billions in lawsuits aren’t enough to trigger precaution, then what is?
Like What We’re Doing?
Exposing contradictions and asking tough questions takes time, research, and resources. If you value independent, evidence-driven work that isn’t afraid to challenge industry spin, we’d love your support.
Find out how you can help us keep going.
Together, we can make sure New Zealanders hear the full story about glyphosate.
Resources & References
The following resources shed light on why glyphosate remains one of the most hotly contested chemicals in the world. From international cancer classifications to billion-dollar lawsuits and New Zealand’s own troubling cancer statistics, the evidence points to questions we can no longer afford to dismiss.
IARC Monographs on Glyphosate (2015)
The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” That single word — probably — has allowed regulators to stall, but should it really?
Dewayne “Lee” Johnson v. Monsanto (2018)
A U.S. jury decided glyphosate contributed to Johnson’s terminal cancer, awarding damages in a landmark case. If juries can see the risks, why do regulators keep looking the other way?
Bayer’s Roundup Lawsuit Settlements
As of May 2025, Bayer/Monsanto has paid around $11 billion to resolve nearly 100,000 Roundup-related lawsuits. Doesn’t paying such sums signal uncertainty around glyphosate’s safety?
New Zealand Cancer Incidence Data [PDF]
According to GLOBOCAN 2022 data, colorectal cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in New Zealand, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma is also among the top five. If community exposure to chemicals like glyphosate isn’t part of the discussion, then what is missing?
Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer in New Zealand
Studies show a rising trend of colorectal cancer among younger Kiwis, particularly under 50. Factors such as modern diet, lifestyle, environmental toxins, and gut health are under investigation—but will glyphosate get a fair hearing?
Proposed amendments to the New Zealand Food Notice
MPI is consulting on raising glyphosate limits in our food crops by nearly 10,000%. With so many global red flags, why are we moving to increase exposure instead of reducing it?
Taken together, these references paint a clear picture: glyphosate isn’t just another farm input. It’s a chemical under global scrutiny, one tied to health risks that New Zealand can’t ignore forever. The real question is whether we’ll act before more damage is done — or only after the courtroom verdicts and cancer rates make it impossible to look away.
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 ellandar.
