Glyphosate in Honey Test Results — Batch 4

Our fourth round of honey testing continues to reveal the variability of glyphosate residues in New Zealand honey.

Once again, the results show that glyphosate contamination isn’t uniform — it depends on location, floral source, and surrounding land use.

All samples were tested for glyphosate, its breakdown product AMPA, and the related herbicide glufosinate. Only glyphosate was detected — and even then, not in every sample.

Batch 4 Test Results

All five samples were independently tested on September 17, 2025, by Hill Laboratories. The glyphosate detection limit was 0.002 mg/kg (2.0 ppb).

What Does This Tell Us?

Four out of five samples contained detectable glyphosate residues.
Only one — Hunt & Gather Bee Co. Kānuka Honey — tested below the trace detection limit (<2 ppb).

The standout result is Wrights Honey Mānuka (Kerikeri) at 146.7 ppb — the highest glyphosate level we’ve seen across all our honey testing to date, and above New Zealand’s legal limit for honey (0.1 mg/kg / 100 ppb).

Other honeys — Hantz, Pams, and Rare New Zealand — returned results ranging from 4.9 to 19.9 ppb. While well below the legal limit, these results confirm that glyphosate is common even in honeys marketed as “natural” and “pure.”

For a product promoted as health-giving, the presence of glyphosate — whether in trace amounts or at legally non-compliant levels — poses a contradiction for consumers.

Brand Profiles

Hantz Honey Creamy Clover — 14.8 ppb

Hantz Honey positions itself as a traditional New Zealand honey brand with clover varieties that appeal to everyday households. This batch tested at ~15 ppb — well below New Zealand’s current Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for honey of 0.1 mg/kg (100 ppb). While a relatively low result compared to others, it still demonstrates that glyphosate residues are present in products marketed as natural and pure.

Pams Creamed Clover Honey — 19.9 ppb

As a supermarket own-brand, Pams is one of the most affordable honeys on the shelf. This batch tested at just under 20 ppb. While safely below the 0.1 mg/kg MRL, it shows that even budget and everyday staple honeys are not free from glyphosate contamination. For families who rely on products like Pams, transparency around residues is an important part of trust.

Rare New Zealand Clover Honey — 4.9 ppb

Rare New Zealand Clover Honey produced the lowest detectable result in this round at just under 5 ppb. This is well below the MRL and a fraction of what we’ve seen in other brands. Whether due to location, sourcing, or seasonal factors, it shows that cleaner honey is possible. Still, even at low levels, glyphosate residues are making their way into jars sold as “pure” New Zealand honey.

Wrights Honey Mānuka (Kerikeri) — 146.7 ppb

Wrights promotes its honey as raw, eco-friendly, and high in pollen count, emphasising natural purity and minimal processing. Yet, this is the second time Wrights Mānuka has tested at the very top end of glyphosate residues in our independent testing.

• Batch 3: 0.1199 mg/kg (119.9 ppb)
• Batch 4: 0.1467 mg/kg (146.7 ppb)

Both results exceed New Zealand’s legal MRL of 0.1 mg/kg for honey. The consistency of these elevated findings raises serious questions. Is it the hive location around Kerikeri, nearby land use and spraying practices, or other environmental factors that are exposing the bees?

For a premium honey marketed on purity, the mismatch between branding and residue levels is stark.

Hunt & Gather Bee Co. Kānuka Honey — non-detect (<2 ppb)

Hunt & Gather’s Kānuka honey returned the cleanest result in this batch, with glyphosate measured below the detection limit of 0.002 mg/kg (2 ppb). This is effectively a non-detect result — an excellent outcome and an encouraging sign that residue-free honey is still possible in New Zealand.

At the same time, a single test is not the full story. Just as two high results from Wrights suggest a pattern worth further attention, one clean result from Hunt & Gather does not guarantee every batch will always be the same. Repeat testing is essential to understand the true picture.

A Note on Fairness in Testing

These tests are not about targeting any one brand or producer. Our goal is to build a clear, independent picture of how glyphosate shows up across New Zealand’s food supply.

If we haven’t tested your honey yet, that doesn’t mean we won’t — our intention is to cover as many producers and brands as possible over time. And if we’ve tested a brand before, that doesn’t mean we won’t test it again. Each batch is different, and even within the same product line, results can vary depending on season, location, and surrounding land use.

That’s why repeat testing is important: it helps show whether a result is a one-off or part of a consistent pattern. For example, Wrights Honey has now returned two very high results in a row, suggesting an ongoing issue, while Hunt & Gather Bee Co. produced a non-detect result in this round — an excellent outcome, but also one worth confirming through future testing.

By continuing to test across a wide range of producers, brands, and batches, we aim to give consumers, beekeepers, and retailers the transparency that is currently missing from the system.

Producer Responses

All honey producers and brand owners whose products we tested were given the opportunity to review these results and provide a comment.

At the time of publication, no substantive responses had been received. A couple of producers acknowledged our email with standard “Thank you for contacting us…” replies, but none addressed the test findings directly.

As always, we remain open to publishing producer statements in full, in part, or not at all — depending on their preference.

Where This Leaves Us

Across four batches of honey, a clear pattern is emerging: glyphosate is in New Zealand honey. Sometimes only in trace amounts, sometimes in levels that exceed legal limits.

Premium branding, floral source, or price point don’t guarantee freedom from contamination. For consumers, it’s essentially a lottery — one jar may be almost clean, another could be 70 times higher.

Independent testing is the only way to reveal this hidden variation. Until glyphosate is phased out or better safeguards are in place, honey lovers are left with an uncomfortable truth: the purity of New Zealand honey can no longer be taken for granted.

Like What We’re Doing?

Independent food testing is costly to carry out. If you value transparent, evidence-based work that asks the questions others often don’t, your support helps us continue.

Help Fund the Next Tests

We’re preparing for another round of testing, and every contribution brings us closer to providing the independent answers New Zealanders deserve.

>>> Donate here <<<

Related No More Glyphosate NZ Test Results

Every new round of testing adds to the picture of how glyphosate shows up in our food supply. Results vary widely — sometimes residues are barely detectable, other times they exceed New Zealand’s legal limits. That variation is exactly why independent testing is so important.

One batch on its own doesn’t tell the whole story. By testing across different products, brands, and seasons, we can see patterns emerge — whether it’s consistently high results, reassuringly low ones, or unexpected spikes that deserve closer attention.

Together, these results highlight both the gaps in official monitoring and the value of building an independent evidence base that New Zealanders can trust.

Glyphosate in Honey — First Test Results
Our very first round of honey testing revealed glyphosate residues in popular retail jars, proving contamination had made its way into a product marketed as natural and pure.

Glyphosate in Honey — Test Results: Batch 2
A follow-up round confirmed the trend, with several well-known brands again showing detectable residues — highlighting the persistence of glyphosate in New Zealand’s food chain.

Glyphosate in Honey — Test Results: Batch 3
Our latest round of honey testing is underway, with results due shortly. This will provide an updated snapshot of glyphosate contamination in one of New Zealand’s most valued exports.

Weet-Bix Glyphosate Test Results
Testing of Sanitarium Weet-Bix found glyphosate residues, raising questions about one of New Zealand’s most iconic breakfast foods and its place in children’s daily diets.

Glyphosate in Breakfast Cereals
Independent testing of a range of cereals showed residues across multiple brands, confirming that glyphosate exposure is not limited to a single product.

Supermarket Bread Glyphosate Test Results — Round One
Our first round of supermarket bread testing (August 2025) found no detectable glyphosate residues at the higher 0.05 mg/kg reporting limit, but raised the question of whether more sensitive testing would reveal traces missed the first time

Supermarket Bread Glyphosate Test Results — Round Two
Our second round of bread testing (September 2025) went deeper, using a lower reporting limit of 0.01 mg/kg. This time, three loaves tested clean, while two (Burgen Soy & Linseed and Vogels Mixed Grain) contained measurable glyphosate residues — proving that more sensitive testing can reveal what higher thresholds miss.

Related Reading & References

Here are further articles from No More Glyphosate NZ that explore why glyphosate shows up in honey, what it means for “healthy” honey claims, and how bees are affected:

How Does Glyphosate End Up in Honey Without Killing the Bees?
Explains how bee foraging, crop spraying, and contaminated landscapes lead to glyphosate showing up in honey.

Even the Beekeepers Know: Glyphosate Is Everywhere
Looks at the marketing of honey as pure and health-giving, and the contradiction posed by glyphosate residues.

Where Have All the Pollinators Gone? Glyphosate’s Impact on Bees
Summarises the research on how glyphosate affects bee navigation, gut health, and colony strength.