Honey carries a powerful image — nature’s sweet gift, bottled straight from the hive, untouched and unspoiled.
Consumers buy it expecting something pure, even medicinal. Yet our testing has shown that glyphosate, the world’s most widely used weedkiller, can turn up in this so-called “natural” product.
It’s an uncomfortable reality, and one that can put beekeepers in the firing line. But the truth is simple: honey producers don’t want pesticides anywhere near their hives. Some shift hives to remote sites in search of safety, others work in pollination contracts where exposure is unavoidable — either way, the risks follow them.
Meanwhile, corporate honey exporters have the resources to test every batch and even blend honey to dilute contamination before it leaves the country. The jars on local supermarket shelves carry the same “pure” branding, but consumers are rarely told about residues.
So where does that leave the everyday buyer? Promised purity, sold compromise. And it raises a bigger question: when contamination becomes normalised, who bears responsibility for protecting the trust between producers, regulators, and consumers?
Beekeepers on the Frontline
If anyone has the most to lose from pesticides, it’s the beekeeper. Glyphosate doesn’t just drift onto plants — it comes back to the hive on the legs and wings of foraging bees. And bees are fragile creatures. Too much exposure, and you risk both honey contamination and hive collapse.
Some go to great lengths to place hives deep in the bush, far from orchards or farms. Yet even remoteness doesn’t guarantee safety — residues have shown up where you’d least expect them.
Others rely on commercial pollination agreements, placing hives in orchards or alongside crops where pollination boosts yields. The arrangement makes financial sense, but it also puts bees in direct contact with glyphosate-based weed killers such as Roundup and others. So is the beekeeper complicit — or simply caught in a system that leaves little room for choice?
Most are just trying to keep their hives healthy and feed their families. The real question is whether the burden of responsibility should rest on them at all — or whether the system itself needs to be challenged.
The Corporate Honey Industry
At the other end of the scale sit the big players — corporate honey producers who operate with very different resources. They have the labs, the expertise, and the money to test every batch of honey that’s bound for export. And they have to. Overseas markets demand strict compliance with residue limits, and one contaminated shipment can mean reputational and financial disaster.
But here’s the uncomfortable part: what happens when a batch doesn’t make the cut? Some companies blend it with other honey to dilute residues below detection thresholds. Others may divert those “unsellable” exports back into the domestic market, where standards are often weaker and consumers are far less likely to ask tough questions.
On paper, this looks like smart business. In practice, it raises an ethical question: is the pursuit of shareholder profit being placed ahead of consumer trust, public health — or both? And if the corporate sector is so adept at protecting overseas buyers from residues, why shouldn’t New Zealand consumers expect the same level of protection at home?
The Consumer’s Expectation
Should the label read: May contain traces of pesticide?
Most people don’t buy honey with residue limits in mind. They buy it because it’s sold as pure, wholesome, even medicinal. The branding leans heavily on words like natural and 100% pure, tapping into a trust that honey is somehow different from other processed foods.
But what happens when that trust collides with reality? When independent testing shows glyphosate residues in products that are marketed as unadulterated? For the everyday consumer, the sense of betrayal runs deeper than just a label mismatch. It touches on health, on honesty, and on the right to know what’s really in the jar.
Here’s the rub: consumers aren’t asking for perfection. They’re asking for truth. If contamination is unavoidable in today’s environment, why isn’t that openly acknowledged? Why is the gap between marketing promises and measurable residues left for watchdog groups, campaigners, and independent testing to expose?
Extending the Lens Beyond Honey
This isn’t just a honey problem. The same dilemma plays out across our food system. Take crop farming. Pre-harvest spraying with glyphosate — known as desiccation — has become an accepted practice. It saves time, reduces labour, and makes harvests easier to manage. Convenient? Absolutely. But at what cost?
When a field of wheat or barley is treated with glyphosate-based weed killers such as Roundup shortly before harvest, residues don’t magically disappear. They end up in the flour, the bread, the cereals on supermarket shelves. Honey testing should have made headlines by now, but it hasn’t. And that silence only highlights how normalised chemical residues in food have become.
And that raises the uncomfortable question: should convenience, cost, and efficiency outweigh the human cost of eating food laced with weedkillers? Or are we simply normalising practices that trade short-term gains for long-term health consequences?
Responsibility Beyond the Farm Gate
Where should responsibility end? For too long, it’s been treated as though the farmer’s duty stops at the farm gate and the beekeeper’s at the hive. Once the crop is harvested or the honey is jarred, the rest is someone else’s problem. But is that really good enough?
The problem is that the health effects of pesticide residues don’t show up like spoiled food. There’s no sour taste, no sudden nausea, no trip to the emergency room. Instead, the impacts are hidden — subtle disruptions to the body that can take years to manifest as chronic illness. That invisibility makes it easy to ignore, but it doesn’t make it less real.
Producers know how their practices shape what ends up in the food chain. Regulators know the science, even when they frame residue limits as “acceptable.” And yet, the burden is quietly shifted onto consumers — expected to trust labels, absorb the risks, and live with consequences that only reveal themselves over time.
Shouldn’t responsibility extend beyond the farm gate to the kitchen table? Isn’t the point of food production to provide nourishment, not uncertainty?
The Role of Regulators
If beekeepers and farmers are on the frontlines, regulators are the referees — the ones who decide what counts as “safe” and what doesn’t. They set the residue limits, they decide what’s acceptable, and they tell the industry where the line is drawn.
And here’s the catch: as long as producers stay under those limits, they can say they’re legally compliant. They’re not breaking the law. They’re not doing anything “wrong.” A jar of honey or a loaf of bread with glyphosate traces can still be marketed as wholesome, because the regulator has already ruled those levels as acceptable.
But “legally compliant” doesn’t necessarily mean safe. It doesn’t mean healthy. It doesn’t even mean transparent. It just means the product has cleared a bar set by policy makers — a bar that often looks more like a compromise between industry pressure and consumer protection than a line drawn purely in the public interest.
So the real question becomes: when the rules themselves normalise chemical residues in food, are regulators protecting consumers — or protecting the system?
The Broken Social Contract
At its heart, food is built on trust. Consumers trust that what they’re buying is safe to eat. Producers trust regulators to set meaningful rules. Regulators are supposed to put public health above all else. That’s the unwritten social contract — the invisible agreement that holds the whole system together.
But glyphosate residues in honey, bread, cereals, and beyond show how fragile that contract has become. Beekeepers are caught in a system they can’t control. Farmers follow practices that regulators permit. Corporates play within the rules but put shareholder value first. And regulators reassure the public with “acceptable limits” that sound more scientific than they really are.
The result? A product labelled “pure” can still contain traces of a weedkiller. And everyone involved can claim they’ve done nothing wrong — because technically, they haven’t. Legally compliant, yes. Ethically sound? That’s another question altogether.
When the very safeguards designed to protect us are framed as trade-offs, the social contract is broken. And until it’s repaired — until health, honesty, and transparency are placed ahead of convenience and profit — consumers will keep paying the hidden price.
The Choice Before Us
None of this is about pointing fingers at individual beekeepers, farmers, or even producers trying to work within the rules they’ve been given. It’s about recognising that the system itself has drifted from its purpose. The social contract — the promise of safe, honest food — has been quietly rewritten in ways the public never agreed to.
Consumers are sold purity while regulators approve compromise. Producers shelter behind legal compliance while traces of weedkiller slip into everyday food. And the long-term health consequences remain hidden, unfolding slowly over years rather than days.
So we’re left with a choice. Do we continue to accept a food system where “legally compliant” is good enough, even if it erodes trust and risks health? Or do we demand something better — a standard where purity isn’t just a slogan, but a reality, and where the responsibility to protect consumers doesn’t stop at the farm gate?
Because in the end, honey should be sweet — not bittersweet.
Resources & References
When it comes to glyphosate in our food supply, this is only the tip of the iceberg. The studies, reports, and books below are just a starting point for anyone who wants to understand how deeply this issue runs.
Almost all of our articles at NoMoreGlyphosate.nz are research-based — each one backed with resources and references so readers can explore the evidence for themselves.
How Does Glyphosate End Up in Honey Without Killing the Bees?
Our explainer article on how glyphosate residues end up in honey, even when beekeepers avoid spraying.
Even the Beekeepers Know: Glyphosate Is Everywhere
A closer look at the marketing of honey as “pure” and “natural” while residues continue to be detected.
Auckland University – We Should Tread Carefully in Herbicide Review
A commentary highlighting pre-harvest glyphosate spraying and its implications for food residues.
Codex Alimentarius – Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)
The international food standards that underpin many national regulatory frameworks, including glyphosate.
Facts and Fallacies in the Debate on Glyphosate Toxicity.
Mesnage, R. & Antoniou, M. (2017).
Frontiers in Public Health, 5:316.
Glyphosate Monograph (2015)
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
Classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A).
Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science.
Gillam, Carey (2017)
A journalist’s deep investigation into glyphosate’s history, the science, and the corporate influence shaping its regulation.
Toxic Legacy: How the Weedkiller Glyphosate Is Destroying Our Health and the Environment.
Seneff, Stephanie (2021)
A controversial but eye-opening exploration of glyphosate’s long-term effects on human health and ecosystems.
These references show just how much evidence already exists — yet they represent only a fraction of what’s out there. For anyone willing to look beyond the marketing slogans, the story of glyphosate is bigger, more complex, and more urgent than most of us have been led to believe.
Image Source & Attribution
A big thank you to the creators at Unsplash for making their images freely available for projects like ours. The image featured on this page is by Boris Smokrovic. You can explore more of their work here: https://unsplash.com/@borisworkshop.
