A recent opinion piece in the Wairarapa Times-Age sings the praises of glyphosate — again.
This time, it comes with a familiar mix of glowing endorsements for the chemical, ridicule for its critics, and a few curious leaps of logic.
In his column, writer Alan Emerson defends Roundup as not only harmless, but environmentally essential. Along the way, he mentions No More Glyphosate NZ by name — after receiving one of our campaign emails — before going on to dismiss concerns over health risks, legal cases, and environmental harm as little more than “hysteria.”
Now, we don’t usually spend time responding to opinion columns. But when those opinions are wrapped in misleading claims, half-formed assumptions, and a selective reading of the science — and when they appear in local media with a tone of authority — it’s worth unpacking them.
So let’s take a closer look at some of the key claims in Emerson’s article and ask: are they grounded in fact — or just another spray-and-pray defence of a chemical under increasing global scrutiny?
Read Alan Emerson’s original column:
“There’s a way to handle the spray”, Wairarapa Times-Age, 6 Nov 2025 (via PressReader)
Trust the EPA — But Ignore the Courts?
One of Emerson’s main arguments hinges on this: he’d “sooner believe the American Environmental Protection Agency than a court in Missouri.” It’s a classic appeal to authority — but not necessarily the kind he thinks it is.
Let’s start with the facts. The EPA’s official position is that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Emerson cites this as the final word — but he conveniently skips over the fact that this conclusion has been heavily contested not just by independent scientists, but even by the EPA’s own internal experts.
In contrast, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — part of the World Health Organization — reviewed the same body of evidence and concluded in 2015 that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.” Their assessment was based on mechanistic data, animal studies, and limited human evidence.
And the Missouri court? That’s no anomaly. That case was just one of over 100,000 lawsuits filed against Bayer over Roundup exposure, with jury after jury ruling in favour of the plaintiffs — not because courts are anti-farmer, but because Bayer failed to warn users of potential cancer risks. That’s not hysteria. That’s product liability — and real people getting sick.
It’s also worth noting: the EPA doesn’t test glyphosate safety in a vacuum. Their reviews rely heavily on industry-supplied studies, many of which are not publicly available. Compare that to courtrooms, where independent expert witnesses are cross-examined under oath and internal corporate documents are disclosed — revealing things regulators never see, or choose to overlook.
So, is it really a matter of believing the EPA over a Missouri court? Or is it a question of which evidence you’re willing to look at — and who you’re willing to trust?
“It’s Been Used for 51 Years — So It Must Be Safe”
This argument is as old as glyphosate itself: “If it were harmful, surely we’d know by now.”
It sounds reasonable — until you remember that plenty of harmful substances were widely used for decades before the science, the lawsuits, or the political will finally caught up.
Think DDT, asbestos, lead in petrol, smoking — all considered safe or “unproven” risks right up until they weren’t. In many cases, the delay wasn’t due to a lack of harm, but a lack of transparency, independent testing, and corporate accountability.
The same pattern has played out with glyphosate. For much of its 51-year history, regulators took Monsanto’s word for it. Meanwhile, no routine biomonitoring, no long-term real-world studies, and no proper attention to low-dose cumulative exposure — especially for vulnerable populations.
Now that independent scientists have stepped in — and legal discovery has unearthed internal industry emails showing ghostwriting, data manipulation, and efforts to discredit critics — suddenly it’s not so clear-cut.
Add to that the fact that glyphosate is now turning up in urine, breastmilk, honey, bread, oats, and drinking water across the globe — and “used for 51 years” starts sounding less like a reassurance, and more like an indictment.
Longevity doesn’t equal safety. It just means we’ve been asleep at the wheel for far too long.
The “Vital Tool” Argument: At What Cost?
Alan Emerson describes glyphosate as essential — a practical, time-saving, environmentally friendly tool that farmers rely on. But here’s the problem: he’s not really talking about glyphosate. He’s talking about glyphosate-based weedkillers — and the two are not the same thing.
Most people think of Roundup® when they hear “glyphosate,” but Roundup isn’t just glyphosate. It’s a chemical cocktail — with added surfactants and solvents that help the active ingredient penetrate plant tissues. And it’s this full formulation that farmers spray on paddocks, councils spray along roadsides, and gardeners apply to driveways.
Yet when regulators review safety, they typically assess pure glyphosate in isolation, not the real-world products we’re exposed to. That’s a problem — because multiple studies have found that glyphosate-based weedkillers can be far more toxic than glyphosate alone, especially when it comes to endocrine disruption, reproductive toxicity, and aquatic harm.
So when Emerson claims glyphosate is “environmentally responsible,” we have to ask: compared to what — and based on which data?
Even from a practical perspective, the idea that farmers can’t function without glyphosate is increasingly outdated. Many regenerative and organic producers — here in New Zealand and overseas — are already moving beyond chemical dependency. Yes, it’s harder work. Yes, it requires knowledge and investment. But it’s possible — and necessary — if we’re serious about protecting soil health, biodiversity, and long-term food security.
As for the environmental benefits Emerson praises — like reduced tillage and lower erosion — these can be achieved through other methods. Glyphosate just makes it easier. But “easier” doesn’t mean “better,” especially when residues are turning up in our honey, our cereals, and our waterways.
It’s time to stop pretending that Roundup is some kind of eco-saviour — and start asking whether short-term convenience is worth the long-term risk.
Desiccation Is Over? Not Quite.
In his column, Emerson confidently states:
“In the past glyphosate was used at harvest, but that’s been stopped so there’s no possible health threat of glyphosate to you and I.”
It’s a comforting line — but it’s also misleading.
Yes, glyphosate is used for more than just clearing paddocks. It’s also used to kill food crops shortly before harvest, in a process known as desiccation. This practice helps dry down the plant evenly, speeding up harvest — but it also increases the likelihood that glyphosate residue ends up in the finished food product.
For years, glyphosate was used this way in New Zealand on crops like wheat, oats, barley, and peas — with very little public awareness and even less oversight.
After years of criticism, MPI has announced its intention to ban the use of glyphosate for desiccation on food crops. But — and this is a big but — no formal ban has been gazetted, and no start date has been confirmed. Until that happens, the practice remains legal in New Zealand, and glyphosate may still be used to dry down crops like wheat, barley, and oats before harvest — increasing the risk of residues in everyday food products.
Even if the ban does come into force, the risk of cross-contamination won’t disappear overnight. Glyphosate can linger in soil, dust, storage bins, and transport systems. It can move through supply chains unnoticed — from farm to factory to food shelf — especially without mandatory testing or transparency requirements.
And this contamination issue isn’t just limited to food.
In recent years, trace levels of glyphosate have been detected in multiple vaccines — including childhood shots — according to lab testing conducted in the United States. While New Zealand regulators have not acknowledged this, the likely explanation is that some vaccines contain ingredients derived from animal tissue, such as gelatin or bovine serum. If those animals were fed glyphosate-sprayed feed (like corn or soy), glyphosate may bioaccumulate and end up in the end product.
This raises difficult, uncomfortable questions — not about vaccination per se, but about how deep glyphosate contamination runs in our global systems, and how little visibility we actually have over what we’re being exposed to.
So no — desiccation hasn’t stopped. Contamination hasn’t stopped. And until our food and medical regulators take glyphosate exposure seriously, the health threat hasn’t gone anywhere either.
Challenging the System Is Not a Waste of Time
Alan Emerson might think that legal challenges to glyphosate are “well-meaning” but ultimately pointless — a distraction by lawyers with time on their hands. But that line of thinking reveals a deeper problem: the belief that any challenge to the system is unnecessary if the system says everything is fine.
The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) didn’t take the EPA to court to argue that glyphosate is unsafe. They weren’t asking the judge to rule on cancer risk or environmental harm.
They were challenging the process — specifically, whether the EPA followed proper procedures and exercised its statutory powers correctly when it chose not to reassess glyphosate.
In legal terms, it was a judicial review, not a scientific trial. And that matters — because judicial reviews are one of the few tools citizens have to hold public agencies accountable when it appears that important decisions are made without due diligence, transparency, or proper reasoning.
And while the High Court ultimately ruled that the EPA had not acted unlawfully, the case still exposed real concerns — including:
- The EPA’s reliance on overseas regulators rather than reviewing New Zealand-specific evidence,
- Its dismissal of new scientific studies that raised red flags,
- And the broader question of whether New Zealand’s chemical oversight framework* is fit for purpose in the face of emerging science.
Calling that effort a waste of time is missing the point. Challenging the process is how we improve the system. It’s how we ask better questions. And it’s how we stop sleepwalking through complex risks just because the current rules haven’t caught up.
*If you’d like to explore this further, check out our own three‑part mini‑series on New Zealand’s chemical oversight framework:
• The Warning We Ignored: What the PCE Told Us About Chemical Monitoring in NZ
• The Hidden Gaps: What Consultants Found About Monitoring Gaps
• The Reforms That Never Landed: When Chemical Oversight Became a Policy Missed Opportunity
So… Why Would Anyone Want to Ban It?
Emerson ends his piece with a rhetorical question:
“Why would you possibly want to remove it?”
It’s a good question — and it deserves a better answer than the one he implies.
Because this isn’t just about glyphosate itself. It’s about a system that has allowed chronic low-level exposure to creep into our food, our soil, our water, and even our medical products — without clear public consent or robust oversight.
It’s about a chemical originally used to descale industrial pipes — rebranded as a herbicide — now sprayed across millions of hectares of farmland, with regulators clinging to decades-old assumptions while the science moves on.
It’s about people being told not to worry — until it’s their child, their immune system, their diagnosis, their unanswered questions.
It’s about the lack of independent testing, the industry-funded safety data, and the failure to track cumulative effects or vulnerable exposure windows — especially during pregnancy, early childhood, or for people with existing health conditions.
A Tool Worth Questioning
Alan Emerson asks why anyone would want to get rid of glyphosate. But maybe the better question is: why are we still being told not to worry?
We’ve been sold the story that glyphosate is safe, essential, and harmless to people and the planet — while the evidence piles up to suggest otherwise. It’s showing up in our food, our water, our soil, and even in some vaccines.
If you’re wondering how glyphosate actually ends up in the foods New Zealanders eat every day, we’ve broken down the main pathways clearly here: How Glyphosate Gets Into Our Food.
And yet regulators aren’t racing to investigate. They’re dragging their heels, relying on outdated assumptions, industry-supplied data, and global consensus that is starting to crumble.
None of this is about attacking farmers. It’s about challenging a system that tells us the burden of safety lies with the public — not the product. That the chemical must be innocent until proven guilty, and even then, still allowed.
But here’s the truth: glyphosate has been used for 51 years. Not because it’s the best solution — but because it was the cheapest, most convenient, and most aggressively defended.
That’s not a reason to keep using it.
It’s a reason to finally question why we ever stopped looking.
And while we’re at it — journalists need to do better, too.
Reporting isn’t just about repeating what regulators say or dismissing public concern as “hysteria.” It’s about digging deeper, asking uncomfortable questions, and holding power to account — not protecting it.
Resources & References
A curated collection of studies, legal cases, testing results, and expert commentary to help you explore the facts behind glyphosate use, safety claims, and regulatory oversight.
Scientific Assessments & Regulatory Positions
IARC Monograph 112 (2015)
Glyphosate was classified by the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm as a “probable human carcinogen” based on strong animal evidence and mechanistic data.
Read the monograph [PDF]
US EPA Interim Registration Review (2020)
Despite growing concern, the US Environmental Protection Agency concluded that glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” — a position criticized for relying on industry-funded studies.
View EPA findings
Environmental Law Initiative v Environmental Protection Authority (NZ)
Judicial Review (2024–25)
A New Zealand High Court judicial review challenging the EPA’s July 2024 decision not to reassess glyphosate. The hearing was held in June 2025.
Case summary from ELI
Court Cases & Industry Documents
Johnson v. Monsanto Co. (2018)
A landmark U.S. case in which a San Francisco jury awarded approximately US $289 million to groundskeeper Dewayne Lee Johnson, after finding that Monsanto Company’s glyphosate‑based weed‑killer (Roundup) was a substantial contributing factor in his non‑Hodgkin’s lymphoma and that Monsanto failed to warn users.
About the case
The Monsanto Papers (book & review)
Internal company emails and documents released during litigation — exposing ghost‑writing of safety studies, regulatory influence, and efforts to discredit independent scientists. Our full review on NoMoreGlyphosate.nz dives into what these revelations mean for New Zealand.
Read the review
Glyphosate in Food, Vaccines & Environment
Glyphosate Found in Vaccines – Moms Across America (2016)
Independent U.S. testing detected trace glyphosate in multiple childhood vaccines, likely due to animal-derived ingredients from glyphosate-exposed livestock.
Read the findings
Glyphosate in NZ Honey – No More Glyphosate NZ
Our testing of locally produced honeys found glyphosate residues in 3 of 5 samples — a concern for export reputation and consumer health.
View results
Weet-Bix & Breakfast Cereal Testing – No More Glyphosate NZ
Independent lab tests revealed glyphosate residues in 2 out of 4 mainstream cereals — including a popular kids’ brand marketed as a “healthy” option.
Weet-Bix results
Bread & cereal results
Regulatory Weakness & Oversight Failures
MPI 2024 Consultation: Proposed Amendments to MRLs
This public document outlines proposed increases to allowable glyphosate levels in New Zealand food — and the intention to phase out desiccation use (still not enforced).
Read the consultation PDF
NZ’s Chemical Oversight Failures — 3-Part Series by No More Glyphosate NZ
A deep dive into how warnings were ignored, expert advice buried, and proposed reforms dropped — leaving New Zealand’s chemical regulation system dangerously out of date.
- The Warning We Ignored – Parliament’s environmental watchdog raised concerns in 2022. Nothing changed.
Read part one - What the Consultants Found – Independent reports exposed serious gaps in how New Zealand monitors pesticide residues.
Read part two - A Missed Opportunity for Reform – When the chance came to fix the system, the government quietly let it slip away.
Read part three
Journalists, take note: The research is out there — if you bother to look. We’ve done it over 200 times. Nearly every article on this site includes supporting evidence, testing data, and links to relevant legal and regulatory documents. We welcome rigorous debate — but let’s make sure it’s based on more than soundbites.
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 fotokostic.
