We’re told not to worry — by regulators, by trade lobbyists, by those who stand to benefit when the limits go up.
That the glyphosate showing up in our oats, lentils, wheat, and baby formula is “within safe limits.” That the Ministry for Primary Industries has “done the science.” That the levels are measured, monitored, and nothing to lose sleep over.
But safe for who?
Safe for how long?
And safe under what assumptions?
Safe, Until It Isn’t
Let’s get this out of the way: there is no such thing as a universal, permanent definition of “safe.” These so-called safety thresholds aren’t scientific absolutes. They’re administrative guesses — negotiated numbers that shift with political pressure, trade demands, and, too often, industry influence.
Right now in New Zealand, MPI is proposing to increase the amount of glyphosate residue allowed on food crops. In some cases, the limits could double or even triple.
Is that because new evidence has shown glyphosate to be safer than we thought?
Not at all. It’s because exporters don’t want their shipments rejected by countries that have adopted higher limits. And rather than reduce use, it’s easier to rewrite the rulebook.
Codex, Trade, and the Quiet Push to Comply
One reason MPI feels emboldened is because they can point to Codex Alimentarius — the global food standards body jointly run by the UN and WHO. Codex sets international guidelines for pesticide residues, which countries often adopt to keep trade flowing smoothly.
But Codex isn’t some independent panel of cautious scientists. Much of its data comes from industry-funded studies, often unpublished and rarely challenged. Its decisions aren’t just science-based — they’re politically negotiated.
When Codex raises a limit, countries like New Zealand tend to follow suit. Not because it’s safer, but because it’s more convenient.
And once those new limits are in place, guess what happens? Suddenly, what would have been illegal levels of residue last year are now perfectly “safe.”
The Real Problem: Regulatory Creep
This isn’t a one-off. It’s a pattern.
A chemical like glyphosate becomes widely used. Over time, residue levels on crops begin to exceed the current maximum limits. But instead of confronting that — instead of reining in its use — regulators simply raise the allowable limit.
It’s called regulatory creep. And it’s as insidious as it sounds.
Each time the bar is lifted, industry gets to say: “We’re compliant.”
And the public gets told: “Don’t worry. It’s within the limit.”
But the limit isn’t what it used to be. And it may no longer mean what you think it does.
What the Safety Tests Miss
When agencies calculate safe exposure levels, they’re working off assumptions that barely resemble real life. They test one chemical at a time. They look at short-term effects, not cumulative ones. They base their numbers on the average adult body — not on children, not on pregnant women, not on people with compromised immune systems.
And they still rely on toxicology frameworks that don’t take into account newer science on things like:
- The gut microbiome
- Hormone disruption at ultra-low doses
- The combined effect of multiple chemical residues
- Long-term, chronic exposure in real-world conditions
So when MPI says, “It’s safe,” what they often mean is, “We haven’t proven it’s harmful — at least not by the standards we’re choosing to apply.”
That’s not the same thing.
The Safe-Until-Proven-Harmful Trap
This is the fundamental flaw in how chemical regulation works today: the burden of proof has been flipped.
Rather than requiring industry to prove long-term safety, we wait until enough people are harmed — and then we start asking questions.
By that time, it’s too late.
Final Thought
We’re not against science. But we are against the convenient misuse of it.
Raising glyphosate limits without public debate, without updated safety data, and without accounting for modern science is reckless. And it raises deeper questions about how “safe” gets defined — and who benefits when that definition quietly shifts.
If safety is a moving target, how can we ever trust it?
And if glyphosate residue levels are going up in our food, don’t we at least deserve to know why?
“It’s not just about plants. It’s about people”
– No More Glyphosate NZ
Further Reading
If you’re questioning what “safe” truly means in the context of glyphosate exposure, these resources offer in-depth analyses and discussions:
Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science
By Carey Gillam
Investigative journalist Carey Gillam explores the history of glyphosate, its widespread use, and the controversies surrounding its safety assessments.
Codex Alimentarius Commission – FAO/WHO
The Codex Alimentarius sets international food safety standards, including maximum residue limits for pesticides like glyphosate. Understanding its role is crucial in the global context of food safety.
Visit Codex Alimentarius
“It’s time to rethink chemical exposures — ‘safe’ levels are doing harm” – Environmental Health News
This article discusses how low-dose exposures to chemicals, previously considered safe, may have adverse health effects, challenging traditional toxicology paradigms.
Read the article: https://www.ehn.org/chemical-exposures-are-small-doses-harm
“Glyphosate study shows adverse health effects at ‘safe’ dose” – GMWatch
A study indicating that glyphosate-based herbicides can cause health issues even at doses deemed safe by regulators, highlighting the need for re-evaluation of safety standards.
Read the study summary: Glyphosate study shows adverse health effects at “safe” dose
Final Note
Regulatory standards are meant to protect public health, but when these standards are influenced by industry interests or outdated science, they may fall short. It’s essential to stay informed and critically assess the information presented by authorities.
Image Source & Attribution
The feature image on this page was created using images by Getty Images, sourced from Unsplash, and adapted using Canva. We’re grateful to creators like Getty Images who share their work openly.
