When Nestlé Cerelac Regular Wheat baby cereal was tested overseas, the result wasn’t dramatic—but it raised a question.
In our earlier article, Baby Cereal Sold in New Zealand Found With Glyphosate in Overseas Testing, we looked at a trace detection that sat within regulatory limits but still raised a simple question.
Should it be there at all?
Rather than speculate, we said we would test. So we did.
We purchased a packet from Something From Home in Browns Bay, Auckland, and sent it to Hill Laboratories for analysis using LC-MS/MS methods. The sample tested (Batch 5208179 W1 03:29, Best Before 31/01/27) returned the following results:
- glyphosate was reported at less than 0.010 mg/kg
- AMPA at less than 0.05 mg/kg
- and glufosinate at less than 0.006 mg/kg
In practical terms, nothing was detected above the laboratory’s reporting limits.
What “Non-Detect” Means in This Context
A result like this is often read as straightforward, but it still needs to be understood within the limits of the method used. A “non-detect” does not mean absolute zero. It means nothing was detected above the laboratory’s reporting limit.
In this case, that threshold is 0.01 mg/kg (10 ppb) for glyphosate, which is a relatively sensitive level for routine food testing, particularly in a grain-based product. It allows for a meaningful distinction between what is detectable and what is not under consistent conditions.
This result tells us that no residues were detected at that level.
For context, the maximum residue level for glyphosate in cereals is typically set around 0.1 mg/kg (100 ppb). The reporting limit used in this test sits well below that level.
Why This Result Looks Different
This result does not mirror the overseas finding that prompted the original article, and that difference matters.
There are several possible explanations. The product tested overseas may have come from a different batch or sourcing pathway. Agricultural conditions can vary by region. Processing and supply chains are not always identical. Or it may simply reflect normal variability within large-scale food systems.
It also highlights a broader question about consistency across batches.
What One Test Can—and Cannot—Tell Us
Taken on its own, this is a clean result. For a product intended for infants, that is encouraging.
But it is still one sample, taken at one point in time. It does not establish a pattern, and it does not close the question. What it does is add a data point—and that data point now sits alongside others that look different.
That contrast is where the more useful question begins to take shape. Not whether a single product contains a detectable residue, but why results vary at all. Why one test returns a trace detection while another does not. Why some products within the same category show measurable residues while others return none at the same reporting limits.
These differences are not anomalies to dismiss—they are signals worth understanding.
What This Means Going Forward
For now, this result stands on its own. It shows that at least one infant cereal available in New Zealand returned no detectable glyphosate, AMPA, or glufosinate at the laboratory’s reporting limits. That is a meaningful finding.
At the same time, it remains one result within a system where variability exists. Single results—whether positive or non-detect—need to be placed in context over time, not treated as definitive endpoints.
The approach does not change because of the outcome. We asked the question, we tested the product, and we are reporting the result. That remains the model going forward—not just when something is found, but when it isn’t.
A Question That Doesn’t Go Away
The original question still holds, but it sits slightly differently now.
Not as a binary of presence or absence, and not as a question of compliance. Instead, it becomes a question of consistency—what we expect from food designed for infants, and how reliably that expectation is being met across batches, brands, and regions.
That is a question that becomes clearer as more data is added.
If you find this work useful, and would like to support more independent testing like this, you can do so here. Every contribution goes directly towards the cost of testing.
Image Source & Attribution
We created the feature image on this page in Canva.
