Have you ever noticed how controversial decisions often seem to happen at the same time?
Just when we’re being asked to accept a dramatic increase in glyphosate residue limits on some food crops— and all without a clear public explanation of how glyphosate in food is monitored or controlled —by a staggering 9900%—we’re also hearing about a new bill aiming to legalize genetically modified (GM) crops in New Zealand. Coincidence? Or is there something more going on here?
This timing has people talking. Some are wondering whether the push for higher glyphosate limits is really about clearing the way for GM agriculture. We’ve previously explored the policy backdrop in The Gene Technology Bill and Glyphosate: An Unspoken Connection. This article picks up where that one left off—taking a closer look at what might really be going on, and why it matters more than ever. Are we being prepped for a major shift without being told the full story?
The Official Story
The government insists that these two initiatives—the glyphosate limit increase and the Gene Technology Bill—are unrelated. According to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), the increased limits are all about aligning with international standards. In other words, it’s about trade, not GMOs.
But we’ve got to ask: why now? If it’s really just about staying aligned with international practices, why introduce it at the exact same time as a bill that would allow GM crops? Even if it’s all above board, the timing doesn’t feel random, does it?
Regulatory Blind Spots
Here’s something that should make us think: despite glyphosate being one of the most widely used herbicides in New Zealand, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has never done a full safety review. They’ve even said they have no plans to do one. How does that sit with you?
If glyphosate is so safe, why not conduct a comprehensive review, especially now when the proposal is to increase acceptable residue levels by 9900%? Is it because they’re confident there’s no problem—or is it because they don’t want to find one?
Health Implications
Greenpeace has pointed out that MPI hasn’t conducted any testing for glyphosate residues in food since 2015 — despite findings back then that nearly a third of wheat samples exceeded the existing Maximum Residue Level (MRL).
That gap in monitoring leaves New Zealanders with no clear picture of current glyphosate in food, and no way to assess how residue levels may have changed since those breaches were first identified. Why stop testing just when we should be getting more data, not less?
When we increase residue limits, what does that mean for our health? Especially for the more vulnerable among us—kids, pregnant women, people with compromised immune systems? Has anyone actually checked what the long-term effects might be? Or are we just supposed to trust that it’s all fine?
A Familiar Pattern
This isn’t the first time controversial policies have rolled out in tandem. It’s almost like a playbook: adjust the rules when the public is distracted or overwhelmed. Are we seeing the groundwork being laid for a future where GM crops become the norm, and higher glyphosate levels just come with the territory?
The Global Context
We’re not the only ones dealing with this. In other countries, increased glyphosate limits often coincide with the introduction of GM crops. For instance, in 2004, Brazil increased the glyphosate MRL for soybeans from 0.2 to 10 mg/kg, coinciding with the adoption of glyphosate-tolerant GM soybeans. The European Union did something similar in 1999, raising the limit from 0.1 to 20 mg/kg for soybeans. And in 2013, the United States doubled its limit from 20 to 40 mg/kg, aligning with the rollout of new GM varieties.
Is New Zealand heading down the same path? If so, why aren’t we being told the full story—why roll it out bit by bit while they think we’re not looking?
Follow the Money
Let’s be real: agribusiness giants have a vested interest here. They want looser regulations on both glyphosate use and GM crop approvals. Are we making it easier for them while leaving the public with more questions than answers?
Even some farmers are questioning the logic. In fact, many expressed concern in submissions and public forums—notably captured in our recent article, Even Farmers Are Puzzled. When the people who actually use glyphosate on the ground are raising eyebrows, shouldn’t that make the rest of us pause too?
Time to Ask Hard Questions
Green MP Steve Abel raised the alarm in a recent RNZ piece, suggesting this glyphosate residue hike might pave the way for Roundup Ready crops—GM varieties designed to withstand heavy glyphosate use. If that’s the direction we’re heading, then more glyphosate won’t just be a byproduct. It’ll be the plan.
Why are both of these regulatory changes happening at once? If they’re truly unrelated, why push them together? Are we being conditioned to accept higher chemical tolerances so that GM agriculture can move in without a hitch?
Who’s really benefiting here? The public—or the corporations pushing for more glyphosate and GM crops? What if this is less about public safety and more about profit margins?
What if higher glyphosate limits make it harder for organic and regenerative farmers to compete? Are we setting ourselves up for an agriculture system where GM crops are the default?
Is this really the future we want for New Zealand’s food system?
Where Do We Go From Here?
We’re at a crossroads here. If these changes go ahead, they could shape our agricultural future for decades. It’s time to think critically, question the narrative, and speak up. Let’s make sure we’re not just passive observers in this process.
Talk to your local Member of Parliament. Stay informed. Challenge the official story. It’s our food system—we deserve a say in how it’s managed.
Are we being conditioned to accept higher chemical tolerances so that GM agriculture becomes the norm? This timing demands scrutiny. Stay curious, keep questioning, and never settle for simple answers to complex issues. If you missed our first article laying out the broader policy landscape, you can read it here. Together, these two pieces aim to raise the questions we all need to be asking right now.
Resources and References
We’ve dug into the timing, the politics, and the corporate interests—but facts still matter. Below are some of the key studies, examples, and official statements that informed this article. Think of them as breadcrumbs in the bigger trail—each one revealing a little more about where this could all be heading.
International Glyphosate MRL Increases
Several countries increased glyphosate residue limits in tandem with the introduction of GM crops, often to accommodate herbicide-tolerant varieties.
Glyphosate MRL Increases Linked to GM Crop Adoption
This review highlights how several countries significantly raised their glyphosate residue limits in food crops shortly after introducing GM varieties. Brazil raised its soybean MRL from 0.2 to 10 mg/kg in 2004, the European Union from 0.1 to 20 mg/kg in 1999, and the United States doubled its limit from 20 to 40 mg/kg in 2013. These increases coincided with the growing adoption of glyphosate-tolerant GM crops, suggesting a regulatory pattern worth scrutiny.
- Bohn, T., et al. (2015). “Review of GMO safety assessment studies: glyphosate residues in Roundup Ready crops is an ignored issue.” Environmental Sciences Europe, 27, 19.
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-015-0052-7
Global Glyphosate Use Trends
This peer-reviewed paper tracks glyphosate’s rapid rise in global agriculture, especially after the introduction of GM crops. It highlights how residue levels and regulatory limits shifted alongside market adoption of glyphosate-tolerant varieties.
- Benbrook, C. M. (2016). “Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally.” Environmental Sciences Europe, 28, 3.
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-016-0070-0
MPI Proposal and Testing Lapses
This RNZ article confirms the proposed 9900% increase in glyphosate residue limits on cereal crops and reports that MPI hasn’t tested for glyphosate in food since 2015. Greenpeace warns this gap is dangerous, especially given that earlier testing found one-third of wheat samples exceeding legal limits.
- Radio New Zealand (2025). “Thousands submit on proposed increase in glyphosate weedkiller allowed on some crops.”
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/561578/thousands-submit-on-proposed-increase-in-glyphosate-weedkiller-allowed-on-some-crops
Farmers’ Opposition to the MRL Proposal
Farmers voiced concerns about the practicality and purpose of increasing glyphosate limits, raising doubts about the motivations behind the proposal.
No More Glyphosate NZ (2025). “Even Farmers Are Puzzled.”
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/even-farmers-question-glyphosate-increase/
These sources aren’t the final word, but they paint a pattern that’s hard to ignore. If we want to protect the integrity of New Zealand’s food system, we need to stay informed, alert, and curious. Keep following the evidence—and don’t stop asking the uncomfortable questions. That’s how change begins.
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 volodymyrshtun89. You can find more of their work here: https://www.123rf.com/profile_volodymyrshtun89.
