Before we even think about glyphosate, pesticides, additives or contaminants, there is a more fundamental question worth asking.
How do we know what is actually in the food we buy?
Every day, millions of New Zealanders walk through supermarket aisles making decisions based on trust. We trust the label on the front of the packet. We trust the ingredient list on the back. We trust that the country of origin statement is accurate. We trust that the supermarket has done its homework and that regulators have ensured the rules are being followed.
Most of the time, that trust is probably well placed.
But trust is not the same thing as evidence.
That distinction sits at the heart of why No More Glyphosate NZ exists and why we continue to spend thousands of dollars commissioning independent laboratory testing of everyday supermarket foods. We are often asked why we test products that are already on supermarket shelves. Surely, if they are legally for sale, everything has already been checked?
The answer is more nuanced than many people realise.
Food Labels vs Laboratory Testing: What’s the Difference?
A food label is, ultimately, a collection of claims.
It tells us where a product came from. It tells us what ingredients it contains. It may tell us that it is natural, organic, locally grown, cage free, gluten free or free from particular allergens. Increasingly, it may even direct us to a QR code rather than printing all of that information on the package itself.
Those claims are important because consumers rely on them every day when making purchasing decisions.
But a label is not evidence in itself.
The evidence sits somewhere else. It may exist in supplier documentation, manufacturing records, audit reports or laboratory analyses that consumers will never see. Sometimes those systems work exactly as intended. Occasionally they don’t.
The only way to know what is actually in a product is to test it.
That simple principle applies whether the question is about pesticide residues, food fraud, contaminants, allergens or nutritional claims.
Why We Independently Test Supermarket Food
One of the questions we hear regularly is why No More Glyphosate NZ chooses to test products that anyone can buy from an ordinary supermarket.
The answer is that these are the foods New Zealand families eat every day.
When we send breakfast cereals, flour, honey, potatoes or other foods to an independent IANZ-accredited laboratory, we are not suggesting something must be wrong with them. Quite the opposite. Independent testing is valuable regardless of the outcome.
A result showing no detectable glyphosate is just as important as one that detects measurable residues. Both contribute to a more complete understanding of the food supply and provide evidence rather than assumption.
That is why we publish every result, not just the ones that generate headlines.
Can Consumers Trust Food Labels?
An Australian Four Corners investigation recently explored food fraud, misleading labels, country-of-origin claims and weaknesses in complex international supply chains. Throughout the programme, one recurring message stood out:
“We rely on the labels,
we rely on the brands,
and we rely on the supermarkets.”
That observation extends well beyond Australia.
Modern food supply chains are extraordinarily complex. Ingredients may pass through multiple countries before reaching supermarket shelves. Raw materials can be processed, blended, packaged and distributed by different companies across different jurisdictions, each relying on documentation supplied by the previous link in the chain.
Most of the time, those systems function remarkably well.
But complexity also means that consumers have little opportunity to independently verify the claims printed on a packet.
We simply trust that someone else has already done the checking.
Who Verifies That Food Labels Are Accurate?
The Four Corners investigation highlighted a distinction that is easy to overlook.
Food safety systems are primarily designed to protect consumers from immediate health risks such as contamination and foodborne illness. But that leaves another question. Who is routinely verifying product authenticity, country-of-origin claims and whether products consistently match the claims made on their labels?
That is not necessarily a criticism of regulators. No regulatory agency has unlimited resources, and risk-based systems are designed to prioritise the greatest public health risks.
It does, however, raise an important question.
If authenticity is not routinely verified across every product, who fills that gap?
Around the world, that role is increasingly shared by independent laboratories, investigative journalists, universities and consumer organisations conducting their own testing programmes.
Independent verification is not a sign that regulatory systems have failed. It is one of the ways confidence in those systems can be strengthened.
Will Digital Food Labels Improve Transparency or Reduce It?
Over the past year, we have written extensively about proposals to replace printed food information with digital labels accessed by QR codes.
Supporters argue that digital labels can provide more information, update details more easily and reduce packaging waste.
Those may all be genuine advantages.
But they also prompt another question.
If consumers are expected to rely more heavily on information that exists online rather than on the physical package, how can they independently verify that the information presented today is the same information that existed yesterday, or the information that was available when the product was purchased?
Technology is making laboratory analysis more sophisticated every year.
At the same time, some of the information consumers have traditionally been able to read directly on a packet may become less visible.
Those two trends deserve to be discussed together.
Why Independent Laboratory Testing Matters
One of the reasons we partner with Hill Laboratories is because laboratory testing replaces assumptions with evidence.
A laboratory does not care about marketing claims.
It does not know the brand.
It does not know which supermarket sold the product.
It simply measures what is present in the sample that arrives for analysis.
Sometimes that confirms what everyone expected.
Sometimes it raises new questions.
Both outcomes have value.
Evidence Matters More Than Assumptions
Our work at No More Glyphosate NZ focuses on glyphosate, AMPA and glufosinate because these are the questions our supporters have asked us to investigate. We are not attempting to solve every challenge facing the modern food system.
However, the principle behind our testing programme reaches far beyond herbicides.
Whether the question concerns pesticide residues, allergens, contaminants, food fraud, country-of-origin claims or product authenticity, the underlying issue remains remarkably similar.
Consumers can only make informed choices if the information they receive is accurate, transparent and capable of being independently verified.
That is why we continue to believe independent laboratory testing has an important place alongside regulation, manufacturer quality assurance and supermarket compliance programmes.
Trust will always matter.
But when it comes to the food we eat, evidence matters even more.
Watch the Australian Investigation
The Australian Four Corners investigation below explores many of the same questions discussed in this article, including food fraud, supply chain transparency, country-of-origin claims and the role of independent laboratory testing. While the investigation focuses on Australia, many of the broader issues are equally relevant to New Zealand consumers.
At No More Glyphosate NZ, our focus remains on glyphosate, food transparency and evidence-based reporting. We are sharing this documentary because it raises important questions about trust, verification and the difference between relying on labels and independently testing what is actually in the food we buy.
Further Reading
Why We Test the Food We Eat
If this article has prompted you to think differently about food labels and independent testing, you may find these related articles of interest. Together they explore why transparency matters, how modern food labelling is changing, and what independent laboratory testing can — and cannot — tell us about the food on our supermarket shelves.
Digital Food Labels: A Trojan Horse for Reduced Transparency?
As food labels move from printed packaging to QR codes and websites, are consumers gaining more information or losing easy access to it? This article explores whether digital labelling could unintentionally reduce transparency and consumer choice.
Digital Food Labels: Will New Zealand Consumers Lose Transparency?
New Zealand is trialling digital food labels as part of wider food labelling reforms. We examine what the proposals could mean for consumers and why physical labels still play an important role in informed decision-making.
Digital Food Labels Trial Begins in New Zealand
A closer look at New Zealand’s digital food labelling trial, including what is being tested, who is involved, and the questions consumers should be asking as the project develops.
Digital Labelling, Cheap Imports and the Future of Food Transparency
Could digital labelling make it easier for consumers to understand where their food comes from—or harder? This article explores the intersection of imported foods, traceability and the growing reliance on digital information.
Why We Use Hill Laboratories — And What IANZ Accredited Means
Independent laboratory testing is central to our food testing programme. Learn why we use Hill Laboratories, what IANZ accreditation means, and why laboratory independence is essential to producing results the public can trust.
Our Independent Food Testing Results
Explore our growing archive of independent laboratory testing covering cereals, flour, honey, potatoes and other everyday supermarket foods. Every result is published—whether glyphosate is detected or not—because transparency means reporting the full picture.
A Final Thought
Food labels remain one of the most important sources of information available to consumers. For the overwhelming majority of products, they help us compare ingredients, identify allergens, understand nutrition and make informed purchasing decisions.
But labels are only one part of a much larger system built on documentation, quality assurance, regulation and trust. Independent laboratory testing does not replace those systems—it complements them by providing objective evidence that helps consumers, regulators, manufacturers and researchers better understand the food supply.
At No More Glyphosate NZ, that simple principle guides everything we do. We believe informed decisions are built on evidence, transparency and a willingness to ask questions. Because when it comes to the food we eat, confidence should never depend on trust alone—it should be supported by facts.
Image Source & Attribution
The feature image on this page was created using AI-assisted image generation from an original concept developed by No More Glyphosate NZ and refined for publication in Canva.
AI is a useful creative tool for visualising complex investigative topics that cannot be meaningfully photographed, allowing us to illustrate ideas without implying that any specific scene or event actually occurred.
