“Pesticide-free”, “residue-free” and “not detected” can sound absolute. But laboratory tests have reporting limits, and testing the same food more sensitively can reveal residues that were previously invisible. We look at what these claims actually mean — and why how closely you look matters.
New Zealand has removed hundreds of tonnes of old and unwanted agrichemicals from rural properties — including DDT. But banning a pesticide doesn't automatically make existing stocks disappear. So what happens to the chemicals already sitting in farm sheds?
New Zealand is proposing mandatory pre-sale testing to prevent asbestos-contaminated children's sand reaching consumers. The Government calls it a “targeted and precautionary approach”. What does that principle tell us about the continuing regulation of glyphosate?
Every food label makes a series of claims, but how do we know they are accurate? We explore why independent laboratory testing plays an important role in verifying what's really in the food we buy.
Commercial herbicides contain far more than glyphosate alone. A 2018 study found some formulations were substantially more toxic in laboratory tests than glyphosate itself, raising questions about the role of co-formulants and how New Zealand assesses the safety of glyphosate-based herbicides.
New Zealand Food Safety keep glyphosate residue limits at 0.1mg/kg for wheat, barley and oats. But most of what New Zealanders eat is imported — under Australian limits up to 200 times higher. Here's why the "win" barely touches what's actually on the shelf.
Every time No More Glyphosate NZ publishes independent food testing results, one question comes up: who actually does the testing, and can they be trusted? This article explains why we use Hill Laboratories, what IANZ accreditation means, why LC-MS/MS is considered the gold standard for glyphosate analysis, and what laboratory results can—and cannot—tell us about glyphosate residues in New Zealand food.
New Zealand's EPA still leans on a 2016 report built from three Monsanto-shaped reviews — one retracted for ghostwriting, two more under active investigation. One of them even repeats a fabricated claim about a viral infection. This isn't about who you trust. It's about what they were given to work with.
Roundup has been sprayed across New Zealand for fifty years without a single independent risk assessment of the product as it's actually formulated and sold. A 2008 legal paper on "man-made disease" — and a real compensation scheme in Denmark — suggest ACC's accident-vs-sickness divide may be leaving glyphosate-related illness with nowhere to go.
Two of the world's most authoritative scientific bodies examined the same evidence on glyphosate — and reached opposite conclusions. One decade, US$18 billion in litigation, a court-rejected EPA assessment, and a trade agreement that lets food exceed New Zealand's own residue limits onto our supermarket shelves later, the question of who is actually being protected — and from what — deserves a straight answer.
