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.
You can buy glyphosate-based weedkillers at your local New Zealand supermarket. No cancer warning on the label. The EPA says it's safe — but a US court vacated that very finding, Bayer has paid billions to settle lawsuits, and New Zealand's own reassessment was declined. Here's why the chemical stays on the shelf regardless.
Regulatory approvals are snapshots in time — but science never stops moving. As the US Supreme Court's Roundup ruling places chemical safety decisions firmly in regulators' hands, the question becomes: how quickly do those regulators respond when the evidence changes? Canada's new continuous oversight model for glyphosate offers one answer. New Zealand should be asking the same questions.
After publishing our potato testing results, many readers asked why we only tested for glyphosate, AMPA and glufosinate. The answer reveals just how many chemicals can be used in modern agriculture—and why comprehensive pesticide testing is far more complex and expensive than many people realise.
Canada now continuously monitors new glyphosate evidence as it emerges. Should New Zealand adopt a similar approach, or is periodic reassessment enough in a rapidly evolving scientific landscape?
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an investigation into glyphosate residues in food products marketed to families and children. The move raises an important question for New Zealand: if a major U.S. state believes this issue deserves scrutiny, why aren't similar questions being asked here?
When regulators describe a chemical as "safe," they are not necessarily saying it is risk-free or incapable of causing harm. This article explores what safety means in regulatory science, how exposure limits are established, and why consumers and regulators sometimes view risk very differently. Understanding that distinction may change the way you interpret safety claims about glyphosate and other chemicals.
Why did the gluten-free Weet-Bix sample return the highest glyphosate result in our independent testing? This article explores Australian sorghum, differing agricultural practices, trans-Tasman food regulations, and the growing gap between health branding and chemical transparency.
Terms like NOAEL, ADI, and “safe exposure limits” appear constantly in discussions about pesticides, food residues, and environmental health. But what do these regulatory concepts actually mean — and what are their limitations? This article explores how NOAELs are established, why study design matters, and why evolving science is raising new questions about long-term chemical exposure and safety assessment.
Herbicide resistance is becoming increasingly common across New Zealand cropping systems, raising questions about long-term reliance on chemical weed control. As researchers and farmers shift toward integrated weed management, a larger conversation may be emerging about sustainability, resistance, and the future of modern agriculture.
