While countries around the world are banning or restricting pre-harvest glyphosate use, New Zealand is doing the opposite—still spraying and even planning to raise the limits.
Who’s protecting the people who spray glyphosate? In a recent OIA response, MPI admitted it hasn’t assessed the health risks of glyphosate for contractors or workers—despite proposing to increase allowable residues in food. If no one’s responsible for tracking long-term exposure, what kind of system are we really running?
When South Dublin County Council moved to fully ban glyphosate from its operations, it sent a clear message: community voices can drive real change. As more councils worldwide turn away from this controversial weedkiller, it’s time to ask why so many in New Zealand still cling to outdated spray regimes.
Glyphosate became popular partly because it was cheap and effective. But as concerns grow around resistant weeds, environmental exposure, and long-term sustainability, some people are beginning to question whether the lowest upfront cost always delivers the best long-term outcome.
Thermal systems like steam and hot foam are safe, effective, and proven. So why do councils keep claiming they’re unaffordable? The answer says more about priorities than price.
Timing glyphosate just right can make or break a crop. But is that a warning sign? This article questions our harvest dependency and explores what’s next.
New Zealand’s organic sector just hit $1.18 billion. But behind the headlines lies a troubling truth: our policies aren’t keeping pace—and glyphosate is still on the menu.
