Federated Farmers insist glyphosate isn’t in our food, but MPI’s residue limits, past test results, and the actions of oat companies suggest otherwise. Who’s really telling the full story?
When it comes to glyphosate, the people making the decisions aren’t scientists, doctors, or toxicologists — they’re politicians. Can ministers without expertise really protect public health when MPI is pushing for a 9,900% rise in glyphosate residues on our food?
When Federated Farmers call Greenpeace’s glyphosate warnings “manufactured outrage,” it raises a bigger question: is this really fearmongering—or the precaution we all deserve?
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worldwide turn away from this controversial weedkiller, it’s time to ask why so many in New Zealand still cling to outdated spray regimes.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.
