Our Honey is Tested for MGO. Why Would we Test for Glyphosate?
That’s been the underlying message from several New Zealand honey producers we’ve spoken with recently.
In response to a simple question —
“Is the honey you sell domestically also glyphosate-free, like the honey you export?”
— we heard variations of the same reply:
“Most honey has small levels of glyphosate in it. It’s everywhere.”
“It’s within the limits.”
“We don’t routinely test for it.”
“It’s a non-issue.”
“No one’s ever gotten sick from our honey.”
In short: compliance over transparency.
The Honey Industry’s Quiet Contradiction
Let’s be clear — many of these companies aren’t trying to mislead. They’re following the rules. But they’re also proudly marketing their honey as premium, potent, and pure.
“Perfect for everyday wellness.”
“Certified for antimicrobial strength and purity.”
“Tested for MGO, UMF, and authenticity.”
Here’s what that means:
- MGO (Methylglyoxal) is the compound responsible for the antibacterial properties of mānuka honey. The higher the MGO number, the stronger the antimicrobial activity. It’s measured in mg/kg and often used as a selling point for “medicinal-grade” honey.
- UMF (Unique Mānuka Factor) is a certification system that verifies the presence of key bioactive compounds — including MGO — and confirms the honey’s authenticity and potency. Products with a UMF rating (e.g. UMF™ 10+) are lab-tested and certified by the UMF Honey Association.
These tests are rigorous, independently verified, and form the foundation of mānuka honey’s reputation for health and healing.
And yet — when it comes to glyphosate, a probable human carcinogen, it’s a different story.
“Testing isn’t required.”
“It’s too expensive.”
“It’s not a concern.”
“It’s in all food anyway.”
When a product is sold at a premium and associated with wellness — but skips testing for a known contaminant — that’s not transparency.
That’s selective omission.
What We’re Hearing — and Why It Matters
In our conversations with local honey producers, we’ve heard a number of recurring justifications:
“Glyphosate is in everything.”
This is perhaps the most common line. But it doesn’t hold. We’ve tested local honey, cereals, and Weet-Bix — and several came back without detectable glyphosate. Saying “it’s everywhere” dismisses the very real variability between products and practices.
“Testing is too costly.”
Not necessarily. Batch-level glyphosate testing for honey can cost well under $100 — well within reach for any business already investing in MGO or UMF testing. If you can certify for potency, you can test for contamination.
“MPI doesn’t require it.”
True. But public trust — especially in wellness products — is not built on minimum legal standards. Export markets clearly expect more. Shouldn’t domestic consumers be afforded the same level of assurance?
“Bees bring it in — it’s not our fault.”
Yes, bees forage widely, and glyphosate contamination reflects environmental conditions. But that’s exactly why producers should be paying attention. If your honey is affected by land use beyond your control, testing becomes even more important — not less.
From Justification to Responsibility
Here’s the bigger issue:
Regulations aren’t the ceiling — they’re the floor.
And regulatory compliance does not equal ethical responsibility.
The companies we spoke to are not bad actors. But their responses reflect an industry-wide mindset that glyphosate is someone else’s problem.
It isn’t.
Consumers don’t just buy honey for taste. They buy it for wellness. For purity. For healing. That means the presence of any known toxin — even within “approved levels” — deserves open discussion and proactive testing.
So Why Are We Testing?
Because consumers deserve to know.
Because wellness can’t be cherry-picked.
Because a product promoted as clean should be tested to prove it.
We’ve ordered a jar of mānuka honey from these producers — honey marketed for daily wellness, certified for MGO levels, and independently verified for antimicrobial activity.
And we’re testing it for glyphosate.
Not to cause trouble. Not to name and shame.
But to ask a question that too many are skirting:
Can you really sell “wellness in a jar” without checking for something that might undermine it?
This Is Bigger Than One Company
To be clear, this isn’t about one label, one hive, or one producer.
It’s about the need for a shift in mindset across the entire food production industry — including honey.
Because glyphosate doesn’t belong in our food.
And “within limits” isn’t the same as “safe for long-term exposure.”
A Duty of Care — Not Just a Label Claim
To honey producers across New Zealand:
We know you care about your bees. We know you’re proud of your product.
We know you’re working within a tough, competitive system.
But that’s all the more reason to lead with integrity — not defensiveness.
If your honey is clean, let the data show it.
If it’s not, wouldn’t you rather know — and fix it?
Because at the end of the day, transparency builds trust.
And trust is the most precious thing you can put in a jar.
Resources & References
We’re not asking honey producers to guess — we’re asking them to test. The resources below provide a deeper look into the standards, science, and regulatory gaps surrounding glyphosate in honey. When public trust is built on purity, the evidence matters.
UMF™ Honey Association – Why UMF™ Certification of Mānuka Honey Is Crucial for Consumer Health
Outlines the importance of UMF™ certification in verifying the purity, potency, and authenticity of mānuka honey. While it covers MGO and quality assurance, it does not include glyphosate testing — highlighting a key gap in current certification practices.
Codex Alimentarius – Honey Standard (CXS 12-1981)
The international food standard for honey, adopted in 1981 and revised or amended multiple times (1987, 2001, 2019, and 2022). It outlines compositional and residue guidelines used by countries — including New Zealand — to shape honey regulation and export requirements.
MPI – Glyphosate in Food (Food Safety NZ)
Outlines how glyphosate residue limits (MRLs) are set and monitored in New Zealand food products. Notes that while MRL compliance is tracked, honey is not routinely tested for glyphosate.
Analytica Laboratories – Glyphosate Residues in Honey (NZ Beekeeper, July 2019)
Technical overview of glyphosate testing in honey. Confirms New Zealand’s domestic MRL is 0.1 mg/kg (100 ppb), and detection thresholds often at 0.01 mg/kg—demonstrating that non-detection doesn’t mean absence.
Independent Peer‑Reviewed Review (Rampazzo et al., 2023): Glyphosate, Glufosinate & AMPA in Hive Products
Comprehensive, international overview of glyphosate and related residues in honey, pollen, wax, and more. Shows variable but measurable contamination and underscores methodological inconsistencies between studies
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – Glyphosate Monograph
In 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A),” igniting global concern over its presence in food, including honey.
No More Glyphosate NZ – Glyphosate in NZ Honey: First Test Results
Independent testing of local New Zealand honey samples revealed glyphosate residues in some jars — and undetectable levels in others — challenging the idea that “it’s in everything.”
RNZ News – Ministry for Primary Industries ceased glyphosate testing in honey post‑2015
This report reveals that New Zealand authorities have not issued a single fine or food recall over illegal agrichemical levels in the past five years—despite multiple detections above legal limits, and a lack of active enforcement under MPI’s residue monitoring programme. While it doesn’t mention honey specifically, it underscores broader regulatory gaps in food chemical safety.
Wellness claims mean little without transparency to back them up. As consumers, we’re expected to trust the label. But as these references show, it’s time we started verifying what’s behind the jar — not just what’s printed on it.
Image Source & Attribution
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by Cristalov.
