The Environmental Law Initiative is taking the Environmental Protection Authority to court again
Yes, again.
They’re challenging the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) refusal to reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides (such as Roundup®). But this time? It’s headed to the Court of Appeal.
And whether you’re following this closely or just catching up, one thing’s clear: this case matters.
Because if the current approvals for glyphosate and its co-formulants — the chemical cocktail in everyday herbicides — can’t be challenged, even with new research and mounting public concern, then what does that say about the system that’s supposed to keep us safe?
What Happened in the First Glyphosate Court Case?
We covered it as it unfolded:
- Judicial review: Why the EPA was taken to court
- What happened on day one
- Why the ruling raised more questions than it answered
Quick recap:
In 2023, the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) applied under section 62 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO), asking the EPA to reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides. Their reasoning? New scientific evidence, risks from co-formulants, and the fact that these products have never undergone full assessment under current law.
But in July 2024, the EPA said no.
So ELI took the EPA to the High Court. And in October 2025, they lost. The judge ruled the EPA had not made a legal error.
Now ELI has filed an appeal — and the Court of Appeal will hear the case.
Why Is the Glyphosate Appeal Headed to the Court of Appeal?
ELI’s legal argument comes down to this: they believe the EPA misapplied the law.
Section 62 of the HSNO Act says the EPA must reassess a hazardous substance if “significant new information” comes to light.
ELI argues:
- The EPA is interpreting that clause far too narrowly
- The court accepted an approach that gives the EPA too much discretion
- Crucially, co-formulants in glyphosate-based herbicides have never been properly assessed — even though they may pose more harm than glyphosate itself
- The EPA failed to meet its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi by not fully considering Māori environmental concerns
So, what’s at stake here isn’t just glyphosate.
It’s how our entire reassessment system works — or doesn’t.
Glyphosate-Based Herbicides in New Zealand: What’s Really Being Used?
Let’s not forget: people aren’t spraying pure glyphosate in their gardens or on their farms.
They’re using glyphosate-based herbicides (such as Roundup®) — formulations that contain a mix of ingredients, including surfactants, stabilisers, and preservatives.
Many of these co-formulants have not been independently tested. Some are known to be more toxic than glyphosate. Others, like POEA, have been banned in parts of the world.
In New Zealand, these full product formulations have never undergone a complete risk assessment under the EPA’s modern framework.
Glyphosate entered the market in the 1970s. The EPA didn’t even exist back then.
And yet, we still rely on legacy approvals from decades ago — while countries around the world continue to reassess both glyphosate and its formulations in light of new science.
What Happens If the Glyphosate Court Appeal Succeeds?
If the Court of Appeal sides with ELI, the EPA could be required to reopen its evaluation of glyphosate and its co-formulants.
That would mean:
- A modern, independent review — based on today’s science
- A proper look at the health and environmental impacts of full commercial products
- A reassessment process that includes input from iwi, scientists, and the public
- And potentially, updated restrictions, use conditions, or even product withdrawals
This isn’t just about glyphosate anymore.
It’s about ensuring that the entire product being sold and sprayed is actually safe — and that regulators can’t just ignore growing scientific concern.
Why the Glyphosate Appeal Matters for New Zealand Communities
Glyphosate-based herbicides are used across New Zealand every day — by councils, farmers, contractors, and home gardeners.
And most people don’t realise what they’re really being exposed to.
The EPA doesn’t require manufacturers to disclose co-formulants on product labels.
There’s no public tracking of what’s being applied where.
And without reassessment, these products stay on the market indefinitely — even as global concern rises.
This case matters because it asks: what good is a safety framework if it can’t respond to new evidence?
What You Can Do About Glyphosate-Based Herbicide Use
Stay informed. This case is live — and we’ll update as it progresses. ELI’s case details are at eli.org.nz/glyphosate.
Ask your council questions. Do they still spray glyphosate-based herbicides? Have they looked at safer alternatives? Do they understand the risk from co-formulants?
Read the science. We’ve been testing New Zealand food products for glyphosate residue — and the results are eye-opening:
- How glyphosate gets into our food
- Glyphosate in NZ honey: first test results
- Weet-Bix testing results
Support accountability. ELI is a small environmental law group taking on a major legal challenge. You can support their work at eli.org.nz.
Where New Zealand Stands on Glyphosate-Based Herbicides After This Case
The EPA says there’s no cause for reassessment.
But no one in New Zealand has ever reviewed the full formulation of glyphosate-based herbicides under our current safety laws.
Not the surfactants.
Not the preservatives.
Not the chemical interactions that might only show up when these ingredients combine.
And the longer we delay, the harder it becomes to justify.
Glyphosate and its co-formulants are everywhere — from council berms to cereal boxes.
This Court of Appeal case is our chance to change that — to make sure New Zealand’s regulatory system works the way it was meant to.
Not as a rubber stamp.
But as a safeguard.
Let’s hope the court sees it that way too.
Disclaimer: No More Glyphosate NZ is not affiliated with the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) or involved in any legal proceedings. This article is based on publicly available information and does not offer legal interpretation or advice.
Resources & References
The High Court decision may seem final, but it’s only one piece of the glyphosate puzzle. Independent science, regulatory documents, and past cases reveal just how contested this issue remains. Below are resources worth exploring if you want to understand how we got here — and why the debate is far from over.
Environmental Law Initiative – Glyphosate Judgment
Original update from ELI announcing the High Court’s decision.
Glyphosate Food Safety Monitoring in New Zealand – NoMoreGlyphosate.nz
How glyphosate disappeared from New Zealand’s food safety monitoring after residues were detected.
The Monsanto Papers – Carey Gillam
A deep dive into how internal company documents exposed decades of manipulation around glyphosate safety.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph 112
The 2015 WHO-linked classification that labelled glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen.”
New Zealand EPA –Review of the Evidence Relating to Glyphosate and Carcinogenicity (2016)
The EPA’s own review that leaned heavily on industry-funded studies to reaffirm glyphosate’s safety.
The references above show just how divided the evidence and opinions remain. One judgment doesn’t erase the science, nor the unanswered questions. If the system won’t resolve those questions, it’s up to us to keep them alive.
Image Source & Attribution
The feature image on this page is a screenshot of the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) website page: Challenging the EPA’s regulatory failure on glyphosate, edited using Canva.com
