Cut flowers are supposed to be harmless. Right?
We bring them into our homes, place them on kitchen benches, carry them down aisles, breathe them in at close range. We don’t wash them. We don’t wear gloves to touch them. We certainly don’t think of them as a chemical exposure risk.
After all, if flowers had been sprayed with something like glyphosate, they’d be dead. Right?
That assumption feels logical — and it’s exactly why floristry has flown under the radar for so long.
What Pesticides Are Used in Commercial Flower Production?
Pesticide regulation usually starts with a simple question: Will people eat this?
If the answer is yes, residue limits apply. If the answer is no, things become far less clear.
Cut flowers sit firmly in the second category.
Unlike food crops, there are no maximum residue limits for pesticides on ornamental flowers in much of the world. Not in the EU. Not in the UK. Not in the US. And not in New Zealand.
That doesn’t mean pesticides aren’t used. It means they aren’t measured — at least not in a way that’s visible to workers, consumers, or regulators.
How Florists and Workers Are Exposed
Commercial flower production relies heavily on pesticides to meet market expectations:
- flawless appearance
- uniform colour
- long vase life
- year-round availability
To achieve that, growers often use fungicides, insecticides, miticides, and growth regulators — sometimes in combination, sometimes repeatedly.
These chemicals aren’t applied to kill the flower. They’re applied to protect it.
That distinction matters.
A plant can remain perfectly alive while carrying surface residues — residues that don’t disappear when the flower is cut, shipped, refrigerated, and handled.
Chronic Low-Dose Exposure and Why It’s Hard to Measure
Unlike food residues, which are diluted across populations, floristry exposure is concentrated.
Florists and flower handlers:
- touch hundreds of stems a day
- inhale vapours and dust in enclosed spaces
- handle flowers fresh from cold storage
- often work without gloves
- rarely receive training on chemical exposure
Recent investigations have found dozens of pesticides present on bouquets, with many absorbed through skin contact or inhalation — even when gloves were worn.
Some of those pesticides are classified as:
- possible or probable carcinogens
- endocrine disruptors
- reproductive toxins
The exposure isn’t dramatic. It’s chronic.
And chronic exposure is precisely the type most regulatory systems struggle to capture.
When Health Concerns Emerge Before Regulation Does
One of the most troubling aspects of floristry exposure is not that illness has been “proven”.
It’s that the data doesn’t exist, because no one thought to look.
Cases in France have begun to challenge that assumption, including a landmark recognition linking a child’s cancer to prenatal pesticide exposure through floristry work.
Even then, officials are careful with language:
- “plausible”
- “consistent with exposure”
- “cannot be ruled out”
The absence of certainty hasn’t stopped harm — it has simply delayed accountability.
A Regulatory Blind Spot With Familiar Patterns
What makes this blind spot harder to ignore is that it isn’t universal. While much of the global flower industry continues to operate without residue limits or meaningful monitoring, a small number of growers are quietly proving that another model is possible — one that removes chemical exposure from the equation altogether.
In New Zealand, one such example exists in the Wairarapa, where a floristry business has built its entire operation around spray-free growing. Their approach doesn’t rely on regulation or compliance frameworks. It relies on a different starting assumption: that worker health and chemical minimisation matter by default.
That contrast is explored in the companion article in this series: Spray-Free and Thriving: A Wairarapa Florist Shows Us Another Way Forward
Looking Ahead: What This Raises for New Zealand
This pattern will sound familiar to anyone following glyphosate debates:
- low-dose exposure
- multiple chemicals
- long latency periods
- limited biomonitoring
- difficulty proving causation
Floristry didn’t become risky overnight.
It became risky quietly — by existing outside the questions regulators were asking.
This article is part of a two-part NMGNZ series examining pesticide exposure in floristry — from unregulated residues and worker health risks, to local spray-free alternatives already operating in New Zealand.
Part 1: The Flowers We Don’t Question – you are here.
Part 2: Spray-Free and Thriving
Further Reading and Context
Much of the concern explored in this article exists not because definitive conclusions have been reached, but because they haven’t. When exposure pathways fall outside standard monitoring frameworks, the evidence base often develops slowly — and unevenly.
The sources below offer additional context on pesticide residues in non-food crops, occupational exposure in floristry, and the regulatory structures that shape what is — and isn’t — measured. They don’t provide final answers, but they do illuminate the questions that prompted this investigation.
There’s a dark side to floristry’: are pesticides making workers seriously ill – or worse?
The Guardian (2026)
An in-depth investigation into pesticide exposure among florists, including worker health reports, regulatory gaps, and emerging international responses.
Pesticide residues on cut flowers and occupational exposure
Belgian biomonitoring study (2018)
A study detecting pesticide residues on bouquets and corresponding pesticide metabolites in florists’ urine, even when protective gloves were worn.
Pesticide residues on cut flowers and occupational exposure
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (2016)
A peer-reviewed study analysing 90 bouquets of cut flowers found 107 pesticide substances present, with evidence of transfer to florists’ hands and bodies during routine handling.
Chemical safety: Pesticides
World Health Organization
An overview from WHO explaining how pesticides can affect human health, including potential chronic health effects depending on exposure levels and routes of contact.
Regulation of hazardous substances in New Zealand
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA NZ)
Overview of how hazardous substances (including pesticides and agrichemicals) are regulated in New Zealand under the HSNO Act, including classification, approval and controls to manage potential risks.
Taken together, these materials point to a familiar challenge: when regulation is built around assumptions rather than lived exposure, blind spots are almost inevitable.
Whether floristry becomes another case study of harm recognised too late — or a prompt for earlier reflection and precaution — remains to be seen. What’s clear is that absence of data should not be mistaken for absence of risk.
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 skvalval.
