A Defining Moment for Public Trust in Our Regulators
On Monday, 16 June, a High Court case begins that could reshape how New Zealand regulates potentially harmful chemicals—starting with glyphosate.
The case, brought by the Environmental Legal Initiative (ELI), challenges the EPA’s 2021 decision not to reassess glyphosate, despite mounting global evidence linking it to cancer, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, and environmental damage.
But this isn’t a trial to decide whether glyphosate is safe.
It’s a judicial review—a legal challenge to determine whether the EPA followed proper legal processes when it made that decision. In other words:
Did the EPA act lawfully, rationally, and in the public interest when it chose not to review glyphosate’s safety profile?
Why the Case Was Filed
Back in 2021, the EPA dismissed calls for a reassessment of glyphosate, claiming there was “no new evidence” of concern. But to many scientists, health professionals, and members of the public, this decision flew in the face of a growing body of international research.
Since then:
- More countries have restricted or banned glyphosate, citing health and ecological risks.
- More studies have emerged linking it to oxidative stress, endocrine disruption, DNA damage, and long-term soil degradation.
- New Zealand’s own food remains largely untested for glyphosate residues—as we explored in detail here, there’s no recent, routine testing program in place. Meanwhile, legal residue limits are quietly being raised.
And still, the EPA has not budged.
The legal challenge now heading to court asks whether this refusal to reassess was more than just dismissive—was it a failure of duty?
What Is a Judicial Review?
A judicial review doesn’t weigh up the science—it evaluates the process by which a public agency reached a decision. In this case, the court will examine:
- Did the EPA consider relevant evidence and emerging research?
- Was the decision consistent with its legal mandate to protect human and environmental health?
- Did the EPA respond fairly to public concerns and stakeholder submissions?
- Or did it rely on outdated assumptions and questionable logic?
If the court finds that the EPA’s process was legally flawed, it can order the agency to reconsider its decision. That could finally open the door to a full, science-based reassessment of glyphosate in New Zealand.
Why This Case Matters
This is bigger than just glyphosate.
It’s about how New Zealand handles chemical regulation, public health protection, and scientific uncertainty. It’s about whether our regulators are truly acting in the public interest—or whether their decisions can be made behind closed doors without accountability.
We shouldn’t need to take a public health agency to court to get it to revisit a decision affecting every New Zealander’s food, water, and environment. But here we are.
This case is a reminder that regulatory failure isn’t just theoretical—it affects what ends up on our plates, in our parks, and in our bodies.
What Happens Next?
The judicial review begins Monday, June 16, in the Wellington High Court. It may run for several days, but a ruling could take weeks or months. In the meantime, we’ll be watching closely—and sharing updates as they unfold.
Whether or not the court sides with ELI, this case puts the spotlight where it belongs: on a regulator that has refused to act, even as the world moves forward.
This Isn’t Just About Glyphosate
We’re often told to “trust the science.” But science evolves. When regulators refuse to reassess chemicals like glyphosate in light of that evolving science, they’re not protecting us—they’re protecting the status quo.
This case asks a simple but powerful question:
Shouldn’t public health decisions be made in the public’s interest?
What You Can Do
Help us keep the pressure on.
– Share this article
– Follow ELI’s updates
– Contact your MP and ask where they stand
This legal challenge is just one part of the fight. Public pressure is the other.
Disclaimer: NoMoreGlyphosate.nz is not affiliated with the Environmental Legal Initiative (ELI) or involved in this legal case in any way. We have no connection—formal or informal—with the legal team or proceedings.
However, we wholeheartedly support the effort to hold regulators accountable and believe this case is of significant public interest. Our goal is to inform, amplify, and stand with those demanding transparency and scientific integrity in chemical regulation.
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 designer491.
