WOW. Just wow. That was my first reaction when I read the High Court’s decision in the case between the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).
Then I looked closer at what really happened.
This case was never about whether glyphosate — or glyphosate-based weedkillers such as Roundup — are safe or harmful. It was about process. Had the EPA followed procedure? Had it ticked the right boxes? Two very different questions from the one the public actually cares about: are we being protected?
And yet the outcome is the same. The EPA has not — and still will not — commit to a full re-evaluation of glyphosate in New Zealand.
So where does that leave us? If even the courts won’t ask the bigger questions, who is protecting us?
What Just Happened?
Let’s break this down clearly.
- The case: ELI challenged the EPA’s handling of glyphosate, arguing that New Zealanders deserve stronger protection for public health and the environment.
- The regulator’s position: The EPA maintains glyphosate is “safe when used properly”. Their mandate isn’t to determine every scientific debate, but to regulate under the hazardous-substances law.
- The outcome: The High Court found the EPA had followed the correct procedures and stayed within its legal mandate.
On paper, that might look like closure. But for many of us, it leaves a bad taste: we were hoping for reassurance that glyphosate itself is being properly scrutinised — not just that the regulator ticked boxes.
Legal Technicalities vs. Public Interest
Here’s where things get troubling.
Court cases like this rarely ask: Who had the stronger argument, scientifically or ethically? They ask: Did the regulator follow the rules?
ELI might have brought expert testimonies, global studies and evidence of harm. But if the EPA could show it considered the relevant documents and stayed within its legal powers, the judge’s scope was limited.
It’s a bit like turning up to a debate with facts and stories about human impact — while the other side opens a rulebook and says: “Sorry, your arguments don’t count unless they fit within this clause.”
That’s the wall ELI hit. Not because their argument was weak, but because the system is designed to insulate regulators from real challenge. Courts often defer to regulatory “expertise”, and regulators often lean on industry-linked data. And in that loop — where is the public voice?
A Pattern of Protection
This isn’t an isolated judgment. It reflects a recurring pattern.
- When glyphosate residues were found in New Zealand wheat and peas in 2015/16 (26 of 60 wheat samples, 20 above the legal limit) — did the oversight body expand the monitoring? No. In fact the chemical quietly disappeared from routine checks. Who’s Protecting Our Food? The Minister’s Duty of Care on Glyphosate
- When countries globally moved toward stronger regulation or warning labels — did New Zealand follow? Not really.
- When independent scientists raised concerns about long-term, low-dose exposure — did the regulator commission fresh, independent research? No — the same industry-funded dossiers remain central.
The court’s decision isn’t a one-off. It sits in a system where: the regulator regulates; the courts defer; government ministries shuffle responsibilities. The default outcome: the industry wins.
What This Means for Everyday New Zealanders
Let’s bring it home.
Because this isn’t just legal language — it’s about what ends up in our food, bodies and environment.
Glyphosate residues are detected in:
- Bread (yes, the everyday staple)
- Cereals (that breakfast we give our kids)
- Honey (one of our signature exports)
- Water and soil — the very foundation of our food chain
Yet the official line remains: “Used properly, it’s safe.”
But when the very agencies meant to protect us draw the curtains on key chemicals, do we feel safer — or more abandoned?
The Accountability Gap
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: there’s a massive gap in accountability.
- The EPA regulates hazardous substances, but does not monitor long-term health outcomes in the general population.
- The courts, as we’ve just seen, defer to the EPA’s interpretation of its role.
- Government ministries point to each other: “That’s someone else’s job.”
So when glyphosate shows up in food, or in the bodies of ordinary people overseas — whose job is it to care?
Right now, the system looks like everyone else’s job is to look the other way. And if everyone is looking away, whose job is it to look out for us?
Why This Matters More Than Ever
This decision lands when public trust in institutions is already fragile. We’ve heard for years that glyphosate is “safe”. We’ve also heard the same line for smoking, asbestos, PFAS. Each time: reassurance backed by “expert” regulators and industry data.
How many rounds of this do we need before the pattern becomes impossible to ignore?
Glyphosate is not a fringe issue. It’s the most widely used herbicide in the world. It’s in our food chain. It’s in our water. Maybe even inside our bodies. And yet — when it comes to being truly challenged in court — the answer is: “The regulator followed procedure.”
That answer isn’t reassurance — it’s a warning.
Where Do We Go From Here?
So what do we do now? Do we close shop, shrug and accept glyphosate is here to stay?
No way.
If the system won’t police itself, then we have to.
Actions we can take:
- Independent food testing.has become essential. Our honey, bread, and cereal tests have already revealed glyphosate residues — the very chemical MPI quietly removed from its own monitoring programme years ago. Without independent testing, New Zealanders would be left completely in the dark.
- MPI’s testing is selective and limited. Even when past results showed glyphosate in wheat and peas, the chemical was dropped from routine checks. Independent testing isn’t a duplication of MPI’s work — it fills the gap left when the regulator looks away.
- Push for mandatory warning labels. If the regulator won’t act, politicians must be held to account.
- Raise public awareness. The more ordinary people know this is in their food and water, the harder it becomes to pretend nothing is happening.
- Make chemical regulation an election issue. Who will we vote for in 2026: the ones willing to challenge the status quo — or those who won’t?
Reframing What We’re Up Against
Yes — this is a setback. And yes — it hurts.
But in another sense, this judgement has done something important: it gave us a clear view of how the walls around this issue are built.
If the courts won’t confront regulators, then the responsibility shifts. To us. To communities. To independent science. To transparency.
We need to test. Question. Educate. Demand.
Where This Leaves Us
The High Court’s decision may have closed one door, but it also sharpened the next step.
We can’t stop. We won’t stop asking questions. We won’t stop exposing what the system does (and doesn’t) do. We won’t stop demanding clarity, accountability and basic human protection from chemical exposure.
Because if courts and regulators won’t act — then one question remains:
Who will?
And can we afford to wait?
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
We’re grateful to the talented photographers and designers whose work enhances our content. The feature image on this page is by derviş.
