When the people who use it most are left scratching their heads, maybe it’s time to rethink the plan.
A Proposal That Doesn’t Add Up
Why would farmers—the ones who actually use glyphosate—be questioning the proposed increase in residue limits?
New Zealand Food Safety has proposed raising the maximum residue limit (MRL) for glyphosate on food crops, including grains, by up to 100 times. This decision, intended to align with international standards, has sparked confusion not only among consumers and health advocates but even among farmers themselves.
Wheat, barley, and oats:
From 0.1 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg – that’s 100 times or a 9900% increase!
Dry field peas:
From 0.1 mg/kg to 6 mg/kg – that’s 60 times or 5900% of the current limit.
Surprisingly, the people who work the land and use glyphosate as part of their agricultural practices are expressing doubt and uncertainty. When farmers start questioning a change designed to benefit agriculture, it’s worth asking: what’s really going on?
Farmers on the Frontline: Feeling Left Out of the Conversation
Farmers, who are typically central to discussions on agricultural practices, have been caught off guard by this sudden proposal. Andrew Darling, Federated Farmers’ arable vice-chairman, has publicly expressed caution. While acknowledging glyphosate as a valuable tool, he emphasized that most farmers consider existing residue limits sufficient and struggle to see any justification for such a dramatic increase.
This raises a critical question: If farmers themselves—the very people using glyphosate—aren’t asking for higher limits, who exactly stands to benefit from this proposal?
Given that farmers, who stand to be most directly affected, aren’t pushing for these changes, it begs the question: Could there be more at play here? One possible factor worth considering is the introduction of the Gene Technology Bill. Could the proposed increase in glyphosate limits be laying the groundwork for more widespread use of genetically modified crops, which are often engineered to withstand heavy herbicide application?
Why the Big Increase? Looking for Answers
The official rationale behind the proposal is to align New Zealand’s limits with international standards. On the surface, that sounds reasonable—especially for maintaining trade relations. But the logic breaks down when you consider that not all countries are moving in this direction. In fact, some are reducing their acceptable glyphosate limits.
It begs the question: Why is New Zealand choosing to go the other way? Who is benefiting from this change, and why aren’t the farmers—the supposed beneficiaries—on board with it?
Safety vs. Standards: Where’s the Balance?
Aligning with global standards might seem practical on paper, but it’s not necessarily the best approach for every region. Safety thresholds should reflect not just international consensus but also local realities. As countries worldwide debate the safety of glyphosate, why is New Zealand moving to increase its presence on our food?
Farmers as Stakeholders: Who Is Listening?
Farmers are key stakeholders when it comes to changes in agricultural regulations. Yet, their voices seem conspicuously absent from the decision-making process. Shouldn’t the people who work with these chemicals daily have a say in whether or not they’re needed at higher levels?
The process feels top-down, and that’s where the problem lies. If farmers themselves don’t understand or agree with the reasoning, perhaps it’s time to pause and rethink.
Conclusion: Back to the Drawing Board
When even those directly impacted by glyphosate regulations question the logic behind such a significant increase, it’s clear something isn’t adding up. Perhaps the push to align with international standards has overlooked the local context—and the real stakeholders.
If you’re a farmer or a concerned consumer, now is the time to make your voice heard. Policies should reflect not just international pressure but also the practical realities of farming in New Zealand.
Resources and References
We’re just scratching the surface here when it comes to the proposed glyphosate limit increase and what it really means. If this has sparked your curiosity, we encourage you to dig deeper, question the rationale, and explore the bigger picture. After all, informed decisions start with asking the right questions and not taking things at face value.
Germany: Restrictions on Glyphosate Use
In April 2024, the German cabinet approved restrictions on the use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer’s Roundup weedkiller. Under the new regulations, glyphosate is generally prohibited in protected water areas, domestic gardens, and allotments. Additionally, its use is restricted in certain areas of arable farming. These measures aim to ensure that existing restrictions are legally secure following the European Union’s authorization of glyphosate’s use for another ten years.
Read the article here
France: Ban on Specific Glyphosate-Based Products
In January 2019, French authorities banned the sale, distribution, and use of Roundup Pro 360, a glyphosate-based herbicide, following a court ruling. The decision was based on the precautionary principle and concerns over potential health risks associated with glyphosate.
Read about the ban here
Mexico: Planned Phase-Out of Glyphosate
In December 2020, Mexico published a decree announcing the phase-out of glyphosate by January 31, 2024. The decree aimed to eliminate the use of glyphosate and genetically modified corn for human consumption. However, in March 2024, the Mexican government postponed the ban, citing the need to find safe alternatives to maintain agricultural production and protect food security.
Read about the decree here
Related Articles on nomoreglyphosate.nz
Glyphosate Residue Limits: Are We Moving Towards Global Harmonization?
As New Zealand debates raising glyphosate residue limits, it’s worth examining whether harmonizing with international standards truly reflects the best interests of local consumers and farmers. This article questions the push for global alignment and challenges the assumption that higher limits automatically mean safer practices.
Read more
The Gene Technology Bill and Glyphosate: An Unspoken Connection
Could there be more to the proposed glyphosate limit increase than meets the eye? This article explores a possible connection between the MRL changes and the introduction of the Gene Technology Bill—raising questions about whether the two are more intertwined than publicly acknowledged.
Read more
Why New Zealand Needs a Glyphosate Reality Check: Insights from Dr. Jodie Bruning
Dr. Jodie Bruning, an outspoken critic of the proposed glyphosate limit increase, highlights the gaps in New Zealand’s regulatory framework and the overlooked health risks. Her insights offer a crucial counterpoint to the official narrative.
Read more
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 budabar. You can find more of their work here: https://www.123rf.com/profile_budabar.
