When No More Glyphosate NZ recently revealed that ACC had identified 10 work-related gradual process claims mentioning glyphosate or Roundup — and all 10 had been declined — two important questions remained unanswered.
What illnesses were those claims for?
And why were they declined?
We had asked ACC both questions. They simply weren’t answered in its original response.
So we went back and asked again.
ACC has now provided more information. And for the first time, we know that cancer was among the injuries recorded in those declined claims — including non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
But when it comes to explaining why the claims were declined, the answer is considerably less clear.
What ACC Has Now Told Us
In its follow-up response, ACC told NMGNZ:
“Under four claims had a form of cancer as an injury”
“Under four claims had Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as an injury.”
Because ACC suppresses numbers below four to protect claimant privacy, we don’t know the exact number in either category. “Under four” means the number could be one, two or three.
Nor can the two figures simply be added together. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma is itself a form of cancer, so some or all of the claims counted in the non-Hodgkin lymphoma category could also be included in ACC’s broader cancer category.
What we can say is that among the 10 declined work-related gradual process claims identified by ACC, between one and three had a form of cancer recorded as an injury, and between one and three had non-Hodgkin lymphoma recorded as an injury.
That is new information.
And it matters.
Why Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Stands Out
The reference to non-Hodgkin lymphoma is particularly noteworthy because it has featured prominently in the scientific debate surrounding glyphosate for more than a decade.
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). Its evaluation reported limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, alongside sufficient evidence in experimental animals.
There is an interesting connection here.
When we asked ACC for the policies, guidance, assessment frameworks and other material it uses when considering alleged chronic or long-term exposure to glyphosate, Roundup, herbicides or other agrichemicals, ACC itself directed us to IARC Monographs Volume 112.
We don’t know what role, if any, the IARC assessment played in ACC’s consideration of these particular claims. Population-level evidence about an association or hazard is not the same thing as establishing causation in an individual person.
What makes this particularly interesting is that ACC identified non-Hodgkin lymphoma among the injuries recorded in its small group of declined claims, while also directing us to the IARC monograph in response to our request for its assessment material.
That makes the question of how ACC evaluated causation in these claims all the more interesting.
So Why Were the Claims Declined?
This was the other question we asked ACC.
Specifically, we requested: “Where reasonably available in aggregate form, the principal reason or reasons for declining those WRGP claims.”
ACC has now replied: “Declined WRGP claims had the cover decision reason of No Occupational Gradual Process, Declined, Disentitled or Withdrawn.”
Technically, that gives us ACC’s recorded cover decision reasons.
It doesn’t really tell us why the claims failed.
“Declined” does not explain why a claim was declined. “Disentitled” and “Withdrawn” similarly tell us something about the status or outcome of a claim without explaining the medical or evidential issue behind it.
The potentially more informative category is “No Occupational Gradual Process.”
But ACC hasn’t told us how many of the ten claims were recorded under each of these categories, nor what led it to conclude that a claim did not meet the occupational gradual-process test.
And that distinction matters.
What Does Someone Have to Prove?
ACC does recognise illnesses and diseases caused gradually through a person’s work. Its current public guidance says these claims can include diseases resulting from long-term workplace exposure, and that the effects may not become apparent until years later.
But there are hurdles.
For a work-related gradual process claim, ACC must consider whether the person’s work tasks or environment caused or contributed to the injury and whether that work placed the person at a significantly greater risk than people who did not perform that work or work in that environment.
ACC says it considers each claim on the evidence available and may seek information from the claimant, employers or former employers, and medical providers.
So when ACC records “No Occupational Gradual Process”, there are obvious questions.
Was there insufficient evidence of occupational exposure? Did ACC conclude the work did not cause or contribute to the disease? Did the evidence fail the significantly-greater-risk test? Was there another explanation for the illness?
We don’t know.
And we shouldn’t guess.
ACC Does Recognise Work-Related Cancer
There is another reason this distinction is important.
Cancer itself is not somehow outside ACC’s work-related gradual process system.
ACC gives asbestos exposure leading to mesothelioma or asbestosis as an example of the type of long-term occupational exposure it can cover.
It also has a specific process for assessing occupational cancer claims from firefighters. ACC says those claims are assessed individually to determine whether the cancer was more likely than not work-related, with factors including duration of employment, exposure history and the particular cancer involved.
So the issue isn’t whether ACC can recognise cancer as a work-related disease. Its own policies and processes show that it can.
The much more interesting question for us is: What evidence would be enough for ACC to accept that occupational exposure to glyphosate contributed to a particular person’s cancer?
That is something we intend to explore further.
What About the Other Conditions?
Our original request went beyond cancer. We also asked whether any of the 10 claims involved Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease (MND/ALS), neurological disorders, or other chronic illnesses associated with the claimed exposure.
ACC has now confirmed to NMGNZ that there were zero claims in each of those remaining categories.
Of the conditions we specifically asked ACC about, cancer — including non-Hodgkin lymphoma — was the only category identified among the ten claims.
There is, however, another important question still outstanding.
Did any of the ten declined claims go to review or appeal?
We have asked ACC how many of the declined claims subsequently went to review or appeal, whether the original decisions were upheld, and whether any were overturned or subsequently accepted.
ACC has assigned this additional request a new reference number, GOV-050444, and says it will respond in due course.
Ten Declines Are Starting to Tell Us More
When we first obtained the figure of 10 work-related gradual process claims and 10 declines, it was striking but frustratingly incomplete.
We knew the outcome, but we didn’t know what sat behind it. Now a little more of that picture has emerged.
Among this small group of claims mentioning glyphosate or Roundup were claims involving cancer, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma. What we still don’t know is the evidence presented in those cases, how ACC evaluated it, or what specifically prevented the claims from meeting the threshold for cover.
Those questions matter far beyond ten ACC files.
They matter to the farmer who has sprayed herbicides throughout a working lifetime, the contractor who has spent years applying them, and anyone else whose occupation has involved repeated chemical exposure and who later develops a serious illness.
For those people, the question isn’t simply whether science has identified a possible association between an exposure and a disease. It is also whether that evidence can ever satisfy the test required by New Zealand’s accident compensation system.
That is where our investigation goes next.
Image Source & Attribution
The feature image on this page was created using AI-assisted image generation from an original concept developed by No More Glyphosate NZ and refined for publication in Canva.
AI is a useful creative tool for visualising complex investigative topics that cannot be meaningfully photographed, allowing us to illustrate ideas without implying that any specific scene or event actually occurred.
