We’ve previously talked about how powerful interests and regulators downplay the scientific evidence about glyphosate.
But there’s something even more disturbing: right now, the most vulnerable among us — our children — are being overlooked.
And when it comes to toxic chemicals, children aren’t just “small adults” — their developing bodies, brains, and immune systems make them far more vulnerable to harm.
Why Children Deserve Special Consideration
When we talk about chemical safety, most of the standards and “acceptable limits” are based on adult exposures. But children aren’t just smaller versions of adults — their bodies are developing, their systems are still wiring themselves, and that makes them especially vulnerable.
Think about it: a child eats more food and drinks more water per kilo of body weight than an adult does. Their brains are still forming, their organs are still growing, and their detox systems aren’t fully developed. Even tiny doses of a chemical like glyphosate can hit harder and leave a bigger mark.
Research has linked pesticide exposure during pregnancy and early childhood to problems with fertility, metabolism, hormone balance, and even neurological development. Add glyphosate into that picture — showing up in cereals, honey, bread, and waterways — and it’s not hard to see why parents and educators should be alarmed.
And yet, this is the group regulators almost never talk about. Maximum residue limits don’t come with a child-specific warning. EPA reviews don’t highlight developmental risks front and center. Instead, we get blanket assurances that glyphosate is “safe” — without asking what safe really means for a fetus, a newborn, or a school-aged child.
What We’ve Already Found
At No More Glyphosate NZ, our independent testing has shown just how hard it is to avoid glyphosate in everyday life. We’ve found residues in honey, Weet-Bix, and other popular cereals, and even in our waterways. These aren’t fringe foods — they’re the staples children eat and drink every day.
Our (first) supermarket bread tests, on the other hand, didn’t detect glyphosate at the lab’s reporting threshold. But that result is just as telling. It shows how much depends on where the wheat comes from, how it’s grown, and what testing limits are set. “Not detected” doesn’t automatically mean “glyphosate-free” — it means residues could still be present below the level the lab measures.
Each test tells a piece of the same story: glyphosate is not some distant farm chemical; it’s in the foods and environments we rely on daily. And while regulators reassure us that residues are “within safe limits,” those limits were never designed with children’s unique vulnerabilities in mind.
The Regulatory Blind Spot
Parents assume that if a chemical is on the shelf, someone has made sure it’s safe — especially for children. But glyphosate shows how flawed that assumption can be.
Regulators talk about “acceptable daily intakes” and “maximum residue limits,” yet these numbers are built on studies that rarely look at long-term, low-dose exposure in developing children. They don’t factor in how multiple exposures stack up across a day — breakfast cereal in the morning, honey on toast at lunch, traces in fruit or vegetables at dinner.
And while New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) recently decided there were “no grounds” to reassess glyphosate, that conclusion doesn’t erase the international debate or the growing body of research pointing to risks. Instead, it shows just how narrow the lens of regulation can be.
For families, that gap between reassurance and reality is the blind spot that matters most. Because when children are involved, the question isn’t whether glyphosate is “safe enough” for the average adult — it’s whether we’re willing to take the gamble with the next generation.
Why Precaution Matters
When it comes to children, the precautionary principle should be our starting point. Put simply, if there’s credible evidence of risk — even if every detail isn’t fully proven — the burden of proof should fall on those promoting the chemical, not on parents, schools, or communities trying to protect kids.
But that’s not how glyphosate is treated. Instead, regulators give industry the benefit of the doubt. They lean on short-term studies, accept industry-supplied data, and set residue limits that don’t reflect children’s unique vulnerabilities. Then, when people raise concerns, those concerns are brushed off as “fearmongering.”
So we’re left with a choice: do we wait until harm is undeniable, or do we act with caution now? When children’s health is at stake, the answer seems obvious. Precaution isn’t alarmism — it’s responsibility.
Engaging Schools and Early Education
If precaution means anything, it means protecting children where they live, learn, and play. That’s why schools and early childhood centres have such an important role to play in the glyphosate debate.
It’s been a few months since we last reached out to schools, but the need hasn’t gone away. Many playgrounds, sports fields, and even early learning centres are still being sprayed with glyphosate. In some cases, children are back on the grass within hours of application. Add food residues to the mix, and the daily exposure picture becomes even clearer.
Parents and educators deserve straightforward information about what’s being used around children and what alternatives exist. Communities deserve transparency, not reassurances that “everything is safe.” And schools deserve support to choose safer practices that don’t put the youngest and most vulnerable at risk.
Re-engaging with schools and centres isn’t just about raising awareness. It’s about sparking conversations, building local momentum, and showing that precautionary choices are both possible and necessary.
People Power: Protecting Kids, Driving Change
If there’s one thing our work has shown, it’s that change doesn’t start in boardrooms or government offices — it starts in communities. Parents, educators, and local leaders have more power than they often realise.
Here’s how you can take action today:
- Start the conversation — ask your school or early learning centre whether glyphosate-based weedkillers, such as Roundup, are being used on grounds or sports fields. Sometimes, simply asking the question opens the door to change.
- Share the evidence — point your school community to independent testing results. Show that residues aren’t theoretical; they’ve been found in everyday foods like cereals and honey.
- Push for alternatives — encourage councils, schools, and sports clubs to trial glyphosate-free methods. Other communities are already doing it — there’s no reason we can’t.
- Speak up — write to your MP, your local council, or your school board. Remind them that precaution isn’t a luxury — it’s a duty when children’s health is on the line.
Small steps add up. When parents and educators stand together, they send a clear message: our children are not test subjects in a chemical experiment.
Where This Leaves Us
When it comes to glyphosate, children shouldn’t be the afterthought. They should be the first consideration. Yet time and again, regulators and industry voices wave away legitimate concerns, as if repeating “safe” enough times will make it true.
But parents and educators know better. They see that “acceptable limits” don’t account for developing bodies. They understand that once chemicals are in the soil, the water, and the food chain, there’s no simple rewind button. And they know that waiting for absolute proof of harm is not protection — it’s negligence.
So the real question is this: do we want a system that gambles with our children’s health, or one that chooses precaution, transparency, and safer alternatives? At No More Glyphosate NZ, we believe the answer is obvious — and it starts with refusing to accept complacency as a substitute for care.
Further Reading
For insights on how glyphosate affects our youngest and most vulnerable, explore these articles:
Glyphosate Found in 87% of Children: What New Zealand Schools Need to Know
A revealing U.S. study shows unexpected glyphosate exposure—89% of kids—but Kiwi testing hasn’t caught up. Are our schools overlooking airborne or dietary risks?
Time to Rethink Glyphosate Use at Schools: Protecting the Children in Our Care
How often do schools spray on the grounds—with no notice—and return children before it’s safe? This piece calls for transparency and non-toxic weed control.
Glyphosate Residues in Breastmilk: Should We Be Worried?
Detectable levels of glyphosate in breastmilk raise serious red flags. What does this mean for infants—and why aren’t we testing more?
Prenatal Exposure, Lifelong Consequences? A New Study Links Glyphosate to Child Neurodevelopment Issues
A Canadian study links prenatal glyphosate exposure to poorer neuro-development in 3-4 year-olds—an urgent wake-up call for New Zealand policy.
Autism and Glyphosate: Ignored Clue or Irrelevant Correlation?
With rising autism rates and glyphosate use in parallel, this article explores whether persistent environmental chemical exposure may play a role—and why no one is studying it.
Glyphosate, Oxidative Stress, and DNA Damage: What the Science Tells Us
Examines how glyphosate can induce oxidative stress and DNA damage—effects especially concerning for growing, dividing cells in children.
The Baby Who Changed a Borough
A moving story about a mother in Ellerslie whose chemically sensitive baby inspired her community to ban glyphosate spraying—twice. A powerful example of grassroots impact.
Image Source & Attribution
A big thank you to the creators at Unsplash for making their images freely available for projects like ours. The image featured on this page is by Getty Images. You can explore more of their work here: https://unsplash.com/@gettyimages.
