What if the right to farm came with an obligation to protect public health — not just productivity?
In the United States right now, a fierce battle is being fought over glyphosate — not just whether it’s harmful or how it’s regulated, but whether chemical manufacturers should be legally shielded from the consequences of harm altogether. At the centre of it is a lobbying effort by the Modern Ag Alliance to block lawsuits against weedkiller makers, even when there’s credible evidence of harm.
While this fight is playing out in American courtrooms and congressional hallways, the questions it raises are universal — including here in New Zealand.
Who gave farmers, or chemical companies, the right to decide how much pesticide ends up in our food, our waterways, or our bodies?
Who decides what level of exposure is “acceptable” for your child? Or your unborn grandchild?
And why are we still framing this as a question of convenience versus alarmism, rather than profit versus public health?
How the ‘Right to Spray’ Became Normal — and Why That Needs to Change
In the US, the push for legal immunity is being justified in the name of “farmer protection.” But what it really protects is an industrial model of agriculture that treats herbicide use as non-negotiable — and turns every challenge to that model into a political threat.
It’s the same strategy we’ve seen before, from tobacco to fossil fuels:
- Build doubt around the science.
- Minimise harm with terms like “safe when used as directed.”
- Reframe health and environmental concerns as ideological or anti-science.
- And most of all, use the language of rights — the right to farm, the right to spray, the right to choose — as if that trumps everyone else’s right to live without chemical exposure they never consented to.
But no one has the right to farm in a way that puts others’ health at risk — yet that’s exactly what’s happening.
And here in New Zealand, we don’t even have the legal tools that Americans do. There’s no clear path to sue pesticide manufacturers when harm occurs — no class action framework, no glyphosate-based lawsuits like those unfolding in the US. That means our only real defence is prevention. Regulation. Transparency.
Because once the damage is done, there’s no recourse. And no one to answer for it.
The True Cost of Convenience: What Glyphosate Is Really Costing Society
If we step back, the logic is absurd.
We allow widespread spraying of glyphosate-based herbicides — often multiple times per season, across entire paddocks, roadways, and public spaces — because it saves time and money. Especially on large-scale operations.
But who picks up the tab when those chemicals show up in the water, in the honey, or in the bread on your table?
Who absorbs the health costs of chronic exposure? The cancers that are “probably not caused by glyphosate” — until someone proves they are? The gut disorders, thyroid problems, fertility issues, and learning difficulties that are on the rise but rarely traced back to a single chemical?
The answer is you — and all of us.
Public health systems carry the burden. Families carry the burden. Future generations may carry the burden without ever knowing why.
Yet the so-called cost to farmers of reducing chemical use is treated as sacrosanct — while the cost to society is waved away as speculative.
Glyphosate-Sprayed Feed, Dairy Cows, and the Exposure No One Wants to Talk About
In New Zealand — as in many other countries — glyphosate isn’t just used on crops humans eat. It is routinely sprayed on pasture, silage and feed crops consumed by dairy cows and livestock. That means glyphosate enters the food system not just via cereals and vegetables — but through milk, meat and dairy products.
Peer-reviewed studies have now confirmed what many suspected:
- A 2023 PLOS ONE study in pregnant dairy cows found DNA damage, immune disruption, and effects in offspring from glyphosate-contaminated feed.
- A 2025 dairy cow trial reported reduced lactose production and shifts in immune‑cell ratios when glyphosate was present in the diet — subtle but measurable biological effects.
- A 2016 Journal of Dairy Science paper — often cited to downplay toxicity — still confirmed that glyphosate passes through the cow, affects rumen microbes, and is excreted in milk and urine.
Yet none of this is reflected in New Zealand’s official food residue monitoring. Milk samples are rarely tested for glyphosate. Feed crops are not systematically surveyed. Regulatory blind spots make it nearly impossible to know what levels might be entering the food chain.
That’s not science-based policy. That’s willful neglect.
What Happens If Glyphosate Is Replaced by Something Even Worse?
It’s a fair question. But it’s also a loaded one.
Whenever there’s a call to ban glyphosate, defenders of the status quo raise the spectre of something worse: more toxic chemicals, less targeted herbicides, increased tillage and erosion, higher food prices. And it’s true — if nothing else changes, replacing glyphosate with another chemical might simply swap one set of risks for another.
But that’s not the only path forward.
This argument only holds water if we continue farming as we do now — locked into monocultures, beholden to chemical cycles, with little support for ecological weed management or regenerative approaches.
What we should be asking is: why hasn’t more been invested in genuine alternatives?
Why is it still easier and cheaper to spray than to shift?
And who benefits most from keeping it that way?
From Weed Control to Crop Drying: Why Glyphosate Residues Are Now Everywhere
Much of the debate focuses on glyphosate as a weedkiller — a tool to knock back unwanted growth. But that’s not always how it’s used.
In many parts of the world, including New Zealand, glyphosate is also used as a pre-harvest desiccant — sprayed directly onto crops like wheat and barley to dry them faster for harvest. This is where residue in the food chain becomes especially hard to avoid.
It’s not just about killing weeds anymore. It’s about crop timing, shelf-life, and marketability.
And that’s where the science gets murky and the risk to consumers increases.
The more we treat glyphosate as a management tool for profit and logistics, the more it ends up in the final product. The food. The water. The gut.
And yet, even when residue levels exceed regulatory limits, there are rarely consequences. No fines. No recalls. No accountability. Just a quiet adjustment to the limits or a shrug from the regulator.
Why New Zealand’s Regulatory Direction Should Worry Us All
We like to believe that things are different here. Cleaner. Greener. Better regulated.
But our glyphosate regulations are heavily influenced by international norms — especially those set by the U.S., Australia, and the EU. If liability shields become the norm overseas, how long until similar proposals surface here?
We need to decide: do we want to follow the US down a path of corporate immunity and chemically convenient farming — or do we want to lead the world in safe, accountable, health-centred agriculture?
What Needs to Change — Before the Next Generation Pays the Price
- Stop pretending farmers have a blanket right to spray chemicals without scrutiny. The public has a right to clean food, clean water, and transparency.
- Start holding regulators accountable. When limits are raised without clear justification, the public deserves to know why — and who benefits.
- Shift the conversation. Instead of asking what replaces glyphosate, ask what system enables its overuse in the first place.
- Fund alternatives. Mechanical weed control, cover crops, mulching, thermal weeding, and other methods exist. But they need investment and support to scale.
- Protect the right to know and the right to sue. If glyphosate causes harm, companies should not be shielded from liability just because the product was “approved.” Approval doesn’t mean safe. And safe doesn’t mean consequence-free.
Farming Rights, Food Safety, and the Questions No One in Power Wants to Answer
There’s no question that farmers need support. But support doesn’t mean impunity. And it certainly doesn’t mean prioritising short-term cost savings over long-term health and sustainability.
As New Zealanders, we must be willing to ask the uncomfortable questions:
- Are we farming for food — or for finance?
- Are we protecting productivity — or passing off risk?
- Are we following blindly — or leading with foresight?
Because if we don’t ask these questions now, the answers may be written on our plates — and in our hospitals — for decades to come.
Resources & References on Glyphosate & Livestock / Food Chain Exposure
We know most farmers care deeply about the land, the food they produce, and the communities they feed. But somewhere along the way, chemical convenience was sold as necessity — and now it’s being defended as a right.
This collection of studies, reviews, and industry reports doesn’t just question that assumption — it exposes the ripple effects glyphosate is having on livestock health, food quality, and public trust. For any farmer still spraying without question, it’s time to reckon with the bigger picture. The science is speaking. Are we listening?
Bayer Leads New Coalition to Advocate for U.S. Farmers’ Access to Glyphosate and Other Crop Protection Tools — AgriBusiness Global (2024)
An industry news piece describing how Bayer and more than 60 agricultural organisations formed the Modern Ag Alliance to lobby US lawmakers to preserve glyphosate (and other pesticides) access for farmers — illustrating the political‑corporate forces defending chemical‑intensive agriculture. https://www.agribusinessglobal.com/agrochemicals/herbicides/bayer-leads-new-coalition-to-advocate-for-u-s-farmers-access-to-glyphosate-and-other-crop-protection-tools/
Effects of Glyphosate Residues and Different Concentrate Feed Proportions in Dairy Cow Rations on Hepatic Gene Expression, Liver Histology and Biochemical Blood Parameters
Heymann A‑K et al., 2021, PLoS ONE
A feeding trial with 61 Holstein dairy cows given glyphosate‑contaminated feed for 16 weeks, investigating liver function, blood chemistry, and gene expression. While the authors concluded no overt toxicity under the tested conditions, the work still highlights how glyphosate enters the animal’s system and is processed by liver metabolism — underlining that glyphosate doesn’t simply vanish.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0246679
Glyphosate in Livestock: Feed Residues and Animal Health
Vicini JL et al., 2019, Journal of Animal Science
A broad review of available studies assessing the impact of glyphosate residues in feed on livestock health, performance, and production metrics. It remains a key reference for understanding how regulatory and industry‑funded literature tends to frame glyphosate risk as minimal — showing where data gaps and assumptions persist.
https://academic.oup.com/jas/article/97/11/4509/5565412
Excretion Pathways and Ruminal Disappearance of Glyphosate and Its Degradation Product Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Dairy Cows
von Soosten D et al., 2016, Journal of Dairy Science
Demonstrates that when cows ingest glyphosate via feed, a significant portion passes through the rumen and gut — with residues excreted in feces and urine, and trace amounts detectable in milk. This study shows how glyphosate does not simply degrade harmlessly in livestock, undermining claims it “disappears.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030216301874
Evaluation of the Impact of Glyphosate and Its Residues in Feed on Animal Health — (Report to EFSA), 2018
A regulatory‑level assessment commissioned by the European Food Safety Authority reviewing glyphosate residues in animal feed, potential for contamination, and implications for animal health and food safety. Useful for understanding how glyphosate exposure via feed is evaluated at the policy/regulatory level — and where risk assessments may underestimate or overlook chronic, low‑dose exposure.
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5283
Investigations on the Possible Impact of a Glyphosate‑Containing Herbicide on Rumen Microbial Metabolism
Riede S. et al., 2016, Journal of Applied Microbiology
An in‑vitro study of rumen microbial communities exposed to glyphosate showing that under some conditions, microbial fermentation and metabolism appeared relatively resilient — highlighting the complexity and variability of glyphosate’s effects depending on diet, microbial composition, and environmental context.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13190
This isn’t the full story — it’s the tip of an emerging iceberg. A growing body of research is revealing the cracks in our chemical farming model, and the longer we ignore it, the deeper those cracks run. No one’s saying change is easy. But staying asleep is no longer an option.
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 sauletas.
