On August 20, Federated Farmers lashed out at Greenpeace, accusing them of “manufacturing outrage” over glyphosate.
Their chair went so far as to claim that Greenpeace’s warnings had “no basis in science.”
But is that really true? Or is this yet another example of industry brushing off genuine concerns with a dismissive soundbite? When a chemical is sprayed across millions of hectares, shows up in food, water, and honey, and is tied to ongoing international debate about health and environmental impacts — can we honestly say there’s “no basis” for concern?
At No More Glyphosate NZ, we think the public deserves more than slogans. If Federated Farmers want to call Greenpeace fearmongers, then let’s take a closer look at the facts — and ask the questions their headlines would rather you ignore.
Setting the Scene
Federated Farmers’ arable chair, David Birkett, told Rural News, in an article titled “Greenpeace fearmongering on glyphosate – Feds”, that Greenpeace’s campaign against raising glyphosate residue limits is nothing more than “fearmongering.” His argument rests on the idea that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) reviewed glyphosate last year and saw “no reason to reassess.” Case closed, right?
But should we take that at face value? When regulators declare a chemical “safe,” what does that actually mean — and safe for whom? Is the EPA relying on the latest independent science, or largely on data supplied by the very companies selling glyphosate? And when new international studies keep emerging about low-dose effects, endocrine disruption, and environmental harm, can one domestic review really silence the debate?
The issue isn’t just whether the EPA ticked a box last year. It’s whether that decision reflects the full weight of scientific evidence — and whether it truly puts public and environmental health ahead of agricultural convenience.
Fearmongering or Precaution?
Calling Greenpeace “fearmongers” might sound catchy in a headline, but what does it really mean? If raising concerns about residues in our food, chemicals in our water, and long-term impacts on human health is fearmongering, then what exactly counts as responsible advocacy?
On one side, Federated Farmers are presenting glyphosate as settled science — a safe, reliable tool that keeps farming profitable and efficient. On the other, Greenpeace is warning that the system designed to protect us is being eroded: fast-tracked approvals, industry self-assessment, and higher residue limits quietly pushed through with little public debate.
So who’s really out of line here? The group asking uncomfortable questions about the direction of our food system — or the one insisting there’s nothing to see?
When people raise their voices about glyphosate, it isn’t about whipping up fear for the sake of it. It’s about recognising the uncertainties that remain, the global debates still unfolding, and the need for a precautionary approach. Because if we wait until the harm is undeniable, haven’t we failed in our duty to protect both people and the land?
“No Basis in Science” — Or Selective Science?
Federated Farmers insist Greenpeace’s warnings have “no basis in science.” But what science are they talking about? The carefully selected industry studies that regulators lean on? The short-term toxicology tests that look for immediate harm, while ignoring subtle, long-term effects? Or the growing body of independent research suggesting glyphosate may play a role in hormone disruption, gut health impacts, and biodiversity decline?
It’s easy to say “the science is settled” when you only acknowledge the science that supports your case. But internationally, glyphosate remains one of the most contested chemicals of our time. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified it as “probably carcinogenic.” Courts in the United States have ruled in favour of cancer patients exposed to Roundup. And multiple countries, from Mexico to Germany, have chosen to restrict or phase it out altogether.
So when Federated Farmers wave away public concern with a throwaway line, the question isn’t whether there’s a basis in science — it’s whose science they are willing to see, and whose they choose to ignore.
Fast-Tracking and Self-Assessment — Who Really Benefits?
Greenpeace’s warning isn’t just about glyphosate itself. It’s about the rules of the game quietly shifting in ways that tilt the balance toward industry. Under new proposals, chemical approvals could be fast-tracked, with companies themselves providing much of the assessment data.
That might sound efficient on paper — but efficient for whom? For the public, who rely on regulators to protect health and the environment? Or for the corporations eager to get products on the market with fewer hurdles in the way?
History has shown us what happens when industries are allowed to “mark their own homework.” Corners get cut, risks get downplayed, and the long-term costs are left for communities, ecosystems, and taxpayers to carry.
So the real question isn’t whether Greenpeace is exaggerating. It’s whether Federated Farmers and the government are willing to admit that loosening oversight puts us all at greater risk. If the system becomes one of self-policing, who exactly is being protected — New Zealanders, or the chemical bottom line?
Public Trust and the Precautionary Principle
When it comes to chemicals like glyphosate, the debate isn’t just about toxicology charts or regulatory reports. It’s about trust. Do New Zealanders believe that decisions are being made in their best interests — or in the interests of industry efficiency?
The precautionary principle is simple: when a substance is widely used, and there are credible questions about its long-term impacts, the burden of proof should rest with those promoting it, not with those raising the alarm. Yet time and again, that burden seems flipped. Greenpeace gets branded as alarmist for asking questions, while Federated Farmers are painted as the voice of reason for telling the public to relax.
But what happens if they’re wrong? What if the science they lean on turns out to be incomplete, outdated, or skewed by commercial interests? By then, the damage may already be done — to human health, to ecosystems, and to the credibility of the institutions meant to safeguard both.
Trust isn’t built by dismissing concerns as “fearmongering.” It’s built by acknowledging uncertainty, committing to independent science, and choosing caution when the stakes are this high.
Calling It What It Is
Federated Farmers can repeat “no basis in science” as many times as they like, but repetition doesn’t make it true. Brushing off legitimate public concern as “fearmongering” doesn’t answer the questions Greenpeace — and thousands of New Zealanders — are asking. It only sidesteps them.
If glyphosate is really as safe as claimed, why the push for fast-track approvals and self-assessment? Why the resistance to independent testing and open debate? And why do residues keep showing up in the foods and environments we rely on every day?
This isn’t about fear. It’s about responsibility. About recognising that once a chemical is embedded in our soils, waterways, and food chain, the consequences can’t simply be rolled back. That’s why Greenpeace’s concerns matter — and why Federated Farmers’ dismissal should trouble every New Zealander who expects honesty and accountability in decisions that affect our health and land.
At No More Glyphosate NZ, we’ll keep asking the questions others want ignored. Because in the end, the real danger isn’t public fear — it’s complacency dressed up as certainty.
More Than Headlines — A Growing Body of Evidence
At No More Glyphosate NZ, we’re not just reacting to one news article. We’ve built a library of more than 140 articles — and in over 90% of them you’ll find the same pattern: independent science pointing to glyphosate’s risks.
The evidence runs wide and deep. Studies link glyphosate exposure to fertility issues, neurological disorders, and metabolic disruption. Research shows impacts on pollinators, soil microbes, and the delicate ecosystems that keep our food system alive. From farm fields to kitchen tables, glyphosate is neither safe nor harmless.
So when industry voices dismiss all this as “fearmongering,” it only highlights the gap between their slogans and the science. The public deserves better than reassurance by repetition — we deserve decisions grounded in the full weight of evidence, and policies that put health and the environment first.
Resources & References
It’s easy for industry spokespeople to claim there’s “no basis in science” when dismissing public concern. But science isn’t a slogan — it’s a growing body of evidence, published across regulatory reviews, courtrooms, and independent research. The sources below don’t just add footnotes to this debate — they show why glyphosate remains one of the most contested chemicals of our time.
Media Coverage: Debate Catalyst
Rural News article: “Greenpeace fearmongering on glyphosate – Feds” — Federated Farmers’ chair David Birkett accuses Greenpeace of “manufacturing outrage” and claims there’s “no basis in science,” while referencing the EPA’s decision not to reassess glyphosate.
EPA Regulatory Decision
EPA’s declaration (July 2024): The Environmental Protection Authority found no grounds to reassess glyphosate approvals as of July 2024.
EPA statement (June 2025): Government confirms glyphosate controls remain aligned with international regulatory standards.
Legal Challenge: Environmental Law Initiative (ELI)
ELI’s case overview: The Environmental Law Initiative took the EPA to court, arguing that the agency has never completed a full risk assessment of glyphosate or its co-formulants, and that emerging evidence warrants reassessment.
ELI timeline:
- Application for grounds to reassess: September 2023
- EPA decision (no grounds found): July 2024
- Judicial review filed: October 2024
- High Court hearing: June 2025
Greenpeace Campaign: Fast-Track & MRL Concerns
Greenpeace alert (June 2025): Reports that the government is proposing to increase glyphosate residue limits on food up to 100-fold, and to fast-track approval processes for agrichemicals.
Greenpeace submission (May 2025): Formal opposition to raising glyphosate Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs), arguing the EPA has never done a full herbicide reassessment, and highlighting ongoing legal action.
International Science: Cancer & Health Risks
IARC Monograph (2015): The International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO arm) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on evidence of cancer in animals and limited evidence in humans.
Mesnage et al. (2019, Toxicology): Review shows glyphosate-based herbicides may be more toxic than glyphosate alone due to surfactants like POEA, raising concerns about current regulatory assessments.
Defarge et al. (2016, Int J Environ Res Public Health): Found co-formulants in herbicides, not glyphosate alone, disrupted hormones at very low concentrations.
International Regulation & Policy
Germany:
First announced in 2019 it would phase out glyphosate by the end of 2023, citing biodiversity and public health concerns. In 2021, the German cabinet passed draft legislation to ban glyphosate from 2024. By April 2024, legal restrictions were in place banning glyphosate in home gardens, allotments, and protected water zones, while limiting its use in arable farming. However, an interim emergency regulation delayed a full ban to align with the EU’s renewal of glyphosate approval.
- Emergency regulation delays full ban – Agropages (2023)
- Germany to ban glyphosate by end of 2023 – Reuters (2019)
- German cabinet approves glyphosate ban legislation – Reuters (2021)
- German cabinet restricts glyphosate use – Reuters (2024)
Mexico:
In late 2020, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador issued a presidential decree aiming to phase out both glyphosate and the importation of genetically modified (GM) corn by 2024. Supporters cited health, environmental risks, and threats to biodiversity and native corn varieties.
Subsequent developments showed complexity:
In 2023, the plan was modified—Mexico postponed full implementation, especially affecting GM corn used in industrial and animal feed, while still banning GM corn for human consumption like tortillas and dough.
European Union:
In 2023, EU renewed glyphosate’s license for another 10 years, but with intense opposition from member states and NGOs highlighting ongoing scientific uncertainty.
Court Cases & Accountability
USRTK’s “Monsanto Roundup Trial Tracker”: A detailed blog by Carey Gillam tracking the major U.S. lawsuits connected to Monsanto’s Roundup from November 2018 through November 2021. It includes trial updates, verdicts, and developments.
USRTK’s “Monsanto Papers”: A collection of internal Monsanto documents released during litigation, including evidence of ghostwriting, regulatory influence, and legal strategy — a key window into the company’s conduct.
Precautionary Principle & Oversight
Wikipedia – Precautionary Principle: Offers a clear, well-sourced summary of the principle’s origins (including the Rio Declaration, which was endorsed by UNEP) and applications, especially in the context of environmental regulation and chemical management.
Taken together, these resources make one thing clear: the story of glyphosate is not settled. Far from it. Whether it’s court cases abroad, emerging science on low-dose effects, or local debates over residue limits and regulatory shortcuts, the weight of evidence points in one direction — precaution, not complacency.
So when Federated Farmers insist there’s “no basis in science,” readers should ask: whose science, and whose interests, are really being protected?
If you value this kind of work, you can support us here.
Note: No More Glyphosate NZ is an independent campaign. Our team members are not, and have never been, affiliated with Greenpeace.
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 Finepix.
