Glyphosate in New Zealand Honey — Test Results: Batch 2

We’re continuing our investigation into New Zealand honey — one of our most iconic (and expensive) foods — to find out just how clean it really is.

And whether traces of glyphosate, the active ingredient in popular weedkillers like Roundup, are showing up in one of New Zealand’s most iconic foods.

In June, our first round of testing showed that nearly half the samples contained detectable glyphosate residue. Our second batch included five mānuka and one Kanuka honeys, and one blended honey designed for children — all widely available in supermarkets or online.

Here’s what we found.

Honey Glyphosate Test Results — Batch 2

All seven samples were independently tested on 08 August 2025 by Hill Laboratories. The glyphosate detection limit was 0.002 mg/kg (2.0 ppb).

Here’s what the testing revealed for each sample:

Other Herbicides

The lab also tested for AMPA (the main breakdown product of glyphosate) and Glufosinate (a separate herbicide).

No measurable amounts were found above the reporting threshold of 0.010 mg/kg for either chemical.

Even that threshold carries a small uncertainty — ±0.0029 mg/kg for AMPA — meaning the lab is confident that if either compound is present, it’s below 0.010 mg/kg within the margin of error.

That’s encouraging.

But glyphosate — most commonly known as Roundup — alone still raises concern.

What Does This Tell Us?

• 5 out of 7 honey samples contained detectable levels of glyphosate.
• Only two samples — Manawa Kanuka and Manuka Pharm — tested below the detection limit.
• The highest level detected was 12.4 ppb, found in a jar of DownUnder Honey Manuka UMF 10+.
• Even premium brands like Comvita and Manuka Health weren’t exempt — testing at 4.0 ppb and 2.9 ppb respectively.
• These levels may seem low, but for a high-value product often marketed for its purity and wellness benefits, any detectable glyphosate may come as an unpleasant surprise to health-conscious consumers.

While none of the samples exceeded New Zealand’s Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for honey, the very presence of glyphosate—especially in products marketed for wellness—highlights a deeper contradiction. We explored that tension in detail in our article When “Healthy” Honey Meets a Glyphosate Reality, where we unpack how marketing claims can clash with chemical findings.

All honey producers whose products we tested were invited to respond to our results. Two — DownUnder Honey and Comvita — chose to do so, and their full replies are included below.

How This Compares

The highest residue detected in this batch was 12.4 ppb. While that level would fail Japan’s zero-tolerance limit of 0.01 mg/kg (10 ppb), it would pass under both Codex and EU limits — and is well within New Zealand’s legal domestic limit of 0.1 mg/kg.

For consumers, these different limits are more than just confusing numbers on paper — they also raise questions about what happens to honey that doesn’t meet a particular market’s standard. While that’s a story for another day, it’s one more reason independent testing matters: it creates a domestic benchmark that isn’t tied to export rules or shifting regulatory lines.

Should Pesticide Residues Be on the Label?

We’re told to read the label.
Check the sugar.
Watch the sodium.
Compare the calories.

But what about pesticide residues?

If glyphosate is showing up in premium honeys — even at low levels — shouldn’t consumers have the right to know? Just like nutritional values, chemical residues affect health too. And yet, they remain invisible.

Isn’t it time we added pesticide residue disclosure to the label — right alongside the nutrition panel?

May contain: Trace pesticide residues (e.g., glyphosate)

It’s Not About Blame — It’s About Awareness

Let’s be clear: this is not a blame-and-shame campaign. We’re not pointing fingers at brands, beekeepers, or honey producers.

This is an ongoing, independent testing program, and we’ve only just begun. If you produce or sell honey in New Zealand — chances are we’ll get to your product eventually, if we haven’t already.

And when we do, the goal isn’t to “catch you out” — it’s to build a clearer picture of just how widespread glyphosate contamination has become.

In fact, one of the great ironies here is that the “culprit” isn’t necessarily the producer.

The culprit, in many cases… is the bee.

Bees don’t read spray notices.
They forage freely — up to 1.5 kilometres in every direction from the hive.
That’s almost 700 hectares of potential exposure.

Even if a beekeeper never touches glyphosate, their bees may still bring it back in trace amounts from sprayed farmland, roadside verges, or council-managed reserves.

One producer we spoke to put it plainly:

“You can’t contain a bee… even hives in remote high country still show traces of glyphosate.”

That’s the core issue. Glyphosate in honey isn’t necessarily a reflection of how the honey is made — but how saturated our environment has become.

So no, this isn’t about blame.
It’s about transparency, consumer choice, and asking whether we want a chemical so deeply embedded in our landscapes that not even the bees can avoid it.

Why It Matters

This is a grassroots initiative — powered by public interest, not corporate funding.

We’re not regulators.
We’re not industry insiders.
But we care deeply about the integrity of our food system.

That’s why we use only certified and accredited laboratories, like Hill Laboratories — to ensure the results are reliable, independent, and held to professional scientific standards.

They tell us to “trust the science” — so we are.
That’s why we’re using accredited labs, validated testing methods, and real food samples.
The only thing we’re not blindly trusting is the system that’s supposed to be protecting us.

Because here’s what we’ve learned:

• Regulators aren’t routinely testing for glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup in honey or most food products. — and while honey for export is monitored, domestic sales are not.
• Food labels tell us nothing about pesticide residues.
• The public is left to either trust the system — or challenge it.

We’ve chosen to challenge it — and we’re doing it with facts.

What’s Next?

This was Batch 2 — and more are on the way.

Another round of honey testing is already booked, with more to follow. We’re also continuing to test supermarket foods, one category at a time.

Not to cause panic.
Not to drive fear.
But to build a clearer, more transparent picture of what ends up on our plates.

And one important reminder:
These results apply only to the specific batches tested.
Every harvest, every location, every season is different. That’s why continued testing matters.

If you care about what’s in your food, your environment, and your body — stay with us.
Ask questions.
Share the data.
Support the work.

Together, we’re building a movement that puts people before pesticides.

Producer Feedback

The following are full responses from DownUnder Honey and Comvita to our published results.

DownUnder Honey Ltd

I assume its your organisation that has been writing to us,

My comments are the same as before, MPI are the ones to assess whether agrichemicals are an issue in the food chain. Hills in the last 2 years have modified their detection levels down to 0.002 mg/kg, which I believe is 10x as sensitive as what was previously detectable. The current food limit is 0.1 mg/kgs so your detection is approx 1/10th of the allowable limit which is consistent with random testing we have done. Test results are completely random in our experience, some samples will show small residues, some not, reflecting the random behaviour of incidental encourters with sprayed flowers and also location and bee behaviour.

MPI have data based on random testing re Glyphosate levels in Honey and are best to comment as to whether it is a problem, our understanding is at the sort of levels shown here its very small, likely incidental levels that largely support the conclusion that Glyphosate is widespread throughout the food chain in possible small amounts. Bees of course collect agrichemicals incidentally when they visit flowers from plants that have been recently sprayed and as beekeepers we would support greater controls over the use of Agrichemicals to reduce the likelihood of Glyphosate entering the food chain. Beekeepers generally support reduced levels of Glyphosate in the environment, but there needs to be low toxicity alternatives therefore we would not support replacement of Glyphosate with alternatives that are more toxic to pollinators

We dont support greater testing for Glyphosate as there is no evidence that levels in honey are problematic. Other products may not be so and beekeepers are aware of this because the use of agrichemicals and the practices around these are of particular interest. There are many chemicals that are in honey due its origins and there is a balance between testing cost and whether there is an underlying problem. NZ Honey is already widely tested at a batch level for a range of components and mandatory Glyphosate testing is not something that we believe is required nor worthwhile given residue levels , but by all means discuss further with MPI.

Regards,
DownUnder Honey Ltd

Comvita response (August 2025)

As the global Industry leader in Mānuka Honey, we have an absolute commitment to producing the highest quality products for our millions of loyal consumers around the world. We strongly advocate for lifting industry standards across the sector to deliver on consumer expectations of high-quality products to ensure long-term sustainable success of the New Zealand honey Industry.

While the use of glyphosate, and other herbicides and pesticides, are approved for agricultural uses in many countries around the world, including New Zealand, we believe they have no place in food. We also recognise that some consumers have concerns about potential risks of glyphosate contamination in their foods. That’s why we take every effort to reduce and eliminate the presence of glyphosate in our products.

Our comprehensive residue monitoring programme, including glyphosate, has been in place for many years, protecting the quality of our product and giving us confidence that our honey exceeds all global standards. Under this programme, all of our drums of honey, batches made and finished products are scientifically tested for glyphosate and other residues in our internationally accredited, state-of-the-art laboratory.

Comvita’s product specification Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for glyphosate is aligned with The Detox Project’s Glyphosate Free certification level of <0.01 ppm, which is ten times lower than the permitted MRL for honey of <0.1ppm set by the NZ Government. We also have in place standard operating procedures that provide clear guidance to our beekeepers and landowners on the use of glyphosate, and other herbicides and pesticides, in line with best practice and reduce the risk of contamination at source.

Whilst total elimination of glyphosate from the environment would be our preference, we are pleased to see that No More Glyphosate’s test results on our products have returned results well below The Detox Project’s Glyphosate Free certification level and more than 16 times lower than the NZ Government’s glyphosate MRL for honey.

Overall Takeaway

On balance, these results might feel encouraging compared to our first round of testing — none of the samples came close to breaching New Zealand’s Maximum Residue Limit, and most levels were very low. But glyphosate — most widely recognised as the active ingredient in Roundup — is still out there, quietly showing up in a food often marketed as pure and untouched.

Honey producers themselves often acknowledge that “it’s everywhere” and nearly impossible to avoid entirely. That makes our independent testing valuable not only as a snapshot in time but as a benchmark. Future testing will show whether levels are trending down, holding steady, or creeping up — and whether the industry is taking meaningful steps to reduce contamination.

What Else Have We Found?

If you’d like to explore more of our past independent testing, check out:

Glyphosate in New Zealand Honey? Our First Test Results Are In
We tested seven NZ honeys—almost half contained detectable glyphosate residues.

Glyphosate in Weet‑Bix? Here’s What Our Independent Tests Found
Weet‑Bix is a Kiwi breakfast staple. One variety (Multi‑Grain) contained glyphosate levels above NZ’s wheat MRL.

What We’re Finding in Our Food: Honey, Weet‑Bix, and Now Cereal
A summary of our broader investigation—now including cereal tests, showing glyphosate keeps turning up in everyday foods.

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 IgorVetushko.