When a laboratory reports no detectable glyphosate in food, does that mean none is present? And if glyphosate is found, does being below the legal limit mean there is nothing to investigate?
A recent written response from New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries helps explain three important differences that are often overlooked.
What Does “No Glyphosate Detected” Really Mean?
When consumers see a laboratory result stating that glyphosate was “not detected”, the natural assumption is that the food contains no glyphosate.
But that is not necessarily what the result means.
Every laboratory has a limit to how small an amount of glyphosate it can reliably measure. Below that limit, glyphosate may still be present, but the laboratory cannot reliably measure or report how much.
Different laboratories can have different reporting limits. This means one laboratory may report no measurable glyphosate in a honey sample, while another, using more sensitive testing, can measure the glyphosate present.
The sample may contain glyphosate in both cases. The difference is whether the laboratory can measure it.
Both laboratories may be reporting correctly. Neither result, by itself, tells us whether the food is safe or unsafe to consume.
To understand why, we need to look at three things: laboratory reporting limits, maximum residue limits (MRLs), and what a non-detect result actually means.
1. The Laboratory Reporting Limit: How Low Can We Measure?
Every laboratory has a limit to how small an amount of glyphosate it can reliably measure and routinely report. This is called its reporting limit.
For example, a laboratory with a reporting limit of 0.01 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) will generally not report smaller amounts as measured concentrations.
A laboratory with a validated reporting limit of 0.002 mg/kg can measure glyphosate at concentrations five times lower.
These are very small quantities:
- 0.01 mg/kg is equivalent to 10 micrograms of glyphosate per kilogram of food.
- 0.002 mg/kg is equivalent to 2 micrograms per kilogram.
Why Does This Matter?
Imagine a honey sample containing 0.006 mg/kg of glyphosate.
A laboratory with a reporting limit of 0.01 mg/kg would generally report no glyphosate detected above its reporting limit of 0.01 mg/kg.
Another laboratory, using a validated reporting limit of 0.002 mg/kg, could measure and report the 0.006 mg/kg of glyphosate present.
The amount of glyphosate hasn’t changed. The second laboratory can simply measure smaller amounts.
Detection, Measurement and Reporting Are Not Quite the Same
Laboratories sometimes use different terms for their testing limits.
A limit of detection (LOD) is the smallest amount they can identify as being present.
A limit of quantification (LOQ) is the smallest amount they can reliably measure.
A reporting limit (RL) is the lowest amount they routinely report as a number.
These limits are not always the same, although they are sometimes confused in public discussions.
And none of them tells us how much glyphosate is safe to consume.
They tell us what the laboratory’s testing method can do.
2. Maximum Residue Limits: What Is Legally Allowed?
A maximum residue limit (MRL) is the amount of a pesticide residue legally allowed in a particular food.
It is not a measure of how little glyphosate a laboratory can detect, nor is it the point at which glyphosate suddenly becomes dangerous.
In New Zealand, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) sets MRLs for agricultural chemicals, including glyphosate.
These limits are primarily intended to ensure that pesticides are used according to approved agricultural practices. MPI also considers food safety and dietary exposure when establishing them.
MPI explains that MRLs are generally set below concentrations expected to pose a health risk.
That means exceeding an MRL does not automatically mean a food is dangerous to eat.
But the reverse is equally important.
A food can meet the legal limit and still contain measurable glyphosate.
Glyphosate in New Zealand Honey
For glyphosate in honey, MPI has identified the default New Zealand MRL as 0.1 mg/kg.
Compare that with the laboratory reporting limits we’ve been discussing.
| Measurement | Glyphosate Concentration | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| Lower reporting limit | 0.002 mg/kg | A laboratory can routinely report glyphosate at this level using a validated method |
| Higher reporting limit | 0.01 mg/kg | Smaller amounts generally won’t be reported as measured concentrations |
| Default NZ MRL for honey | 0.1 mg/kg | The maximum concentration legally permitted under New Zealand’s default MRL |
The default MRL for honey is 50 times higher than the lower reporting limit of 0.002 mg/kg.
But these numbers serve entirely different purposes.
The laboratory reporting limit tells us how little glyphosate can be measured.
The MRL tells us how much is legally permitted.
Just because a residue is below the legal limit doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
And just because a laboratory can measure a residue doesn’t automatically mean the food is unsafe.
These are separate questions.
3. What Does a Non-Detect Result Actually Tell Us?
This is where laboratory results can easily be misunderstood.
Suppose a laboratory tests a honey sample for glyphosate using a reporting limit of 0.01 mg/kg.
The laboratory might report the result as “not detected” or “less than 0.01 mg/kg”, depending on its reporting practices.
What does that tell us?
It tells us that the laboratory has not reported a measurable amount of glyphosate at or above 0.01 mg/kg.
It does not tell us whether glyphosate is completely absent.
There may be no glyphosate in the sample. Or there may be a smaller amount that the laboratory cannot reliably measure and report.
Now suppose the same honey is tested using a more sensitive method, with a validated reporting limit of 0.002 mg/kg.
This laboratory can measure much smaller amounts of glyphosate. It might detect and quantify glyphosate that the first laboratory could not report as a measured concentration.
Or it might also report no measurable glyphosate.
The important point is that “not detected” does not necessarily mean “not present”. It means the laboratory has not found a reportable amount using its particular testing method.
Why This Matters When Comparing Food Surveys
Imagine two surveys, each testing 100 honey samples.
The first survey uses a reporting limit of 0.01 mg/kg.
The second uses 0.002 mg/kg.
The second survey could report glyphosate in more samples simply because its testing method can measure smaller amounts.
More detections do not necessarily mean more contamination. Sometimes they simply mean more sensitive testing.
This matters when governments, researchers or food producers publish results showing that a certain percentage of samples contained no detectable glyphosate.
For example, if a survey reports that 90% of samples had no detectable glyphosate using a reporting limit of 0.01 mg/kg, we still don’t know how many of those samples might contain smaller, measurable amounts.
A laboratory testing to 0.002 mg/kg could potentially find glyphosate in some of them.
That is why the reporting limit matters.
Without knowing how low the laboratory could measure, we cannot know what a “non-detect” result really tells us.
4. MPI Confirms There Is No Required 0.01 mg/kg Reporting Limit for Glyphosate in Honey
In September 2026, No More Glyphosate NZ asked MPI to clarify whether laboratories in New Zealand were required or recommended to use 0.01 mg/kg as the reporting limit for glyphosate in honey.
The question arose from our independent honey-testing programme, after Hill Laboratories reported glyphosate in several honey samples at concentrations below 0.01 mg/kg, using its validated reporting limit of 0.002 mg/kg.
We wanted to establish whether there was any scientific or regulatory reason why those results should be disregarded simply because they fell below 0.01 mg/kg.
Although we requested technical clarification rather than making an Official Information Act request, MPI chose to process our enquiry under the OIA.
MPI’s written response was clear.
First, MPI confirmed:
The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) does not recognise, prescribe or recommend that laboratories use 0.01 mg/kg as a limit of detection, limit of quantification, or reporting limit for glyphosate in honey.
MPI also confirmed that it was unaware of any New Zealand regulation, standard or guidance document requiring glyphosate results below 0.01 mg/kg to be treated as non-detectable or analytically uncertain.
It went further, stating that it held no records requiring, recommending or directing laboratories to use 0.01 mg/kg as their detection, quantification or reporting limit for glyphosate in honey.
We also asked MPI whether results between 0.002 and 0.01 mg/kg should be considered unreliable simply because they were below 0.01 mg/kg.
MPI replied:
MPI is not aware of any regulatory requirement, guidance document, or scientific information that establishes that glyphosate results in honey between 0.002 mg/kg and 0.01 mg/kg should be regarded as non-detectable, analytically uncertain, or unreliable solely because they are below 0.01 mg/kg.
What Does This Mean in Plain English?
MPI has confirmed that there is no New Zealand requirement to use 0.01 mg/kg as the reporting limit for glyphosate in honey.
It has also identified no scientific or regulatory reason to dismiss results below that level simply because they are below 0.01 mg/kg.
What matters is whether the laboratory’s testing method has been properly validated and can reliably measure the amount reported.
A glyphosate result does not become unreliable simply because it is below 0.01 mg/kg.
That is an important clarification for independent testing programmes using more sensitive analytical methods.
5. What Our Independent Honey Testing Has Found
No More Glyphosate NZ commissions independent laboratory testing of food products purchased from New Zealand retailers.
Samples are submitted to Hill Laboratories, which uses liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) to test for glyphosate and other specified herbicide residues.
In September 2026, our honey-testing programme identified several samples containing measurable glyphosate below 0.01 mg/kg.
Here are four examples:
| Honey Tested | Glyphosate Result |
|---|---|
| J.Friend & Co White Clover | 0.0051 mg/kg |
| J.Friend & Co Mānuka 10+ | 0.0026 mg/kg |
| TranzAlpine Organics Organic White Clover | 0.0062 mg/kg |
| J.Friend & Co Beechwood Honeydew | 0.0597 mg/kg |
Three of these four results were below 0.01 mg/kg.
Had Hill Laboratories used a reporting limit of 0.01 mg/kg, those three samples would generally have been reported as having no detectable glyphosate at that level. But by using a validated reporting limit of 0.002 mg/kg, the laboratory was able to measure and report the glyphosate actually present.
Following questions about one result, Hill Laboratories specifically confirmed that the TranzAlpine Organics Organic White Clover honey result of 0.0062 ± 0.0011 mg/kg was validly quantified using the lower reporting limit.
We have also examined why the honey industry itself uses glyphosate testing below 0.010 mg/kg, including how producers use these results to make decisions about blending honey.
MPI’s subsequent response provides further clarification: there is no prescribed 0.01 mg/kg reporting threshold that would automatically invalidate these lower-level findings.
All four results were below New Zealand’s default MRL of 0.1 mg/kg for glyphosate in honey.
But that doesn’t make the findings irrelevant.
The honey can be within the legal limit and still contain glyphosate. And with sufficiently sensitive testing, we can measure how much is there.
That is precisely why our independent testing programme uses lower reporting limits where available.
6. Why Test for Glyphosate Below the Legal Limit?
A reasonable question is: if the glyphosate is below the legal limit, why does it matter?
Because there is a difference between asking whether a food complies with the law and asking whether it contains glyphosate.
We’re not just interested in whether a food meets the legal limit. We want to know whether glyphosate is present, how much is there, and what that might tell us about contamination of our food supply.
Honey is a useful example.
Bees can forage across farmland, pasture, gardens, roadsides and other areas where herbicides may be used.
Finding glyphosate in honey does not tell us exactly where it came from. But it does raise questions about how residues enter the food supply and how widely they occur.
Testing can help us investigate whether some products contain more glyphosate than others, whether residues change over time and whether patterns emerge across different foods.
And if our testing methods are sensitive enough, we may identify residues that less sensitive testing would miss.
This is not the same as claiming that every trace of glyphosate is dangerous.
The possible health implications of exposure are a separate scientific question, involving how much is consumed, how often exposure occurs and what the toxicological evidence shows.
But we cannot properly investigate exposure without first understanding what is present.
Legal Compliance Is Not the End of the Investigation
MRLs are designed to regulate pesticide residues in food, not to answer every question about environmental contamination or long-term exposure.
A product may comply with the legal limit while still providing useful evidence about where glyphosate is occurring.
This distinction is especially relevant when investigating the presence of residues across different foods and potential sources of exposure.
If we only test to establish whether food exceeds the legal limit, we may miss much of the information needed to understand how widespread lower-level residues are.
Meeting the legal limit answers one question. It does not answer every question.
7. What Should Consumers Look For in Testing Results?
The next time you read that a food was tested for glyphosate and none was detected, there are three useful questions to ask.
How low could the laboratory measure?
A non-detect result at 0.01 mg/kg is not the same as one at 0.002 mg/kg. The lower reporting limit provides information at a more sensitive level.
Was glyphosate absent, or simply below the reporting limit?
Unless the testing establishes otherwise, a result below the reporting limit should not be taken as proof that the chemical is completely absent.
Is the result being compared with a legal limit or a laboratory reporting limit?
These are different measurements serving different purposes. A result below the MRL may still contain measurable glyphosate.
Importantly, a laboratory result establishes a concentration in the sample tested. Understanding its possible health implications requires additional evidence.
These questions help consumers interpret testing results without either dismissing measurable residues or drawing conclusions that the evidence does not support.
The Bottom Line: What We Can Measure Is Not the Same as What We Permit
Not detected does not necessarily mean absent. Below the legal limit does not mean glyphosate-free. And finding glyphosate does not automatically mean a food is unsafe.
These are three different things, yet they are frequently confused.
MPI has now confirmed that New Zealand does not require laboratories to use 0.01 mg/kg as the reporting limit for glyphosate in honey. It has also identified no scientific or regulatory reason to disregard otherwise reliable results simply because they fall below that concentration.
For No More Glyphosate NZ, the purpose of independent testing is straightforward: to establish what is actually present in our food, using reliable laboratory methods capable of measuring even very small amounts.
Because if we don’t measure it, we cannot know how much is there.
And without that information, we cannot begin to understand the full picture of glyphosate residues in our food supply.
Sources and Further Reading
Ministry for Primary Industries — Written OIA Response to No More Glyphosate NZ
Response to our enquiry dated 15 September 2026 concerning detection, quantification and reporting limits for glyphosate in honey. MPI confirmed that it neither prescribes nor recommends a 0.01 mg/kg reporting limit and is unaware of any scientific or regulatory basis for automatically disregarding reliable results below that concentration.
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/pdf-copies/mpi-oia26-0766-glyphosate-honey-reporting-limits.pdf
Ministry for Primary Industries — Glyphosate in Food
MPI’s explanation of glyphosate regulation, residue monitoring, honey testing and maximum residue limits in New Zealand.
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-safety-home/safe-levels-of-chemicals-in-food/fertilisers-pesticides-hormones-and-medicines-in-food/glyphosate-in-food
Ministry for Primary Industries — Maximum Residue Levels for Agricultural Compounds
Explains how MRLs are established, what they mean for legal compliance and how they differ from health-based exposure limits.
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/agriculture/agricultural-compounds-vet-medicines/maximum-residue-levels-agricultural-compounds
Ministry for Primary Industries — Food Notice: Maximum Residue Levels for Agricultural Compounds
The New Zealand regulatory instrument establishing pesticide residue limits, including the default 0.1 mg/kg MRL where no specific limit applies.
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/19550/direct
Ministry for Primary Industries — Glyphosate in Honey Assurance Letter, 21 August 2020
MPI’s published statement concerning its 2017/18 and 2018/19 honey-testing surveys and the default glyphosate MRL.
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/41725/direct
No More Glyphosate NZ — Independent Honey Testing Results
Our independent honey-testing programme, including the September 2026 results.
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/tag/testing-results/
Related article:
Glyphosate Testing Below 0.010 mg/kg: If It’s Meaningless, Why Does Industry Use It?
Why does the honey industry use glyphosate testing down to 0.002 mg/kg? We examine how producers use these low-level results to inform blending decisions, and why the same information is valuable to consumers seeking to understand pesticide residues in their food.
Image Source & Attribution
Feature image created using OpenAI’s AI image-generation technology and edited for publication using Canva. The image illustrates laboratory testing of honey for pesticide residues, including glyphosate.
