Part 1 of our 3-part mini-series on glyphosate, regulatory failure, and why it’s all happening again.
Further to yesterday’s article — Court of Appeal to Hear Glyphosate Case: Could This Be the Turning Point? — we thought it was worth pausing to ask: how did we get here?
Because this isn’t the first time the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has been accused of sidestepping science.
In fact, almost eight years ago, a sitting MP and a public health researcher tabled a report that raised many of the same concerns being argued in court today. It didn’t make the headlines. It wasn’t debated in Parliament. But it told a story that matters now more than ever.
What the New Zealand EPA Did After Glyphosate Was Declared a Probable Carcinogen
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
This wasn’t a casual label. IARC had brought together 17 experts from 11 countries, reviewed all publicly available scientific evidence, and concluded there was a genuine cause for concern.
You’d expect a full reassessment.
You’d expect independent science.
You’d expect public health to take the front seat.
Instead, in 2016, the EPA issued a short review saying: nothing to see here. Glyphosate was safe. No new controls were needed. No label changes. No action.
And just like that, the conversation was closed.
Or at least, that’s what they hoped.
The 2017 Glyphosate Review the EPA Shelved and Ignored
Not everyone was convinced.
Former Green MP Steffan Browning and researcher Jodie Bruning decided to dig deeper. In late 2017, they tabled a 60-page assessment at a regional council meeting — a forensic breakdown of what the EPA’s review did, didn’t do, and chose to ignore.
Their findings were sobering.
The EPA hadn’t conducted a scientific review in any meaningful sense. Instead, it had borrowed conclusions from overseas agencies — conclusions that, as it turned out, were themselves based on unpublished, industry-sponsored studies.
The obvious question followed:
If New Zealand regulators weren’t doing their own science, whose science were they using?
How New Zealand’s Glyphosate Review Relied on Industry-Backed Science
The 2017 report laid it out plainly: New Zealand’s EPA had leaned heavily on Germany’s BfR and Europe’s EFSA — two agencies later named in court cases over their use of ghostwritten Monsanto text and selective evidence.
This wasn’t just about foreign data.
It was about foreign influence.
The EPA accepted these conclusions without questioning who funded the studies, whether the data had been peer reviewed, or whether key risks had been dismissed.
And because BfR and EFSA took Monsanto’s word for it — so did we.
It’s hard not to wonder: were our regulators doing a review… or just repeating one?
The Glyphosate Formulations the EPA Failed to Review
Possibly the most glaring omission was this:
The EPA didn’t assess the actual products being used in New Zealand.
Not the Roundup.
Not the Zero.
Not the WeedMaster, Agpro, or generic council sprays.
Instead, they assessed glyphosate “as an active ingredient” — the raw chemical, not the formulations people apply in parks, paddocks, orchards, or school grounds.
This would be like testing flour, but not the cake — even though the cake is what people actually eat.
And worse? Formulations are known to be significantly more toxic than glyphosate alone.
Why wasn’t that tested?
How the EPA Downplayed Glyphosate Health Risks
Browning and Bruning documented a pattern — and once you see it, it’s hard to unsee:
- Selective quoting of studies
- Prioritising industry research over independent science
- Ignoring red flags
- Overstating certainty
- Skipping vulnerable population impacts
This wasn’t science.
It was reassurance.
And it worked — politically, at least. The EPA said glyphosate was safe. MPI repeated it. MoH accepted it. Parliament moved on.
The Bruning–Browning report was tabled, then shelved.
Until now.
Why the 2017 Glyphosate Report Still Matters in 2025
Eight years later, we’re watching a familiar story play out.
Back then, independent experts warned: this review wasn’t good enough.
Now, the Environmental Law Initiative is telling the Court the same thing.
Back then, the EPA leaned on foreign regulators.
Now, it still does.
Back then, formulation toxicity was ignored.
Now, it still is.
Back then, the EPA claimed there was “no new evidence.”
Now, it repeats that line — despite an avalanche of new science on endocrine disruption, oxidative stress, reproductive impacts, and gut microbiome effects.
It’s almost as if the regulator is stuck in time — defending a position made in 2016 instead of updating it in light of 2025.
And New Zealanders are paying the price.
Why the New Zealand EPA Ignored the 2017 Glyphosate Review
It would be easy to blame bureaucracy.
But the report itself hints at something deeper.
Maybe the EPA didn’t want to reopen the issue.
Maybe MPI and MoH preferred not to rock the boat.
Maybe it was easier to echo overseas views than do the hard work of building our own.
But one thing is clear: the review wasn’t ignored because it lacked substance.
It was ignored because it challenged the status quo.
And that was inconvenient.
What This Reveals About Glyphosate Regulation in New Zealand
The Bruning–Browning review didn’t reveal unknowns — it revealed what the EPA overlooked, dismissed, or quietly buried.
What it did was put it on the public record.
It showed how industry data gets treated as neutral.
It revealed how regulators cut corners when they’re under-resourced.
It exposed how little independent toxicology happens here in New Zealand.
And it asked a question we still haven’t answered:
If this is how glyphosate was assessed… how many other chemicals have slipped through the cracks?
As the EPA prepares to defend itself in court again, this forgotten review matters more than ever.
Because it reminds us: the warning signs were always there.
We just didn’t act on them.
Mini-series: Revisiting the Glyphosate Review
This article is Part 1 of a 3-part mini-series on glyphosate regulation, industry influence, and public health oversight in New Zealand.
Part 1: The Review They Ignored (you are here)
Part 2: The Coziness Problem — how industry language and influence shaped our glyphosate assessments
Part 3: History Repeating — why the EPA’s 2025 court defence sounds a lot like 2017 all over again
Addendum: Missing Science — a standalone analysis examining what was included, excluded, and overlooked in the EPA’s evidence base
Resources & References
Regulators may have moved on. Most politicians already have. But the questions raised in the 2017 Browning–Bruning review haven’t gone away — and the evidence behind them hasn’t disappeared.
The resources below offer a deeper look at what was missed, who benefited, and how that oversight continues to shape New Zealand’s glyphosate story in 2025.
Public Health Concern: Why Did the NZ EPA Ignore the World Authority on Cancer? [PDF]
The full 2017 review authored by Steffan Browning and Jodie Bruning, tabled before the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.
The EPA’s Glyphosate Review (2016)
New Zealand’s official response to IARC’s classification — a short, selective report that relied heavily on industry-sourced material.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) – Monograph 112
The 2015 WHO-linked classification that labelled glyphosate a “probable human carcinogen,” based on peer-reviewed public evidence.
The Monsanto Papers – Carey Gillam
An exposé built on leaked internal documents showing how Monsanto shaped the scientific and regulatory narrative around glyphosate.
Whitewash – Carey Gillam
Gillam’s award-winning first book, tracing 20 years of investigative journalism into glyphosate, regulatory capture, and suppressed science.
Read more
Court of Appeal to Hear Glyphosate Case – NoMoreGlyphosate.nz
Our coverage of the Environmental Law Initiative’s latest legal challenge — and what it could mean for the EPA and public trust.
Whether you’re new to this issue or have been following it for years, these resources help fill in the gaps left by regulators. Because this was never just about one herbicide.
It’s about how decisions are made — and who they’re really protecting.
And if the system still can’t see the problem after eight years… maybe it’s not just a regulatory failure.
Maybe it’s the system working exactly as designed.
Image Source & Attribution
The feature image on this page was generated using AI (ChatGPT/DALL·E) and adapted for the web using Canva.
