When a study links prenatal glyphosate exposure to preterm birth, shouldn’t we rethink raising allowable residue limits on our food?
That’s the big question. Let’s talk about glyphosate—a chemical that divides opinions like few others. For some, it’s an essential tool in modern agriculture; for others, it’s a serious health hazard. The debate gets even more intense when we talk about its presence in our food.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the world’s most widely used herbicide and a staple in New Zealand’s agriculture. Chances are, you’ve heard about its use on food crops. But what you might not know is that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) recently proposed increasing the allowable glyphosate residue levels on some of these crops.
If that doesn’t sound like a big deal, consider this: A study in 2021 found a link between prenatal exposure to glyphosate and preterm birth. Now, we’re left wondering—why are we talking about increasing exposure when the evidence suggests we should be more cautious?
The Study: What Did It Find?
Researchers from the PROTECT cohort study in Puerto Rico measured glyphosate levels in the urine of pregnant women at around 26 weeks of pregnancy. The goal? To see if there was a connection between glyphosate exposure and preterm birth.
What they found was alarming. Preterm birth can lead to a range of lifelong health issues, including developmental delays and chronic health problems. Women with higher levels of glyphosate and its breakdown product, AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid), in their urine were more likely to have preterm births. That’s huge because preterm birth can lead to a host of health complications for the baby. Shouldn’t that make us pause and rethink our approach to glyphosate regulations?
Why Are We Even Considering Raising MRLs?
MPI argues that raising Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for glyphosate will align us with international standards and make trade easier. But harmonization doesn’t equal safety—it’s a regulatory process aimed at making agricultural standards consistent across countries. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the resulting limits are safe or based on the most current health data. Shouldn’t we be asking why other countries have higher limits—especially when some nations are actively moving toward stricter regulations instead of just following suit?
We’re being told that the increase is based on updated scientific assessments. But are these assessments truly independent, or are they influenced by industry interests? Shouldn’t we be questioning who funds the research that shapes these policies? But if the science is so clear, why do so many studies—including the one we’re talking about—raise red flags about glyphosate exposure?
The Real Question: Whose Interests Are Being Protected?
Has the public consultation process genuinely reflected the community’s concerns, or have economic interests overshadowed health priorities??
Let’s be honest—economic arguments often trump health concerns when it comes to policy decisions. The push to increase MRLs seems more about keeping global trade partners happy than keeping Kiwis safe. Shouldn’t our health be the priority here?
What About Those Most at Risk?
Pregnant women, babies, and young children are especially vulnerable to chemical exposure. Are we really prepared to increase glyphosate exposure in our food supply without fully understanding the long-term risks? How will this decision impact the most vulnerable among us?
Time to Rethink the Proposal
We need more public engagement on this issue. Shouldn’t there be a formal public inquiry into the potential health impacts before making any regulatory changes? After all, shouldn’t we make decisions based on comprehensive evidence rather than convenience?
Before we rush to align with international standards, let’s take a step back. Are we being pushed into a decision without properly evaluating the risks? Shouldn’t we at least pause and demand more independent research?
Final Thought
It’s not about being anti-science—caution itself is a scientific principle when evidence is uncertain. It’s about being responsible. When a study suggests that prenatal glyphosate exposure might increase the risk of preterm birth, it’s worth taking seriously. We owe it to ourselves to ask tough questions and demand thorough, unbiased research before making changes that could impact public health.
Sometimes, caution is just common sense. Why rush when so much is at stake?
Resources and References
Prenatal Exposure to Glyphosate and Its Environmental Degradate AMPA and Preterm Birth: A Nested Case–Control Study in the PROTECT Cohort
(Silver et al., 2021)
Summary: This study, conducted within the PROTECT cohort in Puerto Rico, examined the relationship between prenatal exposure to glyphosate and its breakdown product AMPA and the risk of preterm birth. Researchers found a significant association between higher urinary concentrations of these chemicals during pregnancy and an increased likelihood of preterm birth. The findings raise important questions about glyphosate’s safety, particularly in relation to vulnerable populations like pregnant women and newborns.
Link: Read the full study on Environmental Health Perspectives
Women Exposed to Glyphosate at Higher Risk of Infertility
This article summarizes a comprehensive review of studies indicating that glyphosate exposure can disrupt female hormones, damage reproductive organs, and increase the risk of infertility and diseases such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis.
Re-Evaluating the Use of Glyphosate-based Herbicides: Implications on Fertility
Book Recommendation
The following book is linked to Amazon.com for your convenience. If you decide to purchase through this link, we may earn a small commission — at no extra cost to you.
Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race [amazon.com]
By Shanna H. Swan
This book covers the effects of environmental chemicals on fertility and pregnancy, including how widespread herbicide use could be a factor.
Additional Relevant Resources
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) – Reducing Prenatal Exposure to Toxic Environmental Agents
ACOG emphasizes the importance of minimizing pregnant women’s exposure to environmental toxins, including pesticides, due to potential adverse reproductive and developmental health outcomes.
ACOG Committee OpinionACOG
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) – Chemicals in the Environment Can Harm Maternal Health
NIEHS discusses how pregnant women may be exposed to harmful chemicals through various sources, including food, and the implications for maternal and fetal health.
NIEHS Feature Article
Pesticide Exposure and Birth Outcomes: A Review of Epidemiologic Studies
This review analyzes epidemiologic studies examining the hypothesis that exposure to pesticides during pregnancy is associated with adverse birth outcomes.
Read the review
PubMed – Pregnancy and Pesticide Exposure
A comprehensive database of peer-reviewed studies exploring the effects of pesticide exposure during pregnancy on fetal development and health outcomes.
Search Results
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 bestyy38. You can find more of their work here: https://www.123rf.com/profile_bestyy38.
