When it comes to regulating chemicals like glyphosate in New Zealand, we’d like to think that safety standards are set based on impartial science and public health considerations.
But is that really the case? Or are the rules shaped more by corporate interests and political maneuvering than by unbiased research?
In theory, regulatory agencies exist to protect public health. In practice, the path from scientific evidence to actual safety regulations can be convoluted — and sometimes compromised.
The Standard Story: Glyphosate Is Safe
In New Zealand, regulators like the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) maintain that glyphosate is safe when used as directed. These conclusions are based on risk assessments that consider toxicity, persistence, and potential health impacts.
But here’s the catch: much of the research these agencies rely on comes from the very companies that manufacture glyphosate-based products. Bayer, which inherited Roundup® from Monsanto, has funded many of the studies used in these safety assessments.
If a company’s profitability hinges on proving its product is safe, how impartial can those studies really be?
The Ghostwriting Scandal
In 2017, court documents revealed that Monsanto had ghostwritten scientific studies and later attributed them to independent academics. Internal emails discussed “ghostwriting” papers to support glyphosate’s safety. One executive even suggested that Monsanto could write the bulk of the studies and have scientists sign off.
This isn’t just unethical — it’s misleading. Regulatory agencies, including those in New Zealand, often cite these very studies as evidence of safety. If the foundation is compromised, how credible are the conclusions?
Regulatory Capture: Who Holds the Power?
It’s not just about flawed studies. There’s also the issue of regulatory capture — a situation where agencies meant to oversee industries end up protecting them instead. When former agrochemical industry executives take on influential roles within regulatory bodies, can we really expect unbiased decision-making?
Take the 2025 New Zealand MRL Proposal for glyphosate. Despite growing concerns over health risks, MPI proposed raising the maximum residue levels (MRLs) for glyphosate on certain food crops. This move, according to MPI, aligns with international standards to facilitate trade.
But here’s the problem: The proposal has sparked public concern, as it comes at a time when evidence is growing around potential health risks associated with glyphosate exposure. Critics argue that aligning with international standards prioritizes economic interests over public health, especially when those standards are influenced by countries with a vested interest in maintaining glyphosate use.
Why raise the limits when safety is still in question? Should public health be dictated by export requirements? If our trading partners increase their glyphosate limits, does that mean we should follow suit without asking tough questions?
Economic Pressure vs. Public Health
New Zealand’s agriculture-driven economy is often at the heart of these regulatory decisions. Maintaining market access is crucial, but at what cost? If the primary reason for increasing glyphosate limits is to match trading partners, where does that leave public health?
Take the Codex Alimentarius, an international food standards body that influences global MRLs. Aligning with Codex can make exporting easier, but it also means that economic factors might outweigh precautionary health measures.
Why Isn’t Independent Science Enough?
One of the most baffling aspects of glyphosate regulation is how often independent research is dismissed. When studies emerge linking glyphosate to cancer, neurological disorders, or endocrine disruption, they’re often labeled as “methodologically flawed” or “inconclusive” by regulatory bodies.
But who decides what’s conclusive and what’s not? Typically, it’s the same agencies that rely on industry-sponsored research. This cycle of selective evidence means that independent findings — even when peer-reviewed — rarely change official positions.
Who Really Sets the Standards in New Zealand?
The reality is that New Zealand’s glyphosate regulations aren’t just shaped by science — they’re shaped by international trade demands, corporate influence, and political considerations. As long as the industry funds the majority of safety studies and holds sway in regulatory bodies, the standards will likely continue to favor corporate interests over public safety.
Should we really be surprised when regulations bend to accommodate industry rather than protect public health?
Final Thought
If the goal of regulation is to safeguard human and environmental health, we need to look beyond industry-funded studies and ask who really benefits from these safety declarations. Are we truly protecting the public, or are we protecting profit margins?
Maybe it’s time to rethink how we set standards — and who we trust to set them.
Resources & References
If you’re ready to challenge assumptions and dig deeper, here’s a collection of resources that shed more light on the claims and questions we’ve raised in this article. Don’t just take our word for it — explore the evidence for yourself.
Codex Alimentarius and Glyphosate MRLs
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, established by the FAO and WHO, sets international food standards, including Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for pesticides like glyphosate. These standards influence national regulations and international trade.
Source: Codex Alimentarius – Glyphosate
New Zealand’s Proposed Amendments to Glyphosate MRLs
In 2025, New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) proposed increasing the MRLs for glyphosate on certain food crops, aiming to align with international standards and facilitate trade. This proposal has raised public health concerns.
Source: MPI Consultation Document
The Monsanto Papers and Ghostwriting Controversy
Court documents revealed that Monsanto engaged in ghostwriting scientific studies to support glyphosate’s safety profile, raising questions about the integrity of research used in regulatory assessments.
Source: Wisner Baum – The Monsanto Papers
Regulatory Capture and Industry Influence
Investigations have highlighted instances where regulatory agencies have been influenced by industry players, leading to concerns about the impartiality of safety assessments and policy decisions.
Source: Desmog – Unsealed Court Documents
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Classification
The IARC, a part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A) in 2015, influencing global debates on its safety.
Source: IARC Monograph on Glyphosate
These resources provide a foundation for understanding the complexities surrounding glyphosate regulation, the interplay between scientific research and policy, and the ongoing debates about public health and safety.
Image Source & Attribution
The feature image on this page incorporates a photo by lightfieldstudios, which was then combined into a custom graphic using Canva. Explore their full portfolio here: https://www.123rf.com/profile_lightfieldstudios.
