When the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) proposed raising the allowable glyphosate residue limits on food, one of the justifications stood out:
“To support farmers.”
It wasn’t framed as a health-based decision. It wasn’t about new safety data showing glyphosate is less harmful than we thought. And it certainly wasn’t prompted by public demand. It was framed as a practical move — to bring our limits in line with international trade partners and reflect what’s already happening in the fields.
But that raises a bigger, more uncomfortable question:
Who are these rules really protecting — and who gets left out of the conversation?
Because while regulators speak the language of safety, the system often seems designed to protect the smooth functioning of trade, the convenience of industry, and the reputations of institutions — not the health of everyday New Zealanders.
In this article, we take a closer look at how our glyphosate regulations are shaped, who gets a seat at the table, and why public health may be slowly sliding into the backseat.
Who’s at the Table — and Who’s Missing?
When it comes to setting glyphosate policy in New Zealand, the voices most often heard are those of industry stakeholders — agriculture groups, exporters, chemical manufacturers, and trade negotiators. And that’s not an accident.
Regulatory bodies like MPI and FSANZ consult closely with those who produce and sell food, who rely on glyphosate as a tool of efficiency. These groups are well-organised, well-funded, and well-positioned to influence decisions that keep business running smoothly — like raising Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) or maintaining current Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs).
But who’s missing from the conversation?
Where are the independent scientists with no industry ties? The public health experts studying long-term, low-dose exposures? The community groups concerned about food safety, children’s health, and the cumulative effect of pesticides in our environment?
More often than not, they’re on the outside looking in — invited to respond to tightly controlled public consultations (if at all), with little transparency into how decisions are made or what evidence is prioritized.
When MPI launched its proposal to raise glyphosate residue limits on peas and cereal grains, the public was given just four meaningful weeks to respond. There were no public hearings. No media campaigns. No meaningful attempt to involve the communities most affected.
This isn’t just a gap in communication — it’s a systemic imbalance in influence. The people who use glyphosate have a clear channel to shape policy. The people who eat the residues, live near the spray zones, or worry about long-term health risks? Not so much.
If safety is the goal, why aren’t those voices louder in the process?
Regulatory Capture in Action
At first glance, it looks like the system is working. New Zealand has regulatory agencies. It has risk assessments. It has standards. But peel back the surface, and you’ll find a troubling pattern: regulators increasingly rely on the very industries they’re supposed to be overseeing.
That’s the essence of regulatory capture — when institutions designed to protect the public begin to serve the interests of the industries they regulate.
In the case of glyphosate, it’s hard not to see the signs.
Agencies like FSANZ, MPI, and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) routinely base their safety decisions on data supplied by agrochemical companies. They rarely commission independent studies. They don’t test the long-term effects of low-dose exposure. And they often repeat industry language about “good agricultural practice” and “acceptable risk” without acknowledging how limited or outdated the supporting science might be.
Consider this:
- New Zealand’s Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for glyphosate hasn’t been publicly reassessed in over two decades.
- The last Total Diet Survey — meant to assess how much glyphosate New Zealanders are actually consuming — was conducted in 2015/16.
- FSANZ has not published any recent reviews of glyphosate’s safety or ADI justification — despite significant international controversy, new scientific findings, and thousands of lawsuits against its manufacturer.
Meanwhile, when MPI proposed raising MRLs to match international trade partners, they didn’t present new evidence of safety — just a rationale for easier compliance and export alignment.
It’s not that the regulators are corrupt — it’s that the system has become comfortable. Glyphosate is the status quo. And the easiest path forward is to keep approving what’s already in use, especially when powerful industries are pushing to maintain it.
But comfort isn’t the same as caution. And familiarity isn’t the same as safety.
When Convenience Trumps Caution
Glyphosate isn’t just popular because it works. It’s popular because it’s convenient.
For farmers, it simplifies weed control, speeds up harvest timing, and reduces labour costs. For exporters, aligning with global MRLs makes trade smoother and avoids border rejections. For regulators, it avoids the political fallout of disrupting entrenched agricultural practices.
But all that convenience comes with a hidden cost — and it’s public health that too often picks up the tab.
When MPI justified the proposal to raise glyphosate residue limits on peas and cereal grains, the rationale wasn’t improved safety science or a new health threshold. It was that farmers were frequently exceeding the existing limit, and that higher allowances would better reflect “good agricultural practice.”
Translation? Rather than reduce glyphosate use, we’ll just raise the bar so no one is out of bounds.
It’s a classic example of adjusting the rules to fit the system — rather than adjusting the system to protect the people.
And the rationale doesn’t stop at farming. MPI also pointed to trade alignment — arguing that if our residue limits don’t match those of key partners like Australia or the EU, our food exports could face problems at the border.
But what about domestic consumers? What about the environmental burden of increased spraying? What about the New Zealand children eating Weet-Bix and toast each morning, unaware that the chemical thresholds protecting them have just quietly moved?
When the system prioritises efficiency, compliance, and market fluidity over independent science, long-term studies, or even basic precaution, it’s no longer functioning as a safeguard. It becomes a rubber stamp, offering reassurance without accountability.
Because raising the limit doesn’t make glyphosate safer.
It just makes it easier to sell.
The Cost of Playing It Safe for Industry
By keeping glyphosate in wide circulation and adjusting the rules to fit current practices, regulators may be playing it “safe” — but only for industry.
For companies, the payoff is clear: fewer compliance issues, no need to change formulations, and minimal disruption to trade. For farmers, it avoids having to rethink weed control strategies or invest in alternatives. And for government agencies, it helps maintain the appearance of stability.
But for the public? The costs are harder to see — and harder to measure.
Trust erodes quietly.
When limits are raised without clear scientific justification, when concerns about low-dose effects are brushed aside, and when no one is testing what’s actually showing up in our food, people begin to lose faith in the system that’s supposed to protect them.
Health risks build slowly.
Glyphosate has been linked to hormone disruption, microbiome changes, liver damage, and — in high enough doses — cancer. But regulators continue to rely on outdated safety thresholds that ignore these risks, especially at low, chronic exposures over time.
Responsibility shifts.
Instead of a system that prevents exposure, we now have a system where individuals are expected to watch their own risk. Parents are told to “make informed choices,” but the residues aren’t on the label. Consumers are told not to worry, but also advised to wash their food — just in case.
And when residues are discovered in everyday products like bread, cereal, or honey?
It’s not the system that failed — it’s just the limit that needs adjusting.
This isn’t public health protection.
It’s damage control disguised as regulation.
A System Built for Efficiency — Not Safety
If you look closely at how glyphosate is regulated in New Zealand, a pattern emerges. It’s not a system grounded in precaution — it’s a system built for efficiency.
Efficiency in trade.
Efficiency in compliance.
Efficiency in messaging.
But what about safety?
When limits are set to match market needs rather than updated science…
When regulators rely on industry data instead of commissioning independent research…
When consultation windows are rushed and quiet, rather than public and transparent…
…it becomes clear that the system isn’t designed to ask hard questions. It’s designed to keep things moving.
The truth is, our glyphosate regulations don’t prevent exposure — they manage it. The goal isn’t to eliminate risk, but to define acceptable levels of harm. And those levels are often determined not by what’s best for public health, but by what’s best for the system.
A system that works well for exporters.
A system that works well for agribusiness.
A system that works well for regulators trying to avoid disruption.
But does it still work for the rest of us?
It may be time to rebalance the equation.
Because public trust is eroding. Scientific concerns are mounting. And real safety should never come second to convenience.
Resources & References
If we want to understand how the system really works, we need to look beyond the surface.
The resources below offer a deeper dive into the decisions, assumptions, and scientific blind spots behind glyphosate regulation — and why public health may not be the priority it claims to be.
Why Raising MRLs Threatens Public Health
Our breakdown of MPI’s proposal to increase glyphosate residue limits on food crops — and what that means for long-term safety.
Gene Technology and the Glyphosate Connection
Explores how the push to raise MRLs may be paving the way for glyphosate-tolerant genetically modified crops in New Zealand.
Safe… According to Whom? Rethinking Glyphosate’s Acceptable Daily Intake
A deep dive into how ADIs are set, why they may be outdated, and why low-dose effects often go unaccounted for.
Glyphosate in Bread: Why We’re Testing It
Our independent food testing series highlights the presence of glyphosate in common supermarket loaves.
Glyphosate in Honey: Contamination Close to Home
A look at how glyphosate use can impact even the most natural products — including local New Zealand honey.
External Sources
FSANZ: Exposure to Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals
Explains how Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) and dietary exposures are assessed in Australia and New Zealand — and what those limits are based on.
EFSA: Finalised Risk Assessment on Glyphosate (2023)
The European Food Safety Authority’s most recent review, summarising their reassessment of glyphosate’s safety profile and proposed regulatory adjustments.
Beyond Pesticides: Endocrine Disruption and Pesticide Exposure
Covers how low-dose exposures to pesticides like glyphosate can lead to hormonal disruptions and long-term health risks, challenging conventional safety limits.
Scientific Reports (Nature, 2021): Glyphosate Alters the Gut Microbiome and Urine Metabolome
A peer-reviewed study demonstrating that glyphosate exposure at regulatory levels affected gut microbial composition and metabolic markers in rats.
Investopedia – What Is Regulatory Capture?
A clear, authoritative explanation of regulatory capture—when agencies meant to protect the public increasingly act in industry’s interest. Provides historical context and modern examples
Because staying informed isn’t just about knowing what’s allowed.
It’s about knowing who decides, what they leave out — and whether the rules are built to protect people, or just protect the system.
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 budabar.
