When you ask who’s responsible for protecting New Zealanders from chemical exposure, you’d think the answer would be straightforward.
But when it comes to glyphosate, the reality is anything but.
In a recent Official Information request OIA response, New Zealand Food Safety (NZFS)—the branch of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) currently proposing to increase allowable glyphosate residues in food—made one thing crystal clear: they’re not responsible for occupational health risks.
That’s someone else’s job. Apparently.
Despite being the very agency recommending looser rules on glyphosate levels in wheat and other food crops, MPI says they have not:
- Investigated health risks to contractors or agricultural workers,
- Received any reports about occupational exposure in the past three years,
- Held inter-agency discussions with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), WorkSafe, or the Ministry of Health about potential glyphosate-related illness.
Let that sink in.
They’re pushing for a change that could increase exposure—but take no responsibility for the consequences of that exposure. Because when it comes to worker safety, they’ve deemed it “not our department.”
The Blind Spot Nobody Wants to Own
In their OIA reply, MPI cited section 18(g) of the Official Information Act to refuse parts of the request—on the grounds that the information simply “is not held by the department.” They also invoked section 18(e): the information doesn’t exist.
And therein lies the problem.
Because if no one is collecting this information, and no one is checking what happens after glyphosate is sprayed, then what exactly are our regulatory decisions based on? Convenience?
The job of assessing health risks for workers—people out in fields, parks, road verges, and schoolyards with a backpack sprayer strapped to their backs—gets punted to WorkSafe and the EPA. But these agencies weren’t the ones proposing the MRL increase. MPI was.
So we’re left with a regulatory system where one agency sets the rules, while another is allegedly responsible for the fallout, but no one connects the two.
A recent investigation revealed that even when exposure incidents are reported — like workers being splashed or soaked with glyphosate-based weedkiller — there’s still no formal medical follow-up, no ACC tracking, and no accountability. We covered this here.
Passing the Spray Bottle
This kind of bureaucratic compartmentalization might look neat on a flowchart, but in real life it leaves gaping holes in public safety.
In theory, sure, WorkSafe handles occupational safety. The EPA approves active ingredients like glyphosate. But in practice, every agency is working off its own silo of information—with very little overlap, transparency, or shared accountability.
NZFS defends its decisions by pointing to international standards and dietary exposure models. But that only tells part of the story—and it ignores the very real, very direct impact these policies have on the people using these chemicals every day.
Is anyone checking if those sprayers are getting sick?
Has anyone followed up with exposed workers from past incidents?
Is there any monitoring at all?
From what we’ve seen, the answer appears to be no.
A Regulatory Loop with No Feedback
The irony is sharp: the agency proposing to raise the glyphosate limits in our food is completely disconnected from the people spraying that glyphosate onto crops. There’s no loop of accountability, no system for tracking health outcomes, no registry, no medical follow-up. Just a rubber stamp and a shrug.
And while each agency may be “doing its job,” the sum of their actions creates a dangerous blind spot—one where increased exposure is approved without anyone checking who might pay the price.
Willful Blindness Isn’t a Safety Policy
If glyphosate-based herbicides are truly as safe as claimed, why does every agency seem so eager to say, “Not our problem”?
And if no one is watching the long-term impact on workers, what else is being missed?
Regulatory systems only work when the pieces talk to each other. Right now, the silence is deafening—and it’s those on the ground who could end up carrying the burden.
Resources & Further Reading
When government departments pass the buck, it’s up to the public to start connecting the dots. Here are a few key resources and articles that shed light on glyphosate regulation, worker exposure, and the widening cracks in our oversight systems.
Why Raising MRLs Threatens Public Health
No More Glyphosate NZ
Explores how the proposed increase to glyphosate residue limits could undermine consumer safety, with no clear public benefit.
Sprayed, Splashed, and Soaked: Auckland Council’s Glyphosate Exposure Incidents
No More Glyphosate NZ
Reveals multiple glyphosate exposure incidents reported by Auckland Council and raises questions about the long-term risks for workers and contractors.
Hypothesis: glyphosate-based herbicides…blood cancers
Benbrook (2025)
A comprehensive review in Environmental Sciences Europe proposing that glyphosate exposure accumulates in bone marrow, potentially increasing blood cancer risks.
Glyphosate and environmental toxicity with “One Health” approach, a review
Environmental Sciences Europe
A “One Health” overview highlighting interconnected impacts of glyphosate on human, animal, and ecosystem health
EU can’t reach decision on prolonging glyphosate
The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL)
Outlines regulatory challenges at EU level, with member-state dissent highlighting growing concern
For more context on glyphosate’s potential health impacts—especially for contractors, farmers, and the communities living near spray zones—explore the many articles throughout this site. We’re committed to connecting the dots that regulators often overlook.
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 AndreyPopov.
