When the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) proposed increasing glyphosate Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) on food crops, they framed it as aligning with global standards.
The concern many New Zealanders have is simple: if residues climb, won’t that mean even more glyphosate in food — and fewer safeguards to stop it?
But is this move truly about harmonization, or is it more about making way for increased glyphosate use? New Zealand’s clean, green image is at stake, and the public deserves to know whether this shift benefits consumers or corporate interests.
Understanding MRL Harmonization
MRLs (Maximum Residue Limits) are the highest levels of pesticide residues legally allowed in or on food, as defined by the New Zealand Food Standards Code. MPI justifies raising glyphosate MRLs by citing alignment with international standards, claiming this will simplify trade and reflect the latest scientific assessments.
However, harmonization doesn’t necessarily mean safety—it’s about achieving consistency between countries, rather than directly ensuring public health protection.
And raising those limits inevitably raises the amount of glyphosate in food, whether regulators want to frame it that way or not.
Countries like the United States and Canada have progressively increased their glyphosate MRLs, citing advancements in agricultural practices and food safety research. However, these increases often correlate with the expansion of glyphosate-tolerant GM crops. New Zealand currently has stricter limits compared to these countries, but MPI’s proposal could see us moving closer to their more permissive standards.
Global Trends: Raising Limits or Lowering Standards?
While some countries are pushing for higher MRLs, others are moving in the opposite direction. The European Union, for instance, has been under pressure to reduce glyphosate MRLs, although not all member states are uniformly aligned on this issue. Several Asian countries are also reconsidering their own limits due to growing public pressure and emerging research.
So why is New Zealand looking to raise its limits? Higher limits don’t magically reduce risk — they simply allow more glyphosate in food, even though international research shows residues are already widespread.
Critics argue that this shift is less about food safety and more about accommodating increased glyphosate use—particularly as the government considers deregulating GM crops. If the limits increase, will this pave the way for more herbicide-resistant crops and, subsequently, greater glyphosate application?
Is Harmonization Really Beneficial?
While aligning with global standards might sound reasonable, it’s worth questioning who benefits most. Harmonizing up to match countries with more lenient policies risks undermining local food safety standards. Instead of prioritizing international trade, shouldn’t New Zealand focus on protecting public health and maintaining its reputation for clean, safe food?
New Zealand’s agricultural sector often markets itself on purity and environmental stewardship. If we follow the lead of countries that have embraced more intensive herbicide use, what will that do to our brand? Additionally, aligning with global standards could indirectly incentivize local farmers to increase glyphosate application, potentially leading to more residues in everyday foods.
How Are Other Countries Handling This?
Several countries, including Germany and France, are actively working to phase out glyphosate use altogether. Meanwhile, the United States and Canada continue to approve higher limits, often in response to agricultural industry lobbying.
This inconsistency raises questions: Why should New Zealand align itself with the most permissive standards instead of the most cautious?
Final Thought
Rather than blindly aligning with global standards, New Zealand should critically assess whether higher glyphosate MRLs genuinely serve public interests. We should be asking why these changes are being proposed and who truly benefits from them. As citizens, it’s crucial to stay informed, participate in public consultations, and question policies that might compromise our food safety for the sake of international consistency.
Because once higher limits are approved, more glyphosate in food won’t be a hypothetical — it will be the new normal.
Resources and References
Curious about the push for global harmonization of glyphosate residue limits? Here’s a collection of resources that dig deeper into the regulations, the science, and the potential public health impacts. Don’t just take the official line — explore the evidence for yourself.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)
Food Standards Code Legal requirements for food safety, including MRLs for agricultural chemicals like glyphosate.
Link: FSANZ Food Standards Code
Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)
Glyphosate in Food Information on how glyphosate residues are managed in New Zealand’s food supply.
Link: MPI Glyphosate in Food
MPI – Food Notice: Maximum Residue Levels for Agricultural Compounds
Current MRLs for agricultural compounds, including glyphosate, in New Zealand.
Link: MPI Food Notice – MRLs
MPI – Proposal to Amend the Food Notice: Maximum Residue Levels for Agricultural Compounds
Proposal to update MRLs for glyphosate and other compounds to align with international standards.
Link: MPI Proposal to Amend MRLs
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Glyphosate Risk Assessments Examines the potential health risks linked to glyphosate residues in food.
Link: EFSA Glyphosate Risk Assessments
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
Glyphosate as a Probable Carcinogen Classifies glyphosate as a Group 2A carcinogen, indicating it is probably carcinogenic to humans.
Link: IARC Glyphosate Monograph
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
Pesticide Residue Limits Guidelines on setting and harmonizing Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for pesticides globally.
Link: FAO Pesticide Residue Limits
Staying informed is crucial when it comes to decisions that impact public health and the environment. We encourage you to explore these sources to gain a deeper understanding and make your own informed judgments.
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 obradov. You can find more of their work here: https://www.123rf.com/profile_obradov.
