When it comes to glyphosate, the public is getting very different stories depending on who you listen to.
Federated Farmers vs Greenpeace
On one side, Federated Farmers tell us not to worry — insisting New Zealand-grown grain for human food isn’t treated with glyphosate and that nothing will change on our breakfast tables. On the other, Greenpeace warns that raising residue limits could carry risks that don’t show up overnight.
Somewhere in the middle sits MPI: publishing rules, setting Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs), and summarising past testing. And that’s where the questions start. If glyphosate — or glyphosate-based weedkillers such as Roundup — truly play no role in food crops, why set residue limits for wheat, oats, barley, maize and lentils? Why test at all — and why did testing wind down just as exceedances were being reported?
This article is about picking sides — not in a Greenpeace vs Federated Farmers shouting match, but in favour of evidence, transparency, and honesty. Because when it comes to glyphosate, the comforting story we’re being sold doesn’t match the facts.
Federated Farmers’ Position
Federated Farmers have come out swinging. In a recent statement, Arable Chair David Birkett accused Greenpeace of “scaremongering” and misleading the public about glyphosate. His message was simple: New Zealanders have nothing to fear.
According to Birkett, the suggestion that changes to glyphosate residue limits could leave Kiwis with “poison in their porridge” is “absolute nonsense.” He insists that:
- New Zealand-grown grain for human food — like bread and breakfast cereal — is not treated with glyphosate.
- Strict supply contracts with mills prohibit its use.
- Any changes to residue rules won’t affect what ends up on people’s plates.
Birkett framed Greenpeace’s campaign as a cynical fundraising ploy, one that trades on fear while ignoring the reality of how New Zealand’s food system operates. His words were designed to close the conversation with certainty: “End of story.”
It’s worth remembering, though, who Federated Farmers are. The organisation is a lobby and advocacy group for farmers and rural communities, with a network of 24 regional organisations and six industry groups. Membership is voluntary, and according to Wikipedia, it had more than 13,000 members in 2021. Its sole purpose is to lobby on farming issues — nationally and regionally — which makes its reassurances less about objective science and more about industry advocacy.
And there’s another layer to this. The proposal to raise glyphosate residues on wheat, barley, oats, maize, and lentils by up to 9,900% sits within the Food Safety portfolio, currently overseen by Minister Andrew Hoggard — a dairy farmer by trade and the former President of Federated Farmers. At the same time Federated Farmers are publicly dismissing concerns about glyphosate, their former leader now holds the ministerial seat responsible for deciding on those very residue rules.
How is the public meant to have confidence in this process? When the same organisation that has been one of glyphosate’s staunchest defenders is so closely tied to the minister responsible for food safety decisions, can we really call this an independent process? Or does it start to look uncomfortably like industry marking its own homework?
MPI’s Official Position
The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) presents a more complex picture than the certainty offered by Federated Farmers. On its website, MPI explains that glyphosate is regulated under both the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act 1997 and the Food Act 2014. This means glyphosate products require assessment not only for efficacy and plant safety but also for residues in food.
MPI also sets Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for glyphosate in food crops such as wheat, barley, oats, maize, and lentils. These limits define how much glyphosate is legally permitted to remain in food products sold to New Zealand consumers.
To support this, MPI has in the past run residue surveys. Their published record shows:
- 2014/15 – Fresh milk and cream tested, no glyphosate residues detected
- 2014/15 – Raw milk tested, no glyphosate residues detected
- 2015/16 – Pea crops tested, no glyphosate residues detected
- 2015/16 – Wheat crops tested, with MPI reporting “no health or food safety concern detected with present glyphosate levels”
- 2017/18 & 2018/19 – Honey tested, again summarised as “no health or food safety concern”
But the public summaries don’t tell the full story. According to RNZ, MPI’s own wheat testing in 2015/16 found that around one-third of samples exceeded the legal glyphosate limit, in some cases by as much as 50 times. Despite this, MPI described the results only in terms of “no food safety concern” and chose not to issue fines, recalls, or prosecutions. Instead, businesses received what MPI called “educational letters.”
Just as notable is what happened next: glyphosate residue testing on wheat and oats appears to have quietly stopped after 2015/16. No public data on these staple crops has been released since.
This leaves two unavoidable questions hanging:
- If glyphosate truly isn’t applied to food crops, why does MPI set residue limits and conduct tests at all?
- When legal limits are exceeded, why are breaches downplayed instead of enforced?
The Missing Middle
This is where Federated Farmers’ confident assurances and MPI’s own documentation begin to clash. On one hand, we’re told that “New Zealand-grown grain for bread and cereal is not treated with glyphosate” and that any talk of residues is “absolute nonsense.” On the other, MPI sets official residue limits, has tested for glyphosate in food crops, and has recorded exceedances in the very grains Federated Farmers say are untouched.
Why would residue limits exist at all if glyphosate never came into contact with these crops? There are only two plausible explanations:
- Pre-harvest desiccation – Glyphosate is used directly on crops like wheat, oats, and lentils to dry them down before harvest. This is standard practice overseas and has been reported in New Zealand. It’s the most obvious reason MRLs are needed.
- Indirect residues – Even if farmers claim glyphosate is applied “only for weeds,” spraying before planting or during crop growth can still leave residues in soil or on the crop itself. Contamination through timing, drift, or uptake isn’t hypothetical — it’s why regulators test in the first place.
MPI’s own residue monitoring makes it clear that glyphosate can and does appear in food crops. The fact that some samples were found many times over the legal limit shows just how thin the reassurance line has become.
And yet, instead of openly addressing these contradictions, MPI quietly wound down testing after 2015/16. Breaches were handled with advisory letters rather than recalls or fines. Now, the same agency is proposing to lift allowable glyphosate residues on staple crops by up to 9,900%.
So when Federated Farmers say, “End of story,” the real question is: whose story are we being told — and what parts are being left out?
The Flaw in the “No Glyphosate in Your Toast” Claim
Federated Farmers want the public to believe the matter is closed: no glyphosate on bread or cereal crops, no residues in the food chain, no cause for alarm. It’s a powerful reassurance — but one that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
MPI’s own actions contradict it. The very existence of Maximum Residue Levels for wheat, oats, barley, maize, and lentils proves that glyphosate use on these crops is anticipated. Past surveys, including the 2015/16 wheat testing, confirmed that residues were not just possible but present — in some cases far above the legal limit. And yet no fines, recalls, or public warnings followed.
At the same time, MPI is proposing to raise allowable glyphosate residues on key staples by up to 9,900%. If residues truly had no bearing on what ends up in our food, there would be no reason to rewrite the rules on such an extraordinary scale.
The food industry itself also gives the game away. Harraways Oats now actively markets their product as glyphosate-free. Boring Oat Milk has built its brand on ensuring glyphosate-free oats. These companies would have no reason to fight for glyphosate-free supply chains if Federated Farmers’ “end of story” claim were really true. Their very marketing proves that residues are a real concern — and that consumers care.
This is the crux of the problem: the gap between the certainty of industry messaging and the complexity of regulatory reality. One side says, “end of story.” The other sets rules, runs tests, and quietly shifts the boundaries when residues are found.
The public is left caught between two conflicting narratives — and forced to wonder which one reflects the full truth.
What’s at Stake
This debate isn’t just about a war of words between Federated Farmers and Greenpeace. It cuts to the heart of whether New Zealanders can trust the food on their tables — and the systems meant to protect them.
At its core, the issue is trust. Federated Farmers assure the public that food crops are not treated with glyphosate, while MPI quietly sets residue limits, records breaches, and proposes a near-100-fold increase in allowable residues. When the story is presented so differently depending on the source, confidence erodes.
It’s also about health and long-term exposure. Regulators emphasise that residues are “safe” below certain thresholds, but the science on chronic, low-level exposure is unsettled. The absence of fresh, transparent testing data only adds to public unease.
And then there’s reputation — not just for farmers, but for the entire New Zealand food industry. Companies themselves are moving to distance their products from glyphosate:
- Harraways Oats have legally binding grower contracts banning glyphosate.
- Boring® Oat Milk sources only glyphosate-free oats.
- Comvita and Wedderspoon both certify their mānuka honey as Glyphosate Residue Free.
These businesses wouldn’t take such steps if glyphosate residues were a non-issue. Their branding and certifications prove that consumers care — and that international markets are watching.
What’s at stake, then, goes far beyond porridge or toast. It’s about whether New Zealand protects its reputation for clean, safe food, or undermines it by brushing aside inconvenient truths. In a world where trading partners and consumers are setting ever-higher standards, pretending there’s “no story” may be the riskiest story of all.
Closing Note
Federated Farmers say there’s nothing to see. MPI sets limits and runs tests that suggest otherwise. Food companies market glyphosate-free oats because they know it matters to consumers. Somewhere between these competing narratives lies the truth — and the public deserves more than reassurance slogans or quiet regulatory adjustments.
If glyphosate really has no role in our food crops, let’s see the transparent data to prove it. If residues are there, let’s have an honest conversation about how they’re managed, enforced, and communicated. Until then, claims of “end of story” only leave more questions hanging.
Because when it comes to what ends up on our plates, the story should never be closed before it’s fully told.
Like What We’re Doing?
Exposing contradictions and asking tough questions takes time, research, and resources. If you value independent, evidence-driven work that isn’t afraid to challenge industry spin, we’d love your support.
Find out how you can help us keep going.
Together, we can make sure New Zealanders hear the full story about glyphosate.
Resources & References
When the public is presented with such different stories, it’s worth going back to the source material and seeing what regulators, reporters, and companies themselves are actually saying.
MPI – Glyphosate in Food
Official overview of how glyphosate is regulated under the ACVM and Food Acts, including residue limits and past testing data.
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-safety-home/safe-levels-of-chemicals-in-food/fertilisers-pesticides-hormones-and-medicines-in-food/glyphosate-in-food/
RNZ – No fines or recalls for food with illegal agrichemical levels
Investigative reporting that exposed lack of enforcement, including glyphosate limits breached by up to 50 times, without prosecutions.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/565064/no-fines-or-recalls-for-food-with-illegal-levels-of-potentially-harmful-agrichemicals-in-last-five-years
Federated Farmers – Public Statements on Glyphosate
Commentary from Arable Chair David Birkett framing glyphosate concerns as “scaremongering,” and asserting food crops are not treated with glyphosate.
https://fedfarm.org.nz/Web/Media-Release/2025/August/Greenpeace-misleading-people-on-glyphosate.aspx
https://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/rural-news/rural-general-news/federated-farmers-greenpeace-glyphosate-debate
Harraways Oats – Glyphosate-Free Commitment
Harraways has binding grower contracts banning glyphosate use and promotes its oats as glyphosate-free.
https://harraways.co.nz/pages/faqs
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/05/19/herbicide-review-bad-for-business-harraways-says/
Boring® Oat Milk – Glyphosate-Free Philosophy
Boring positions its products around glyphosate-free oats, reflecting consumer demand for clean supply chains.
https://boringmilk.com/
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/glyphosate-free-oat-milk/
Comvita – Glyphosate Residue Free Certified Honey
Comvita tests every batch of honey for glyphosate down to 0.01 ppm and is certified Glyphosate Residue Free by The Detox Project.
https://comvita.co.nz/blogs/the-buzz/glyphosate-testing
Wedderspoon – Glyphosate Residue Free Certified Honey
Wedderspoon mānuka honey is also certified Glyphosate Residue Free under The Detox Project programme, marketed especially in North America.
https://wedderspoon.com/blogs/the-sweet-spot/commitment-to-clean-glyphosate-free-manuka-honey
Together, these resources paint a clearer picture: glyphosate is not a phantom issue. It’s real enough for regulators to set limits, journalists to investigate breaches, and food companies themselves to build their brands around staying free from it.
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 artush.
