We don’t often stop to think about what government departments are actually meant to do.
They sit in the background, issuing press releases, fronting the news when something goes wrong, and otherwise carrying on behind closed doors. But the Ministry of Health is different. Its job isn’t about balancing trade or keeping the wheels of industry turning. Its job is about us — our health, our safety, and our future.
And it’s not just a moral duty. It’s written into law. The Health Act 1956 makes it clear that the Ministry’s role is to “improve, promote, and protect public health.” The more recent Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act 2022 puts it even more plainly: protect the health of all New Zealanders and reduce inequalities, especially for groups like Māori who carry heavier health burdens.
So here’s the question: if the law is that clear, why is the Ministry so quiet when it comes to glyphosate?
The Ministry’s own website puts it this way:
Our vision
“Our vision for the health system is to improve health outcomes for all New Zealanders, with a focus on population groups with the greatest health needs. The six Pae Ora strategies set out how this vision will be achieved.”
Our role
“The Ministry of Health is the steward of New Zealand’s health system and the lead advisor to the government on health. As steward we have four major roles: leading, advising, assessing and convening.”
(Source: Ministry of Health website)
In plain terms, that means they are supposed to lead on strategy, advise on risks, assess outcomes, and convene across sectors — not sit quietly while another Ministry floats a proposal that could directly impact our health.
Glyphosate Is Not Background Noise
This isn’t some chemical that exists only in the farm shed. Glyphosate is sprayed on wheat, barley, oats, peas — the very crops that become our bread, cereals, and pantry staples. It’s used on roadside verges, in parks, and even around schools. We’ve already seen residues turning up in honey, breakfast cereals, and other everyday foods.
And just when you’d think the Ministry of Health might lean in with some caution, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) — whose role is to promote and defend New Zealand’s primary industries, not safeguard public health — announced a plan to increase the allowable residue limits on wheat and other grains by a staggering 9,900%.
That’s moving from 0.1 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg on wheat — not a typo, a hundred-fold jump.
You’d expect the Ministry of Health, whose job is to protect public health, to step in here. To at least ask: what are the long-term consequences? What about children, whose bodies are more vulnerable? What about cumulative exposure from all the different ways glyphosate shows up in our lives?
Instead, nothing.
What the Evidence Is Telling Us
Meanwhile, the research keeps piling up.
Studies have linked glyphosate exposure to liver disease, kidney damage, and disruptions in the nervous system. Researchers are investigating connections to obesity, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, gut problems, and cancers. One U.S. study found people with the highest glyphosate levels in their urine were about 50% more likely to die than those with the lowest. Another meta-analysis points to a disturbing association between pesticide exposure — glyphosate included — and childhood cancers like leukemia and brain tumours.
This isn’t fringe science. These are peer-reviewed studies. The kind of evidence you’d expect a health ministry to weigh carefully before allowing nearly 10,000% more glyphosate into the nation’s food supply.
A Ministry Missing in Action
And yet, silence.
No comprehensive health impact assessment.
No equity analysis, despite Pae Ora’s promise to reduce disparities.
No consultation with the public, despite obligations under the Health Act.
When MPI floats a proposal to massively raise residue limits, the Ministry of Health should be front and centre. Instead, it feels like they’ve stepped off the stage entirely.
Where This Leaves Us
The Ministry of Health’s mandate is simple: protect the health of New Zealanders. That means looking beyond trade harmonisation and industry convenience, and taking seriously the evidence that glyphosate exposure carries risks.
If the Ministry stays silent while MPI moves ahead with a 9,900% increase, then what exactly does “protecting public health” mean anymore?
New Zealanders deserve better. At the very least, we deserve an honest, independent health assessment of glyphosate residues in our food and environment. Anything less isn’t just disappointing — it’s a breach of the very laws the Ministry exists to uphold.
Resources & References
We’re often told the science is settled, that glyphosate is safe when “used as directed.” But the studies below tell a different story — one that regulators seem reluctant to read aloud. These aren’t fringe blog posts or activist talking points. They’re peer-reviewed research, global cancer agency classifications, and independent testing campaigns right here in New Zealand. If the Ministry of Health truly has a duty of care, this is the evidence they should be paying attention to.
Glyphosate & Liver Disease (NASH + Fibrosis)
Paul J. Mills et al. (2019) – Glyphosate Excretion Is Associated With Steatohepatitis and Advanced Liver Fibrosis in Patients With Fatty Liver Disease
Patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) showed significantly higher glyphosate levels than those without—and, in a dose-dependent pattern, more advanced liver scarring.
Fatty Liver Index (US Adults)
Kexing Han et al. (2024) – Urinary Glyphosate Exposure & Fatty Liver Index
Analysis of NHANES data found a clear, positive association between urinary glyphosate and a higher fatty liver index—especially strong among women aged 40–60 with borderline diabetes or no hypertension.
Higher All-Cause Mortality Risk
Y. Chen et al. (2025) – Urinary Glyphosate & All-Cause Mortality (NHANES study)
Every 1 ng/mL rise in urinary glyphosate corresponded to a 40% increase in risk of death; individuals at the highest exposure had 50% higher mortality than those with the lowest.
Mortality (All-Cause & Cardiovascular)
Y. Gao et al. (2024) – Glyphosate, ALP, and Mortality in U.S. Adults
Using NHANES data, this study links glyphosate exposure to increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. It suggests elevated alkaline phosphatase (ALP) may partially mediate these risks.
Animal Evidence of Liver Disease
Mesnage et al. (2017) – Multi-omics Study on Roundup-Induced Liver Pathology in Rats
This metabolomic/proteomic kidney-liver study found widespread disruption of fat metabolism proteins and pathways linked to fatty liver and cell damage.
Tumors in Rats at “Safe” Doses
(Environmental Health, 2025) – Italian Rat Study on Glyphosate & Tumor Incidence
Rats exposed to glyphosate at levels within EU “safe” limits developed higher rates of tumors—including leukemia, nervous system, liver, and ovarian cancers.
Growing Body Burden in Humans
(Time, 2017) – Glyphosate Levels in Human Bodies Rising Over Time
A JAMA study tracking people over 50 in Southern California from the 1990s to 2016 found a 500% increase in detectable glyphosate and 1,200% higher body levels—a signal we’re saturating ourselves.
Glyphosate Accumulation & Presence
(Wikipedia — Glyphosate-based herbicides) – Broad Evidence Base
Glyphosate residues have been found in honey, wheat, soy, infant formula, and even in groundwater. In central Indiana, over 90% of pregnant women had detectable levels—and that correlated with shorter pregnancies.
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — Featured News (2018)
IARC confirms that glyphosate is classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), based on limited human evidence, sufficient animal evidence, and strong mechanistic data.
Why It Matters for NZ Readers
(NoMoreGlyphosate.nz, July 2025) – Glyphosate in Urine Linked to Higher Mortality: Wake-Up Call
Summarises the NHANES mortality study, explains the urgency for NZ to review glyphosate exposure risks, and underscores challenges in getting glyphosate testing locally.
More on nomoreglyphosate.nz
Glyphosate and Chronic Disease: Are We Connecting the Dots Too Late?
In this eye-opening piece, we trace how chronic illnesses—everything from gut disorders and food allergies to autoimmune conditions and cancers—have surged in step with skyrocketing glyphosate use since the 1990s. It’s not about claiming glyphosate caused every illness, but it’s hard to ignore the parallel. When our regulators won’t even acknowledge the overlap, what’s that saying about where our priorities lie?
Raising Maximum Residue Limits: A Public Health Risk
Here’s the full alarm bell: MPI is proposing to raise the maximum residue limits (MRLs) for glyphosate on wheat, barley, oats, and dried peas—measured in the hundreds or thousands of percent increases. This article doesn’t just flag how this flies in the face of the precautionary principle; it ties it to the broader health system we’re watching sleepwalk.
Glyphosate at “Safe” Levels: The Cancer Risk New Zealand Can’t Ignore
This article lifts the lid on a shocking global rat study that deliberately mimicked real-world exposure — lifelong glyphosate contact from womb to adulthood. The result? A cascade of aggressive cancers: leukemia, brain, thyroid, ovarian, liver, testicular — even at doses regulators currently call “safe.” All while MPI pushes to raise residue limits. If rats are breaking under “legal” glyphosate doses, what are regulators overlooking in our food?
The Cancer We Can’t Keep Ignoring: What the New Glyphosate Study Just Proved
This June 2025 breakthrough study didn’t tiptoe—it marched from womb to grave. Exposing rats prenatally to glyphosate and real-world spray formulations like Roundup®, researchers tracked tumor development across their lifetimes. The result? A chilling list of cancers—from leukemia, liver, thyroid, ovarian, testicular, to brain, bone, skin, and adrenal tumors—at doses regulators still call “safe.” If this shockwave of evidence doesn’t make us question MRL increases, what will?
The picture that emerges isn’t comfortable, but it’s impossible to ignore: glyphosate is no longer just a farming tool — it’s in our food, our bodies, and our future health statistics. The science is there for anyone willing to look. The only question left is: why isn’t the Ministry of Health looking harder?
Image Source & Attribution
The feature image on this page was created in Canva using a screenshot of the Ministry of Health’s official website.
