When glyphosate residues were found in New Zealand honey, the official response was reassuring.
According to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), the levels detected posed no food safety risk to consumers. The honey on supermarket shelves was considered safe to eat, and the issue appeared settled.
But alongside that reassurance was a quieter admission: glyphosate residues in honey could represent a trade and reputational risk, particularly for export markets where residues are expected to be non-detectable.
Those two statements sit side by side, yet they point to very different ways of understanding risk. And when we began independently testing honey ourselves, the contrast became harder to ignore.
What MPI Found in Its Honey Testing
MPI’s findings come from its National Chemical Residues Programme, with honey testing conducted across multiple years and publicly reported in 2020 through MPI reporting and subsequent media coverage.
In its first major survey, carried out in 2015–2016, MPI tested around 300 mostly raw and unprocessed honey samples collected from across the country. Glyphosate residues were detected in 67 samples, representing 22.3 percent of those tested. Of these, five samples exceeded New Zealand’s default maximum residue limit at the time.
A second survey followed in 2018–2019, focusing on packaged mānuka honey products available at retail. In that round, glyphosate residues were detected in 11 out of 60 products.
MPI’s conclusion was consistent across both surveys. While residues were present, officials maintained that the levels detected did not pose a food safety concern for consumers. At the same time, internal briefing documents acknowledged that the presence of glyphosate in honey could present challenges for exporters, particularly in markets with stricter residue expectations.
How MPI’s Two Residue Monitoring Programmes Shape Honey Testing
Part of the confusion around glyphosate in honey comes from the fact that MPI operates two different residue monitoring programmes, each designed to answer a different question.
The honey testing that attracted media attention sits under MPI’s National Chemical Residues Programme. This programme exists primarily to protect New Zealand’s export market access. It focuses on high-value products like honey, meat and dairy, and considers not just domestic limits, but also the expectations of overseas markets. This is where MPI explicitly acknowledges trade and reputational risk, particularly for markets where residues are expected to be non-detectable.
Alongside this sits MPI’s Food Residues Surveillance Programme, which has a different role. Its purpose is domestic consumer protection. Foods are sampled to check whether residues exceed New Zealand’s Maximum Residue Limits, and results are assessed against those legal thresholds. Where residues are detected below the MRL, products are considered compliant and not a food safety concern.
Honey sits awkwardly between these two frameworks. Under the Food Residues Programme, honey containing low-level glyphosate residues can be considered safe for New Zealand consumers. Under the National Chemical Residues Programme, the same residues can raise concerns about export acceptability and brand reputation.
This is how MPI can truthfully say that glyphosate residues in honey pose no domestic food safety risk, while also acknowledging that they present a trade and reputational risk. The apparent contradiction isn’t about the science changing — it’s about which question is being asked.
This difference between food safety assurances and trade risk is explored more deeply in our article on what “safe” really means.
What Independent Honey Testing Is Showing
At No More Glyphosate NZ, we began testing honey for a different reason. We weren’t trying to assess regulatory compliance. We wanted to understand how common glyphosate residues are when you look closely at the honey people actually buy and eat.
So far, we’ve independently tested 26 honey samples. One small-scale local beekeeper sample showed no detectable glyphosate; the remaining samples were retail products spanning mānuka, kānuka, clover, multifloral and creamed honeys.
Glyphosate was detected in 23 of the retail samples, representing a detection rate of around 88 percent. Concentrations ranged from trace levels below the laboratory reporting limit to over 100 parts per billion in a small number of samples.
These retail honeys are finished products, purchased off the shelf — not raw honeys awaiting blending.
Comparing MPI Honey Testing and Independent Results
It’s important to be clear about what this comparison does and does not show.
MPI’s testing involved a much larger sample size and spanned several years. It included both raw and processed honey and was designed to determine whether residues exceeded regulatory limits.
Our testing, by contrast, is early-stage and limited in scale. It focuses specifically on retail products and uses very low detection limits to identify whether residues are present at all.
Those differences matter. A smaller dataset cannot establish national prevalence or long-term trends. But it can tell us whether residues appear to be rare exceptions or something more routine.
When MPI tested honey, roughly one in five samples contained detectable glyphosate. When we tested honey, it was nearly nine in ten.
That doesn’t prove residues are increasing. It does suggest they may be more common than most people expect, especially when modern analytical methods are applied to finished products.
Why Glyphosate in Honey Matters Beyond Food Safety
MPI has consistently framed glyphosate in honey as a food safety issue — or, more precisely, as not a food safety issue. Their assessments focus on whether consumers could exceed an Acceptable Daily Intake under typical consumption patterns.
But food safety is not the only consideration.
Many export markets have no maximum residue limit for glyphosate in honey, which in practice means residues must not be detectable. In those markets, even very low levels can trigger rejection. That is why MPI has acknowledged glyphosate residues as a trade and reputational risk, even while maintaining there is no domestic food safety concern.
This distinction matters. A product can meet New Zealand’s legal standards and still fail to meet international expectations — or consumer expectations — of purity.
What the Honey Testing Results Actually Show
Our testing does not demonstrate harm. It does not replace large-scale national monitoring, and it does not answer every question about exposure or risk.
What it does show is that glyphosate residues in New Zealand honey are not rare anomalies. They are appearing repeatedly, across different brands, regions and honey types.
That alone warrants a more transparent conversation about how residues enter the food system, how often they occur, and what standards we choose to apply — not just for compliance, but for trust.
What These Findings Mean for Honey, Consumers, and Trust
This isn’t about declaring honey unsafe. It’s about recognising that “safe” is a narrow term, shaped by regulatory assumptions and thresholds.
When residues are widespread enough to raise trade concerns, consumer questions are inevitable. And when independent testing consistently finds what official testing once described as occasional, it’s reasonable to ask whether our understanding needs updating.
We’re just getting started. But the numbers already suggest this is a conversation worth having.
Resources & References
This article draws on a combination of official MPI monitoring programmes and independent honey testing carried out by No More Glyphosate NZ. The resources below provide background, regulatory context, and direct access to the underlying data discussed.
MPI Monitoring Programmes
National Chemical Residues Programme (NCRP)
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-business/food-monitoring-surveillance/national-chemical-residues-programme
MPI’s export-focused residue monitoring programme, designed to demonstrate compliance with overseas market requirements. Honey testing that raised trade and reputational concerns sits under this framework.
Food Residues Surveillance Programme
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-business/food-monitoring-surveillance/food-residues-survey-programme
MPI’s domestic food monitoring programme, focused on checking foods sold in New Zealand against Maximum Residue Limits to assess food safety compliance for local consumers.
Glyphosate in food – MPI overview
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-safety-home/safe-levels-of-chemicals-in-food/fertilisers-pesticides-hormones-and-medicines-in-food/glyphosate-in-food/
MPI’s general explanation of how glyphosate residues are assessed in food, including references to Acceptable Daily Intake and residue limits.
Independent Honey Testing (No More Glyphosate NZ)
Glyphosate in New Zealand Honey? Our First Test Results Are In
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/glyphosate-in-nz-honey-first-test-results/
13 June 2025
An overview of our initial honey testing, outlining why we began testing and what the early results showed.
Glyphosate in New Zealand Honey — Test Results: Batch 2
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/glyphosate-in-honey-test-2/
14 August 2025
Expanded retail testing results, including additional mānuka and consumer honey products.
Glyphosate in New Zealand Honey – Test Results: Batch 3
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/glyphosate-honey-test-results-batch-3/
21 August 2025
Further batch testing showing continued detection across multiple honey types and brands.
Glyphosate in Honey Test Results — Test Results: Batch 4
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/glyphosate-honey-test-results-batch-4/
22 September 2025
The most recent batch of results at the time of writing, continuing the same testing methodology and reporting format.
Supporting Context: Bees, Exposure Pathways, and Risk Framing
Why Honey Tests Positive for Glyphosate
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/why-honey-tests-positive-for-glyphosate/
Explains how glyphosate enters honey through landscape-level spraying and bee foraging behaviour, highlighting why beekeepers have limited control over exposure.
Glyphosate and Bee Fertility — What the Research Shows
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/glyphosate-bee-fertility-study/
Summarises research examining glyphosate’s potential impacts on bee reproduction and colony health, providing ecological context beyond residue levels alone.
Glyphosate’s Impact on Bees
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/glyphosate-impact-on-bees/
An overview of documented and emerging concerns around glyphosate exposure in bees, including navigation, microbiome disruption, and sub-lethal effects.
Food Safety Standards & Risk Perception
Tutin vs Glyphosate — How Food Safety Standards Are Applied
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/tutin-vs-glyphosate-food-safety-standard/
A comparative explainer showing how New Zealand applies vastly different regulatory approaches to naturally occurring toxins versus agricultural chemical residues, helping contextualise why “safe” can mean different things in practice.
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 Bee Naturalles. You can find more of their work here: https://unsplash.com/@beenaturalles.
