New Zealanders are being told glyphosate is safe. But with no recent testing and growing international concern, is this science—or spin?
When the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) tells the public that glyphosate residues are safe and well below allowable levels, it sounds reassuring.
But ask the obvious question—when was the last time we tested?—and the reassurance starts to unravel.
Behind the confident messaging is a troubling truth: MPI hasn’t publicly released any glyphosate testing data in nearly a decade. Despite international controversy, court cases, and mounting public concern, no fresh, local data has been offered to prove New Zealand’s food is glyphosate-free—or even glyphosate-safe.
So, what exactly are we being reassured with?
The Last Glyphosate Report: 2015/16 Wheat Survey
The most recent glyphosate residue data available from MPI comes from a 2015/2016 targeted survey of wheat samples. The results weren’t exactly comforting:
- Glyphosate was detected in 43% of samples (26 out of 60).
- One-third of those samples exceeded the legal limit at the time (MRL of 0.1 mg/kg).
- And yet—no follow-up national testing was done.
Since that time, MPI has continued to conduct pesticide residue testing across hundreds of other chemicals, publishing annual reports. But glyphosate has quietly dropped off the list.
Why?
If the chemical is as safe as claimed, surely regular testing would validate that.
Instead, we’ve seen silence—and now, a new proposal to raise allowable glyphosate levels.
“There’s No Evidence of Harm” — But Are We Even Looking?
In public statements, MPI often falls back on phrases like “there is no evidence of harm.” But here’s the catch: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence—especially when you’ve stopped looking.
If New Zealanders haven’t been told what’s in their food, it’s not because it isn’t there. It may be because no one has tested for it recently enough to know.
Leaning on Overseas Data Isn’t Good Enough
MPI frequently references international guidelines to justify its position, especially from the U.S., Australia, and Codex Alimentarius. But none of these replace actual, up-to-date, New Zealand-specific testing.
We have different crops, soil types, climate, and farming practices. What’s “safe” elsewhere may not reflect local exposure levels—or risks. It’s not enough to say “we’re in line with global standards” when we haven’t done the work to prove it here.
Food safety must be based on local evidence, not international averages.
In a recent response to public concern, the Minister for Food Safety defended the MRL proposal by stating:
“The proposed MRLs are similar to, or below, the internationally recognised MRLs for glyphosate... assessed in accordance with the best scientific methods followed by other regulators around the world.”
But if those regulators—such as the U.S. EPA—have been shown to ignore internal scientific warnings and lean heavily on industry-submitted data, then basing New Zealand’s standards on theirs doesn’t reassure. It compounds the problem.
Our regulators should be raising the bar—not borrowing the baseline.
Policy Before Proof: Raising the Limits Without the Data
Perhaps the most concerning part of this story is the timing.
MPI is currently proposing a significant increase in Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for glyphosate on over 20 food crops, including wheat, oats, barley, and dried peas—staples of the Kiwi diet.
These increases are being proposed without any recent, local residue data to support them. Without current testing, we don’t know whether existing residue limits are already being exceeded. Raising the limits now—without updated surveillance—creates the appearance of compliance, not the reality of safety.
This isn’t food safety. It’s regulatory convenience.
In response to public concern, the Minister for Food Safety stated:
“An adult of 70 kilograms would need to consume the equivalent of 2.1kg of oats at the proposed MRL every day for a lifetime before glyphosate poses a risk to health.”
It’s a clever soundbite—but it sidesteps the real issue. What concerns many is the cumulative, low-dose exposure to glyphosate from multiple sources: breakfast, lunch, dinner, even water, clothing—and yes, even tampons, as we recently explored in Glyphosate in Tampons: The Exposure No One Talks About.
These interactions aren’t captured in simplistic lifetime exposure models.
If safety claims are built on averages and assumptions—not full-spectrum exposure realities—then the risk isn’t being measured. It’s being managed. For appearances.
Reassurance Without Accountability
New Zealanders are being asked to accept higher glyphosate residues in their food based on outdated surveys, international assumptions, and vague assurances.
When officials say “MRLs are about trade, not safety,” or compare glyphosate to red meat and shift work, it raises a deeper concern: Are we reframing the issue to avoid scrutiny?
New Zealanders deserve more than calculated averages and comparisons. They deserve real-time data, transparent science, and regulators who answer to public health—not just trade alignment.
But food safety isn’t about what regulators believe—it’s about what they can prove.
And right now, MPI can’t prove much of anything. Not because glyphosate is safe. But because they’ve stopped checking.
No more data means no more credibility.
And no more excuses.
Resources & References
MPI 2015/16 Food Residues Surveillance Report
This official MPI report presents the results of pesticide testing on fresh and frozen produce in New Zealand. It includes data on glyphosate residues found in wheat, revealing that 43% of samples contained glyphosate and one-third exceeded the then-current legal limit.
View the report here
MPI Proposal to Amend MRLs (2025)
Outlines plans to raise allowable glyphosate levels for multiple staple crops in New Zealand.
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/68256
Codex Alimentarius: Glyphosate MRLs
International food standards used as a reference point by regulators—including MPI.
https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius
Related Articles on NoMoreGlyphosate.nz
Why Raising MRLs Threatens Public Health
This article breaks down the potential risks of MPI’s proposal to increase glyphosate residue limits on key food crops—and why even small increases matter more than they seem.
Read this article here
Why Glyphosate Isn’t Just a Weed Killer — It’s a Public Health Issue
A deeper look at glyphosate’s role as a systemic chemical with wide-reaching effects on health, ecosystems, and the regulatory systems that claim to keep it in check.
Read Why Glyphosate Isn’t Just a Weed Killer
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 zaikavirus. You can find more of their work here: https://www.123rf.com/profile_zaikavirus.
