When regulators say a food poses “no safety risk,” most people assume the conversation is over.
The phrase sounds definitive — as if a clear line has been drawn between what is acceptable and what is not.
But in practice, safety is not a single, universal standard. It is a judgement shaped by assumptions, thresholds, and the specific question being asked. A food can be considered safe under one regulatory framework, yet raise concerns under another. It can meet domestic standards, while failing to meet export expectations. And it can be legally compliant, while still undermining trust.
This is not a contradiction in the science itself. It’s a reflection of how differently risk can be framed, depending on whether the focus is consumer exposure, market access, or precaution.
The way glyphosate residues in New Zealand honey have been discussed makes this tension visible. Honey has been described as safe to eat, while simultaneously being acknowledged as a potential trade and reputational risk — not because the residue levels change, but because the question being asked does.
We’ve examined how this plays out in practice by comparing MPI honey testing with independent results.
Understanding that distinction matters. Not just for honey, but for how we talk about food safety, chemical residues, and what “safe” is really meant to mean.
What “No Food Safety Risk” Actually Means in New Zealand
In New Zealand, food safety assessments are built around a specific regulatory framework. Regulators assess whether the amount of a chemical present in food could reasonably cause harm, based on models that estimate daily intake over time.
These models rely on assumptions: how much of a food a person is likely to eat, how often they might eat it, and what level of exposure is considered unlikely to cause harm. From this, an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is calculated. Maximum residue limits are then set to ensure typical consumption stays well below that threshold.
Within this system, a food can contain detectable chemical residues and still be considered safe. “Safe,” in this context, does not mean absent. It means below a calculated level of concern.
So when the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) says glyphosate residues in honey pose no food safety risk, they are answering a narrow but defined question:
Would a person eating honey in typical amounts be expected to exceed an intake level considered harmful?
Under New Zealand’s current assumptions, the answer is no.
But export markets are asking a different question
Many overseas markets are not applying the same test.
Some countries importing honey from New Zealand have no maximum residue limit for glyphosate in honey at all. In practice, that often means residues must be non-detectable. If glyphosate shows up in testing, the product may be rejected — regardless of how low the level is.
This does not necessarily mean those countries believe a jar of honey with trace residues is immediately dangerous. Often, it reflects a different regulatory philosophy.
Instead of asking, “Is this amount unlikely to cause harm?”, they ask:
“Should this chemical be present in this product at all?”
That distinction matters, particularly for premium foods marketed as natural, clean, or medicinal. In those markets, the presence of residues alone can undermine consumer trust, even when regulators elsewhere deem the product safe.
The contradiction regulators rarely dwell on
This is where the tension becomes more apparent.
New Zealand regulators reassure domestic consumers that glyphosate residues in honey do not pose a food safety risk. At the same time, they accept that those same residues may jeopardise access to overseas markets and damage New Zealand’s clean-green reputation.
The implication is subtle but important. A product can meet domestic safety standards while failing to meet international expectations of purity. Compliance in one system does not guarantee acceptability in another.
This is why MPI can acknowledge glyphosate in honey as a trade and reputational risk while maintaining that it is safe to eat. The two positions are not technically contradictory — but together they reveal how narrowly “safety” is being defined.
Safe enough versus acceptable
At the heart of this issue is a distinction that often goes unstated.
“Safe enough” is a regulatory judgement.
“Acceptable” is a social and market judgement.
New Zealand’s food safety system is designed to answer the first question. Many export markets — and many consumers — are more concerned with the second.
Neither perspective is inherently wrong. But treating them as interchangeable creates confusion and erodes trust.
When residues are described as something that can be managed through blending or averaged across batches, the conversation moves further away from what many people intuitively understand food safety to mean. Blending may ensure regulatory compliance, but it does nothing to address why residues are present in the first place — or whether their presence aligns with consumer expectations.
What this means for consumers
For consumers, this creates an uncomfortable grey zone.
If residues are acceptable because they fall below regulatory thresholds, what does that say about cumulative exposure across multiple foods? What does it mean for products marketed as clean, natural, or premium? And why should the standard change depending on whether food is destined for local shelves or overseas buyers?
These are not alarmist questions. They are questions about transparency and consistency.
When regulators reassure the public using food safety language, while quietly managing trade risks behind the scenes, it leaves people sensing that something doesn’t quite add up.
They’re not imagining it.
Where this leaves us
This isn’t about claiming honey is unsafe to eat. It isn’t about panic, fear, or rejecting regulation outright.
It’s about being honest that “safe” is not a universal definition.
Different countries, regulators, and consumers weigh risk differently. Some prioritise dose and exposure models. Others prioritise absence and precaution. Some focus on legal thresholds. Others focus on trust and expectation.
When glyphosate residues in honey are described as harmless in one context and problematic in another, it’s not because the science has changed. It’s because the question being asked has changed.
Understanding that distinction is essential — not just for honey, but for how we talk about food, chemicals, and safety more broadly.
Resources & References
This article focuses on how food safety and trade risk are defined and managed under different regulatory frameworks. The resources below provide context on how residue limits are set, how MPI approaches food safety and export compliance, and why the same residue can be interpreted differently depending on the question being asked.
MPI Monitoring and Food Safety Frameworks
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. Residue findings that raise trade and reputational concerns are assessed within this framework.
Food Residues Surveillance Programme
https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-business/food-monitoring-surveillance/food-residues-survey-programme
MPI’s domestic monitoring programme for foods sold in New Zealand, focused on checking compliance with Maximum Residue Limits to assess food safety 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 explanation of how glyphosate residues are assessed in food, including the use of Acceptable Daily Intake models and residue limits.
Interpreting “Safe” vs “Acceptable”
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 different regulatory approaches to naturally occurring toxins versus agricultural chemical residues, highlighting why “safe” can mean different things in practice.
MPI Honey Testing vs Independent Testing — What Numbers Show
https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/mpi-honey-testing-vs-independent-testing/
A companion article examining how official MPI honey testing compares with independent testing results, and how those findings are interpreted under different regulatory frameworks.
Together, these sources help explain how the same residue finding can be considered safe in one context, yet problematic in another — not because the science changes, but because the definition of risk does.
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 Zakharova.
