If you’ve been following our campaign, you’ll know we’ve been pushing for one thing the New Zealand public still doesn’t have:
…clear, independent data on glyphosate (the active ingredient in weedkillers such as Roundup) exposure. Not global averages. Not industry talking points. Actual, New Zealand-specific monitoring — so we know what’s getting into our bodies and our food supply over time.
The logic is simple: if we can measure it, we can manage it. But if we never look, we’ll never know.
So when we put two straightforward questions to the Ministry of Health about whether they’d sought independent advice or planned to track glyphosate exposure trends, we expected at least a hint of progress.
Instead, we got two very short answers.
The Ministry’s Reply
We asked:
- Has the Ministry sought or reviewed any independent scientific advice specific to glyphosate exposure in the New Zealand context within the past five years?
- Does the Ministry have any plans to assess long-term exposure trends — either through food residue surveillance or biomonitoring studies — given the increasing public concern?
The official answer to both? No.
And not a “no, but here’s what we’re doing instead.” Just no — with the added note that any food residue surveillance would be the responsibility of New Zealand Food Safety, a business unit of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).
The Pattern We’re Seeing
This response is consistent with others we’ve received from various government departments — everyone seems to be “on the same page.” Unfortunately, that page says:
- No fresh, independent, New Zealand-specific review of glyphosate science.
- No biomonitoring to measure what’s actually showing up in people’s bodies.
- No tracking of exposure trends over time.
It’s a policy of deliberate omission: if you don’t look, you don’t have to find anything.
Why We Asked These Questions
The Ministry’s earlier reply to us (19 June 2025) acknowledged that glyphosate can be measured in urine but downplayed the usefulness of testing, citing its short half-life of around nine hours.
That’s a curious stance, given that short-term excretion is exactly why urine testing is the global standard for biomonitoring glyphosate.
We pointed this out in our follow-up email — along with examples from:
- The US CDC biomonitoring programme.
- The European HBM4EU initiative covering 28 countries.
- Australian research teams tracking exposure trends in the general population.
These studies have shown it’s possible to detect patterns, even in people with no direct agricultural contact.
The Study They Ignored
We also reminded the Ministry of a 2022 study that tested both Australians and New Zealand farmers:
- Glyphosate was detected in 8% of pooled urine samples from over 1,800 Australians.
- Glyphosate was detected in 96% of New Zealand farmers tested.
The very same method the Ministry dismissed as “limited” was used successfully to document widespread exposure — including here in New Zealand.
Why This Matters
Without independent review or long-term monitoring, we have no idea:
- Whether glyphosate exposure in New Zealand is rising, falling, or staying the same.
- How occupational exposure compares to the general population.
- What cumulative impacts might be occurring from chronic, low-level exposure.
Other countries are collecting this information. We are not. That gap leaves us in the dark — and leaves public health decisions vulnerable to outdated data and industry-friendly narratives.
What We’re Left With
In the absence of government-led biomonitoring, the only people asking — and answering — these questions are independent groups like No More Glyphosate NZ. Every food test we run is a small piece of the puzzle the Ministry has chosen not to assemble.
To date, our community has crowdfunded and completed:
- Honey testing — three separate rounds (latest results pending producer feedback)
- Weet-Bix testing
- Breakfast cereal testing
- Supermarket bread testing (results pending producer feedback)
Every single one of those results is now publicly available on our website — because transparency should be the standard, not the exception. And we’re just getting started.
We would welcome a robust, publicly funded monitoring programme tomorrow. But until that day, we’ll continue testing, reporting, and holding the system accountable.
Because “no” isn’t good enough when it comes to protecting public health.
Resources & References
US CDC Biomonitoring Programme – The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention runs the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which includes biomonitoring for glyphosate in the population.
European HBM4EU Initiative – The Human Biomonitoring for Europe (HBM4EU) project involved 28 countries and included glyphosate among its monitored substances, providing comparable exposure data across the EU.
2022 Australian & New Zealand Glyphosate Study – Characterization of glyphosate and AMPA concentrations in the urine of Australian and New Zealand populations. Science of the Total Environment, 2022. Detected glyphosate in 8% of pooled samples from over 1,800 Australians and in 96% of NZ farmers tested.
University of Queensland press release: Weed killer detected in Australian urine samples – News – The University of Queensland
Related No More Glyphosate NZ Testing
Weet-Bix Glyphosate Test Results
Independent lab results revealing whether New Zealand’s favourite breakfast cereal contains traces of glyphosate.
Glyphosate in Breakfast Foods
A roundup of test results from popular breakfast products, showing how glyphosate can sneak into the first meal of the day.
NZ Honey Test – First Results
Findings from our first batch of honey testing, examining glyphosate residues in New Zealand-produced honey.
NZ Honey Test – Round 2 Results
Follow-up testing to see if glyphosate contamination is consistent across different honey batches and brands.
Why There’s No Glyphosate Testing in NZ
An explainer on the lack of public glyphosate testing pathways in New Zealand and what that means for consumers.
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 AIOfoto with additional editing using canva.com.
