Because the evidence keeps stacking up — and it’s getting harder to ignore.
Glyphosate isn’t some abstract chemical tucked away on farms.
It’s on our wheat, our oats, our bread, our honey. It’s in the food that ends up on our tables and in our children’s lunchboxes.
And yet, officials continue to assure us it’s “safe.” Safe at current levels. Safe even if MPI raises the allowable residues nearly a hundred-fold. Safe despite a growing body of research that tells a very different story.
How can anyone, looking honestly at what we now know, still make that claim with a straight face?
The Evidence of Harm
Regulators love to reassure us that glyphosate is “safe at current levels.” But safe for who? And safe for how long?
The trouble with that phrase is that real-world science keeps telling a different story. And the latest studies couldn’t be clearer.
A 2025 study in Environmental Health found that lifetime, low-dose glyphosate exposure in rats produced multiple tumours — including leukemias, nervous system, ovarian, and liver cancers — at levels regulators still describe as “safe.” If a chemical produces cancer in animals at doses considered acceptable for humans, shouldn’t that make us pause?
Meanwhile, a 2025 study in Scientific Reports looked at a large U.S. cohort of adults and found that every tiny increase in urinary glyphosate — just +1 ng/mL — was linked with about a 40% rise in all-cause mortality. People in the highest exposure group had around 50% higher risk of death compared to those in the lowest. Those aren’t abstract lab results. That’s population-level data showing higher glyphosate exposure means shorter lives.
These aren’t outliers. They’re part of a growing pattern. Glyphosate has been linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and gut health impacts for years. The difference now is that new evidence keeps emerging at the very exposure levels regulators still insist are “safe.”
If you’re wondering how much those rat studies actually tell us about human risk, check out our article “We’re Not Rats… But Maybe We Should Pay Attention Anyway”, which explains why these findings can’t be dismissed lightly.
So maybe the real question is this: when the data points so clearly to risk, why are we still told there’s nothing to worry about?
The Flawed Idea of “Safe Limits”
Regulators like to talk about “acceptable daily intakes” — the amount of glyphosate you can supposedly consume every day of your life without harm. It sounds reassuring. Scientific. Even precise.
But let’s peel it back.
Those limits are often based on short-term studies, not lifetime exposure. They rarely account for the fact that glyphosate isn’t the only chemical in our food — we’re all exposed to a cocktail of pesticides, additives, and industrial residues. Each might be “safe” on its own, but what happens when you add them together, day after day, year after year?
And then there’s the issue of who we’re really protecting. Children eat more food per kilo of body weight than adults. Pregnant women have developing babies to consider. People with chronic illnesses or weakened immune systems may be more vulnerable. Yet the “one-size-fits-all” thresholds don’t reflect those realities.
Perhaps the biggest flaw of all is that regulators treat glyphosate exposure as if it’s neatly measured and controlled. But it isn’t. Our own testing of honey, cereals, and bread shows that residues are widespread and unpredictable. What you eat on any given day depends on which jar you buy, which loaf you slice, which box you pour into your bowl.
So when officials say glyphosate is safe “within limits,” we have to ask: whose limits? And what happens when the science keeps shifting, but the limits keep rising?
And here’s something most people never hear: the science those limits are based on isn’t even representative of everyone.
- In toxicology studies, researchers have historically used mostly male animals, excluding females because their hormonal cycles were seen as an inconvenience. Yet glyphosate is suspected of disrupting hormones and reproduction — exactly the areas where females should be front and centre.
- In human studies, the data often leans heavily on middle-aged men — think agricultural workers, pesticide applicators, veterans — while women, children, and vulnerable populations are under-studied.
So when regulators declare glyphosate “safe,” what they really mean is: safe enough, based on studies of groups who don’t reflect the full population. But what about everyone else?
The Wider Picture
Glyphosate isn’t just a local debate — it’s a global flashpoint. Around the world, countries are beginning to draw lines.
- In the European Union, several nations — including Germany, Austria, and France — have moved to restrict or phase out glyphosate. Their reasoning isn’t only about cancer risk, but also biodiversity loss, declining pollinators, and soil health.
- Other countries have banned glyphosate outright for household or urban use, recognising that spraying playgrounds, parks, and roadside verges comes with unacceptable exposure risks.
And then there’s pre-harvest spraying — the practice of applying glyphosate to crops like wheat, oats, and barley just before harvest to dry them evenly. For farmers, it’s convenient. For consumers, it’s invisible. That single step is one of the biggest drivers of glyphosate residues in bread, cereal, and other staples.
New Zealand, instead of tightening controls, is moving in the opposite direction. MPI’s proposal to raise allowable residues on wheat and oats by 9,900% is being sold as “harmonisation with trading partners.” But harmonisation with who? And at what cost?
This isn’t just about one chemical. It’s about whether food safety is being defined by what’s convenient for trade — or by what’s truly safe for people.
A Question of Conscience
At some point, the science and the ethics collide. We now have evidence that low-dose, real-world glyphosate exposure is linked to cancer, hormone disruption, gut health problems — even increased risk of early death. We also know that “safe limits” are built on flawed foundations: studies skewed toward male animals, middle-aged men, and short-term exposure windows that don’t reflect a lifetime of daily contact.
So the question isn’t whether glyphosate is useful. It’s whether we can, in good conscience, keep pretending it’s compatible with human health.
Because if a chemical shows up in our honey, our bread, our children’s food — and the latest science says even those levels carry risk — then no one in good conscience can still call it “safe.”
And if our leaders and regulators continue to do so, we have to ask: are they really protecting us, or protecting an industry narrative that’s already wearing thin?
Resources & References
We’re often told to “trust the science.” But the real challenge is deciding which science counts, who gets to interpret it, and why some findings are amplified while others are buried. Below are key studies and sources — some recent, some foundational, and some from our own independent testing — that show why the story on glyphosate is far from settled.
Environmental Health (2025): Lifetime, low-dose glyphosate exposure in rats
Found multiple tumours — including leukemias, nervous system, ovarian, and liver cancers — at doses regulators still describe as “safe.”
Scientific Reports (2025): Glyphosate exposure and mortality in U.S. adults (NHANES cohort)
Each +1 ng/mL urinary glyphosate was linked to ~40% higher all-cause mortality; the highest-exposure group had ~50% higher risk of death.
IARC (2015): Glyphosate classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A)
Based on limited evidence of cancer in humans (primarily non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and sufficient evidence in experimental animals, along with strong evidence of genotoxicity
EFSA vs. IARC: Divergent conclusions
While IARC classifies glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded it is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard — a difference driven by contrasting evaluation frameworks and weighting of evidence
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, 2023): Glyphosate Renewal Assessment
The EU’s latest risk assessment, controversial for downplaying health and environmental risks while other EU states move toward bans or restrictions.
NoMoreGlyphosate.nz: Rat Study Human Relevance
Explains why animal studies, often dismissed as “not relevant,” are still vital for understanding glyphosate’s risks to people.
NoMoreGlyphosate.nz: Glyphosate in NZ Honey – Test Results
Our independent lab testing shows residues are not a hypothetical issue — glyphosate is already showing up in the food chain.
NoMoreGlyphosate.nz: Glyphosate in Weet-Bix – Independent Test Results
Testing six popular supermarket breads revealed glyphosate residues in New Zealand staples. Demonstrates the invisible exposure pathway of pre-harvest spraying.
These resources won’t give you a neat, packaged answer — and that’s the point. Science isn’t static, and neither are the risks we face. What matters is whether decision-makers are willing to look at the full weight of evidence, even when it’s inconvenient. Until then, the responsibility to ask harder questions falls back on us.
Image Source & Attribution
The feature image on this page was created using Canva Pro.
