Melanoma has long been framed as New Zealand’s “sunlight problem.” But new international research suggests herbicide exposure may also play a role — even after UV is accounted for. Could the same patterns be unfolding here? It’s time to ask harder questions about our chemical landscape.
Bayer has quietly added another €1 billion to its Roundup lawsuit fund, pushing total reserves close to €7 billion. If glyphosate-based weedkillers are truly “safe,” why does the litigation never stop? And what does this growing legal fallout mean for New Zealand?
New Zealand cows are being fed glyphosate-sprayed pasture — often without consumers knowing and without any herbicide testing in milk. Here’s what this means for animal health, offal eaters, and our food safety system.
Before NZ rolled out its digital QR-code labelling trial, the Government’s own Product Labelling Review exposed far deeper issues — from weak enforcement to transparency gaps. Here’s what the Review actually said, and why the digital solution sidesteps the real problems.
Imagine standing in the supermarket, picking up a box of cereal, scanning the barcode… and seeing actual lab results instead of vague marketing claims.
Not...
New Zealand’s glyphosate assessment was built on a selective evidence base — and the 2017 Bruning–Browning review exposed just how much science never made it into the room. In this bonus investigation, we explore the missing studies, the unpublished data, the methodological shortcuts, and what these gaps mean for trust, transparency, and the future of chemical oversight in New Zealand.
Is glyphosate (Roundup) safe when used as directed? New 2025 studies, including the Global Glyphosate Study, show tumors and organ damage in animals at doses regulators call safe. While EPA and EFSA claim no human risk, independent research and billions in cancer settlements raise serious concerns. This 2025 review breaks down the latest science vs. official claims so you can decide if glyphosate belongs in your garden or food.
New Zealand’s EPA is back in court — and the arguments sound eerily familiar. In the final part of our mini-series, we look at why the agency’s 2025 defence mirrors the same assumptions, gaps, and borrowed conclusions challenged in 2017, and what this means for glyphosate regulation, public trust, and the future of chemical oversight in New Zealand.
New Zealand’s glyphosate decisions didn’t falter because the science was unclear — but because the system leaned on industry-influenced agencies and untested assumptions. Here’s how that coziness shaped our regulatory outcomes.
A 2017 review warned the NZ EPA had overlooked major glyphosate risks. Eight years later, those same issues are heading to court — and nothing has changed.
A single drop of glyphosate changed Damean Ross’s life forever. After decades of pain, dismissal, and silence, he's finally ready to share what happened—and why it still matters.
The Environmental Law Initiative is taking the Environmental Protection Authority to court again
Yes, again.
They’re challenging the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) refusal to reassess glyphosate...
As trust in vague labels fades, more people are turning to glyphosate residue testing and demanding proof over promises—especially here in New Zealand.
What happens when “the science” isn’t the full story? This article breaks down how industry messaging shapes public understanding of glyphosate-based weedkillers — and why New Zealanders are asking sharper questions.
Bayer tried to secure legal immunity for Roundup cancer lawsuits in Missouri — and failed. The courts upheld a US$611 million verdict, setting a powerful precedent. As New Zealand debates glyphosate residue limits and regulatory oversight, the lesson is clear: accountability shouldn’t be optional.
