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.
Glyphosate is legally classified as a Hazardous Substance, yet most of Roundup’s ingredients remain secret. Europe now requires full disclosure — so why doesn’t New Zealand?
Tutin in honey can trigger seizures — so NZ enforces strict limits and testing. Glyphosate? It’s in everyday food, yet quietly accepted. Why the double standard?
We assume new chemicals are tested for safety — but in most cases, only one ingredient is tested, not the full spray. Is our system protecting us — or industry?
Most pesticide safety tests ignore the real-world spray. A new study reveals regulators don’t test the full formulation — just the declared ingredient. What does that mean for New Zealand’s food system, public health, and global credibility?
Non-Hodgkin lymphoma sits at the heart of the glyphosate debate — and the science, lawsuits, and billion-dollar settlements are painting a picture regulators can no longer ignore. Here’s what the research (and the courts) are saying about Roundup and cancer risk.
We asked why glyphosate‑based weedkillers sold in NZ don’t carry clearer health warnings. The Minister replied — but she answered a different question entirely.
As Bayer signals a retreat from glyphosate, the scramble to replace it is already underway. But many of the new “solutions” look a lot like old mistakes. Is New Zealand prepared — or just rebranding the same broken system?
Forestry in New Zealand leans heavily on glyphosate-based sprays such as Roundup Renew and Roundup Transorb. Promoted as efficient, these chemical cocktails expose workers, neighbours, and ecosystems to risks regulators prefer not to see.
When a local columnist praises glyphosate as an environmental hero and dismisses health concerns as “hysteria,” it’s time to dig deeper. Here’s our response — with facts, court cases, and real-world testing.
MPI decided not to raise glyphosate limits on key cereals — but still insists the higher limits would have been “safe.” With glyphosate already showing up in real supermarket foods at today’s levels, we ask: where is the evidence behind that confidence, and what principle is actually guiding these decisions?
Icafolin is being promoted as the “next glyphosate,” but its biology, risks, and real-world impact tell a different story. Here’s what sets it apart—and why it matters for New Zealand.
The PCE made clear recommendations to improve how New Zealand tracks the fate of chemicals — including a national pollutant register and changes to regulatory assessments. Yet those reforms have still not been delivered. This article explores how policy momentum stalled, and why it matters.
Underneath the PCE’s 2022 report sit consultant papers that reveal just how fragmented New Zealand’s chemical monitoring really is. Different regions measure different contaminants, making it difficult to track environmental fate — and helping explain why glyphosate can slip through the cracks.
