When Newsroom ran its piece calling MPI’s announcement a “glyphosate (Roundup) limbo”, it landed with a familiar sense of fog.
Yes — MPI’s move created uncertainty.
Yes — the public is left wondering what this really means for the food on their plate, especially as concerns about glyphosate in food continue to grow.
But the wording revealed something more telling — and more concerning.
The wording casually fused glyphosate and Roundup as if they’re one and the same.
They’re not.
This was not a review of Roundup.
It was a decision about glyphosate — the active ingredient — and nothing else.
The journalist credited with the piece, Andrew Bevin, is a business reporter specialising in property, aged care, logistics and markets. He is not an agriculture reporter. He is not a pesticide reporter. This isn’t to criticise him personally — it simply illustrates the wider point: most media commentary on pesticide regulation is written by writers with no subject-matter background. And because they aren’t fluent in the difference between “active ingredient” and “formulated product”, the public isn’t either.
Read the Newsroom article here: Glyphosate ruling creates a herbicide limbo
Glyphosate is a Molecule
Roundup is a proprietary product that contains glyphosate plus surfactants, solvents, stabilisers and other co-formulants — none of which are publicly disclosed. Regulators don’t see those ingredients either. MPI can only assess what it is allowed to see. And in New Zealand, they cannot legally review Roundup’s full formulation because the recipe is protected as a trade secret.
So when a journalist uses the word “Roundup” — even casually — it suggests to the reader that the entire product was examined, considered, assessed and signed off.
But that did not happen.
What Gets Lost When the Media Blurs the Lines
When reporters merge the names “Roundup” and “glyphosate”, the public is given a false sense of completeness — that everything inside the spray bottle has been reviewed. It hasn’t. MPI was assessing residue levels of glyphosate in food crops — not the actual products sprayed on those crops.
Those products can behave differently. Co-formulants can dramatically change absorption, toxicity profiles and environmental fate — yet they are invisible in both regulation and reporting.
So the moment that brand and molecule become interchangeable in the public narrative, the blind spots disappear from view. The parts no one is testing become the parts no one talks about.
Why Language Precision Actually Matters
Words shape understanding. If the media can’t clearly distinguish active ingredient from product, then the public cannot meaningfully evaluate what the regulator has — or hasn’t — assessed.
Language precision is not pedantic. It is how transparency begins.
Because if the wrong thing is being named, then the wrong thing is being understood.
And if the wrong thing is being understood — then the wrong thing is being trusted.
Where This Leaves Us
If even journalists — whose job is to inform — can’t keep these terms straight, what chance does the average consumer have of understanding the implications of regulatory decisions, especially around something as fundamental as glyphosate in food?
This isn’t nit-picking.
This is clarity.
MPI reviewed glyphosate.
Roundup was never in the room.
And until media reporting reflects that fundamental difference, the public will keep being told a story of certainty… built on a foundation that was never actually examined.
Resources & References
Even if mainstream articles blur “Roundup” and “glyphosate” together, the deeper context is not hard to find — it’s just rarely pointed to. The links below give background that helps explain why this distinction matters, why it keeps getting lost, and why regulatory language shapes public understanding far more than most people realise.
newsroom: Glyphosate ruling creates a herbicide limbo
Andrew Bevin (Oct 31 2025) at Newsroom. A media-analysis piece that illustrates how public discourse blurs the brand “Roundup” and active ingredient “glyphosate”.
MPI: Glyphosate residue limits stay at 0.1 mg/kg for wheat, barley and oats
Ministry for Primary Industries / New Zealand Food Safety media release (Oct 30 2025). Official announcement that the maximum residue level (MRL) for key cereals remains at 0.1 mg/kg, with new restrictions on permitted use.
Why Roundup® Is More Dangerous Than Glyphosate Alone
Regulators assess glyphosate — but real-world toxicity comes from the full cocktail of additives in Roundup®.
Roundup® Exposed: The Chemical Cocktail Behind Glyphosate’s Mask
Surfactants, solvents and other “inert” ingredients change how glyphosate behaves — and increase risk.
Glyphosate at “Safe” Levels: The Cancer Risk New Zealand Can’t Ignore
Emerging science shows cancer risk even at low-dose exposure — yet NZ relies on outdated assumptions.
Ministers Without Expertise: Who’s Really Guarding Our Health on Glyphosate?
Key decision-makers lack deeper subject-matter knowledge — raising serious questions about oversight.
No One in Good Conscience Can Claim Glyphosate Is Compatible With Human Health
The more we learn — the harder it becomes to justify glyphosate as “safe”.
Toxic Legacy — Stephanie Seneff’s Case Against Glyphosate
A powerful, science-grounded argument linking glyphosate exposure to chronic disease and gut disruption.
Because when you look at the evidence, a pattern emerges: it’s not that the information doesn’t exist — it’s that the public is almost never given the full version. The difference between active ingredient and commercial formulation is not minor — it’s the difference between a scientific paper and a marketing label.
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 Wirestock.
