You’ve probably heard the phrase as often as we have: glyphosate is “safe when used properly.”
It pops up in regulatory reports, media statements, and government websites like it settles the debate. But let’s slow down for a second. What does “safe” actually mean in this context?
Safe for who? Safe in what quantity? Safe over how many years?
And what does “used properly” look like when it comes to a chemical that’s sprayed on food crops, roadsides, parks, and playgrounds?
At No More Glyphosate NZ, we’re not trying to be difficult. We’re just asking the kinds of questions you’d expect someone to ask before telling the public everything’s fine.
Safe for the Person Spraying—Or Safe for the Person Eating?
Imagine a farmer out spraying glyphosate on a wheat crop right before harvest. Maybe they’re wearing gloves and a mask, following the rules, doing everything “by the book.”
But once that wheat is harvested, milled into flour, and baked into bread—what then? That loaf shows up in your shopping basket. And suddenly you are part of the exposure chain.
So when regulators say glyphosate is safe “when used properly,” are they talking about the farmer’s protection? Or yours?
Because you didn’t get any gloves. You just got toast.
No warning on the label. No glyphosate on the ingredient list.
Just quiet traces of a weedkiller that comes with hazard statements when it’s sold in a spray bottle—but none when it’s part of your breakfast.
Is the System Set Up to Protect You—or to Protect the System?
In theory, the rules are there to keep us safe. Farmers are supposed to spray at the right time and in the right amount. And the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) sets Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)—legal thresholds for how much glyphosate is allowed to remain in food.
But here’s the thing:
Those limits are built on a mountain of assumptions.
Assumptions that everyone follows the rules.
Assumptions that residues behave predictably in the real world.
Assumptions that small, repeated exposures over time aren’t a problem.
And most of that data? It comes from studies performed under controlled lab conditions—not out in the real world where weather, drift, and human error happen.
Worse still, many of those studies are funded or influenced by the same industry that profits from glyphosate sales.
And now, MPI is proposing to increase the allowable levels of glyphosate on some food crops by up to 9900%—that’s not a typo. A hundred-fold jump in what’s considered “acceptable” for human consumption.
So the question is:
Are these rules really protecting public health?
Or are they protecting a system that puts chemical convenience first?
“If 9900% more glyphosate is still considered ‘safe,’ what would it take for them to call it unsafe?”
What About the Bigger Picture?
Even if every farmer did everything right—followed all the rules, applied glyphosate with care—it still doesn’t disappear.
It doesn’t just vanish into the soil and behave itself.
Glyphosate has been found in rivers and streams. It affects earthworms, harms beneficial microbes, and has been linked to damage in frogs, bees, and other species we rely on for a functioning ecosystem.
So when regulators say it’s “safe,” are they just talking about humans? Or are they ignoring everything else?
Because if it poisons the life in our soil and water, can we still call that safe?
“Safe” Isn’t Always Reassuring When It’s in Your Food
We’ve started testing common foods right here in New Zealand—and guess what? Glyphosate shows up. It was in three of the honeys we tested. It was in one variety of Weet-Bix. We’re currently testing a batch of popular cereals, and we won’t be surprised if it turns up again.
Even when farmers follow the rules, residues still get through. And while regulators say these traces are “within legal limits,” that doesn’t mean we want them in our food.
Some of us aren’t okay with any level of pesticide in our children’s breakfast bowls. Especially when scientists are still debating glyphosate’s long-term health effects.
Safe when used properly’ sounds like reassurance—until you look closer.
What If It’s Time to Stop Accepting Assumptions?
We’re not here to tell you what to think. But we are here to challenge the idea that “safe when used properly” should be the end of the conversation.
Because maybe it’s not safe enough.
Maybe the rules aren’t tight enough.
And maybe we deserve more than chemical residue and crossed fingers.
What if we pushed for clearer labeling, stricter testing, and more transparency?
What if we started demanding food that’s truly free from doubt?
Better yet—what if we stopped waiting for permission and started asking harder questions now?
If 9900% More Is Still ‘Safe,’ What Isn’t?
We all want to trust the system. But that trust starts to erode when decisions like a 9900% increase in allowable glyphosate residues are quietly proposed—without headlines, without honest public debate, and without clear justification.
Especially when those safety claims are built on lab-based studies that don’t reflect the real world, and influenced by the very industries that stand to profit.
“Safe when used properly” might sound like the end of the conversation.
But maybe it’s where a better conversation needs to begin.
Further Reading & Resources
Still curious? Still unsure?
You’re not alone. When phrases like “safe when used properly” are thrown around without context, it’s easy to feel like the real story is buried under paperwork and polite press releases. So we’ve pulled together a mix of studies, articles, and perspectives—some local, some global—that dig deeper into the science, the politics, and the blind spots of glyphosate regulation.
These aren’t just links. They’re launch points for better questions.
MPI Consultation: Maximum Residue Levels for Agricultural Compounds
An official MPI consultation outlining proposed changes—including dramatic increases (up to 100×) in glyphosate residue limits for wheat, barley, oats, and peas. Essential for understanding the scale of change and regulatory rationale.
RNZ Report: Glyphosate MRL Increase Sparks Concern
Further reporting on MPI’s 9900% allowable limit hike, including perspectives from farmers, Greenpeace, and experts—highlighting the lack of recent residue testing.
Study: Glyphosate Use, Toxicity and Occurrence in Food
An academic review examining how glyphosate shows up in food and its effects on human health and the environment, reinforcing long‑term exposure concerns.
Ecotoxicity: Lab Tests vs. Real World Impacts
A 2023 review of 13 years of data showing that glyphosate’s ecological harms—especially when used in real-world formulations—are often underestimated in lab-only testing. It underscores how regulatory assessments may overlook broader, long-term environmental damage.
Environmental Sciences Europe: Feed-Feces-Fertilizer Contamination Pathway
Explores how glyphosate can persist in manure and re-enter food chains via compost and fertilizer—underscoring environmental accumulation beyond direct field use.
Environmental Health: Biofluid Exposure Study
A review examining glyphosate levels found in urine, blood, and breast milk—demonstrating that everyday exposure is reality, not theory.
The Spinoff: Why a proposed change to glyphosate (or Roundup) residue levels is so controversial
A New Zealand summary breaking down what the 9900% increase means for exports, food safety, and consumer trust.
No More Glyphosate NZ: Are Glyphosate Limits Paving the Way for GMOs?
Explores how rising glyphosate MRLs may open the door to GMO imports—connecting residue policies to broader regulatory directions.
USRTK Report (2016): Glyphosate Unsafe on Any Plate [PDF]
An early investigation highlighting glyphosate residues in mainstream food products—one of the first major consumer‑awareness reports on the issue.
Because asking better questions is how change begins.
Whether you want to learn more, challenge a talking point, or speak up with confidence, these resources are here to help. We don’t expect everyone to agree on everything—but we do believe everyone deserves full access to the facts.
Let’s stop taking “safe” at face value—and start reading between the lines.
Image Source & Attribution
The image on this page was created using canva.com.
