Britain is approaching another important decision about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and numerous other weedkillers.
The current approval for glyphosate in Great Britain expires on 15 December 2026. Regulators are considering its renewal, although the British Government has acknowledged that another extension may be necessary to allow the assessment to be completed.
On 29 October, the UK House of Commons Library published a new research briefing examining glyphosate, its health and environmental controversies, the scientific evidence, and the regulatory decisions now facing Britain.
The briefing is significant not because Britain has decided to ban glyphosate. It hasn’t.
It is significant because glyphosate remains subject to a formal regulatory renewal process, one that is expected to consider evolving scientific evidence and decisions made by other international regulators.
That raises an uncomfortable question for New Zealand.
If glyphosate continues to warrant reassessment overseas, why has New Zealand never undertaken a comprehensive modern reassessment of its own?
UK Glyphosate Approval: What Happens After December 2026?
Under Britain’s pesticide regulatory system, active substances such as glyphosate require approval, while individual herbicide products must also be authorised for particular uses.
These approvals are not intended to continue indefinitely without review.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which regulates pesticides in Great Britain, is considering glyphosate’s renewal. Its assessment is expected to draw on scientific, technical and regulatory evidence, including a critical examination of the European Union’s 2023 decision to renew glyphosate approval with additional restrictions.
However, the British Government has indicated that the deadline may be extended to provide more time for the process.
That distinction matters. The December expiry date does not necessarily mean a decision to approve or prohibit glyphosate will be announced in December.
Nor does a further extension necessarily indicate that regulators have identified an unacceptable risk.
But the process itself demonstrates something important: the approval of a widely used pesticide remains a regulatory question that can be reopened and examined as scientific knowledge develops.
And that is where the comparison with New Zealand becomes interesting.
EU Glyphosate Approval: What Restrictions Were Introduced in 2023?
In December 2023, the European Union renewed glyphosate approval for another ten years.
The decision followed assessments by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which did not identify grounds requiring glyphosate to be banned.
Yet the renewal was not an unconditional endorsement of every existing use.
The EU introduced additional restrictions, including a prohibition on using glyphosate as a pre-harvest desiccant, limits on application rates, and measures addressing risks to non-target plants, animals and biodiversity.
Regulators also identified areas where scientific information remained incomplete.
For example, EFSA could not exclude potential adverse effects on biodiversity through indirect impacts on habitats, species and food webs.
The European Commission chose a ten-year renewal rather than the more usual fifteen years, acknowledging that research was continuing.
So while the EU concluded that glyphosate could remain approved, it also recognised that approval conditions needed to reflect the evidence available.
The question is not simply whether a pesticide remains approved. It is what regulators learn, what they reconsider, and whether the conditions governing its use change as a result.
Glyphosate and Cancer Risk: What Does the Latest Research Show?
The new House of Commons briefing also examines the continuing scientific debate over glyphosate’s potential health effects.
In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans.
Other regulatory agencies have reached different conclusions.
EFSA and ECHA have not concluded that glyphosate meets the criteria for classification as a human carcinogen, while acknowledging uncertainties in some areas of the evidence.
These differences reflect, in part, the distinction between identifying whether a substance can cause cancer under some circumstances and assessing the risks associated with particular exposures.
But research continues.
The international Global Glyphosate Study, conducted through the Ramazzini Institute and collaborating researchers, has reported increased incidences of certain cancers, including leukaemia, in rats exposed to glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides.
Animal findings do not automatically establish that the same effects will occur in humans. Nevertheless, such studies can raise questions that regulatory agencies need to examine.
The European Commission requested further consideration of the carcinogenicity evidence. According to the Commons Library briefing, ECHA had not changed its existing conclusion following additional consideration reported in September 2026.
That is an important qualification. New research does not automatically overturn earlier regulatory conclusions.
But neither should earlier conclusions make subsequent research irrelevant.
If new studies continue to emerge, should regulatory assessments remain open to reconsideration? And how should regulators determine when the accumulated evidence justifies a fresh review?
Glyphosate’s Environmental Risks: What About Soil, Water and Wildlife?
Cancer is often at the centre of the glyphosate debate, but the environmental questions are considerably broader.
The Commons Library briefing discusses research into glyphosate’s effects on soil organisms, aquatic ecosystems, plants and wildlife.
It also addresses aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), a major degradation product of glyphosate.
Glyphosate is frequently described as binding strongly to soil and breaking down in the environment. Those properties are relevant, but they do not necessarily mean that glyphosate or its breakdown products disappear quickly under every set of environmental conditions.
Persistence can vary according to soil type, temperature, microbial activity and other factors.
AMPA may persist longer than glyphosate in some environments, and both substances have been detected in soil and water.
The EU’s 2023 assessment identified potential long-term risks to mammals under some proposed uses and uncertainties about indirect impacts on biodiversity.
These findings do not establish that every approved glyphosate application causes environmental harm.
They do, however, demonstrate why environmental assessments need to consider more than the toxicity of the active ingredient in isolation.
That brings us to another important distinction.
Glyphosate vs Roundup: Why Herbicide Formulations Matter
Glyphosate is an active ingredient. Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides are commercial formulations that may contain additional ingredients, including surfactants and other substances intended to improve performance.
The toxicological properties of a complete formulation may differ from those of glyphosate alone.
This distinction matters when evaluating research findings, regulatory conclusions and real-world exposure.
A regulatory assessment of the active ingredient does not, by itself, answer every question about every commercial formulation.
Britain’s regulatory system explicitly distinguishes between approval of active substances and authorisation of individual pesticide products.
New Zealand also regulates hazardous substances and agricultural compounds through different legislative processes.
But the underlying question remains relevant in both countries.
When assessing the safety of a widely used herbicide, how much attention is given to the products people actually spray, rather than only to the active ingredient they contain?
Has New Zealand Ever Fully Reassessed Glyphosate?
Glyphosate was first registered in New Zealand in 1975.
More than fifty years later, New Zealand has still not undertaken a comprehensive modern reassessment of glyphosate comparable to the European Union’s 2023 renewal review.
We examined New Zealand’s regulatory history in detail in our earlier investigation, Glyphosate Has Been Approved in New Zealand for 50 Years. Has It Ever Had a Modern Reassessment?
That does not mean glyphosate has never been considered by New Zealand regulators.
Glyphosate-containing substances were assessed during their transfer into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) regulatory framework in 2004. Individual products have also been subject to approval processes and regulatory controls.
But those processes are not equivalent to a comprehensive reassessment incorporating the full body of contemporary evidence.
In July 2024, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) decided there were insufficient grounds to initiate a reassessment of glyphosate.
That decision followed an application seeking a reassessment of glyphosate and glyphosate-containing substances.
The EPA’s decision was subsequently challenged by the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI). However, the High Court dismissed the challenge in October 2025, and ELI withdrew its appeal in May 2026. As a result, the EPA’s decision remained in place, and no comprehensive reassessment was initiated.
New Zealand has also reviewed particular aspects of glyphosate use through other regulatory mechanisms.
In October 2025, New Zealand Food Safety announced that the maximum residue limits for glyphosate in wheat, barley and oats would remain at 0.1 mg/kg. It also announced that changes to product labels would be required to restrict glyphosate applications on these crops grown for human consumption to before crop emergence. However, the implementation status of those labelling changes has not yet been confirmed.
This uncertainty is not new. Our earlier investigation, Ten Years of Delay: How MPI Failed to Deliver on Its Glyphosate Promise, examined the longstanding questions surrounding MPI’s review of pre-harvest glyphosate use on cereal crops.
Those are important regulatory developments.
But a review of residue limits or particular label conditions is not the same as a comprehensive reassessment of the health and environmental risks associated with glyphosate and its formulations.
So when was the last time New Zealand examined the complete evidence base, rather than individual aspects of glyphosate regulation?
And if that comprehensive examination has not occurred, what would be required to initiate one?
Can Overseas Glyphosate Assessments Address New Zealand’s Risks?
New Zealand regulators can legitimately draw on scientific assessments undertaken by overseas agencies.
There are practical reasons for doing so. Comprehensive pesticide assessments require substantial scientific expertise, resources and time.
It would make little sense to disregard credible international research simply because it was conducted elsewhere.
But reliance on overseas assessments raises its own questions.
New Zealand has different agricultural systems, environmental conditions, application practices and patterns of herbicide use.
Glyphosate is used not only in agriculture but also along roadsides, in parks and reserves, on public infrastructure, and around residential properties.
One example is Whangārei District Council, which commissioned an independent review of its glyphosate use in 2025. The review examined health and environmental considerations, alternatives and possible additional safeguards. We documented its findings in our Whangārei District Council Herbicide Use and Public Space Spraying investigation.
Our own investigations into council herbicide use have documented how widely glyphosate-containing products remain part of routine vegetation management.
Are international assessments sufficient to account for those New Zealand-specific uses and exposure circumstances?
The question becomes even more important when we consider what New Zealand actually measures. In an earlier investigation, NZ Health Ministry: No Glyphosate Monitoring, we reported that the Ministry of Health had neither sought or reviewed independent scientific advice specific to glyphosate exposure in New Zealand during the preceding five years, nor had plans to assess long-term exposure trends.
And where overseas regulators introduce additional restrictions, how systematically does New Zealand examine whether equivalent changes are warranted here?
The EU’s prohibition on glyphosate use as a pre-harvest desiccant is one example.
New Zealand has retained its 0.1 mg/kg glyphosate residue limit for wheat, barley and oats and announced restrictions on application timing for crops grown for human consumption.
But New Zealand also imports food, including products from countries operating under different pesticide residue limits and agricultural practices.
A domestic restriction does not necessarily mean every imported food has been produced under equivalent conditions.
These are not arguments that overseas scientific assessments should be ignored.
They are reasons to ask whether international findings are being translated into regulatory decisions that adequately address New Zealand circumstances.
What Would Trigger a Glyphosate Reassessment in New Zealand?
Perhaps the most important question is not whether New Zealand should reach the same conclusion as Britain or Europe.
It is whether New Zealand has an effective mechanism for ensuring that longstanding pesticide approvals remain appropriate as evidence develops.
The EPA has previously concluded that the grounds for reassessing glyphosate were insufficient.
But what happens when new evidence emerges after such a decision?
How are subsequent studies evaluated? Is there a transparent process for considering their combined significance? And at what point does the accumulation of evidence justify revisiting an earlier conclusion?
This is not simply a hypothetical concern. No More Glyphosate NZ previously asked the EPA to provide documentation explaining how it actively monitors emerging glyphosate research. The EPA advised that no documents matching our request existed. We examined what that response means for regulatory transparency in our investigation, Children’s Sand, Glyphosate and the Precautionary Principle.
The question is particularly relevant when overseas regulatory agencies continue to examine the same substance.
Britain is now considering glyphosate’s renewal.
The European Union completed a major review in 2023 and introduced additional restrictions.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency is updating its human health risk assessment.
Different regulators may ultimately reach similar conclusions about glyphosate’s acceptability.
But reaching a conclusion through a contemporary reassessment is not the same as continuing to rely on an approval that has never undergone an equivalent comprehensive review.
Glyphosate in New Zealand: Is a Full Reassessment Overdue?
The new British parliamentary briefing does not establish that glyphosate is unsafe, nor does it predict that Britain will prohibit its use.
What it demonstrates is that glyphosate remains the subject of regulatory scrutiny, scientific investigation and public debate.
Britain may renew its approval. It may impose different conditions. It may extend the existing approval while further assessment continues.
Whatever happens, there is a formal process through which the evidence is being reconsidered.
New Zealand’s position is different.
Glyphosate remains widely used, while the EPA has declined to initiate a comprehensive reassessment.
And although individual regulatory decisions have been made over the years, they do not collectively demonstrate that New Zealand has conducted a full modern examination of glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides.
After more than five decades, perhaps the most reasonable question is also the simplest.
If glyphosate is sufficiently important to New Zealand agriculture, public infrastructure and everyday weed management to justify its continued widespread use, isn’t it important enough to justify a comprehensive, up-to-date reassessment of its safety?
No More Glyphosate NZ believes that question deserves a clear, evidence-based answer.
Sources and further reading
- UK House of Commons Library, Glyphosate, Research Briefing, 29 October 2026. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-12265/
- European Commission, Glyphosate — 2023 renewal decision and approval conditions. https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances/renewal-approval/glyphosate_en
- European Food Safety Authority, Peer Review of the Pesticide Risk Assessment of the Active Substance Glyphosate, EFSA Journal, 26 July 2023. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8164
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, Glyphosate, IARC Monographs Volume 112, 2015–2017. https://publications.iarc.who.int/549
- New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority, 2024 decision on whether grounds existed for reassessment of glyphosate. https://www.epa.govt.nz/news-and-alerts/latest-news/epa-finds-no-grounds-to-reassess-glyphosate/
- New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, October 2025 announcement concerning glyphosate maximum residue limits for wheat, barley and oats. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/news/media-releases/glyphosate-residue-limits-to-stay-at-0-1mgkg-for-wheat-barley-and-oats-with-restrictions-introduced-on-permitted-use
Feature 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 Getty Images. You can find more of their work here: https://unsplash.com/@gettyimages.
