When the label says “natural,” but the laboratory tests tell a different story!
When Canadian consumers reached for a box of Nature Valley granola bars — proudly stamped with “100% Natural” — they likely imagined wholesome oats, fresh ingredients, and a product free from synthetic chemicals.
But that trust crumbled when independent testing revealed traces of glyphosate, the world’s most widely used herbicide, in those very same bars.
It wasn’t just the discovery that sparked outrage — it was the disconnect. Consumers had assumed “natural” meant no pesticides, no artificial residues, no surprises. But the label didn’t mean what they thought it meant. And in the U.S. and Canada, that led to a class-action lawsuit, a public backlash, and ultimately a quiet label change from the manufacturer.
Here in New Zealand, the same assumptions exist — and so does the same risk. Our supermarket shelves are lined with products marketed as “natural,” “wholesome,” “clean,” or “made with goodness.” Weet-Bix. Rolled oats. Multigrain breads. Children’s cereals. The brands are familiar, the language reassuring.
But no one’s checking.
We have no publicly available data showing how much glyphosate is in our food. We have no mandatory testing program for finished supermarket products. And until very recently, no one was doing the work to find out.
That’s changing.
At No More Glyphosate NZ, we’ve begun testing some of the most common products on Kiwi breakfast tables — and what we’re finding raises real questions about the safety, honesty, and oversight of our food supply. If products we trust contain residues of a chemical linked to cancer, endocrine disruption, and environmental harm — and those residues aren’t disclosed — then what does “natural” even mean anymore?
Because this isn’t just a story about one chemical. It’s a story about assumptions. About the quiet erosion of trust. And about what happens when citizens, not regulators, are the ones sounding the alarm.
Food Testing in New Zealand: Early Signs of a Problem
Until recently, most New Zealanders had no reason to question whether glyphosate was in their food. The assumption was simple: if it’s legal, it must be safe — and if it’s safe, surely someone is checking.
But that assumption is beginning to unravel.
In mid-2025, No More Glyphosate NZ began a nationwide testing initiative, starting with a food many assumed was untouchable — honey. Often sold as raw, local, and natural, honey is the very symbol of purity in our food culture. Yet when we sent seven samples to the lab, three came back with measurable levels of glyphosate, ranging from 0.023 to 0.026 mg/kg.
It wasn’t high — but it was there.
Next came Weet-Bix. As one of New Zealand’s most trusted pantry staples, the brand is woven into our national identity. We tested four different varieties. Three were clear. But one — Multigrain Weet-Bix, made in Australia — came back with a result of 0.56 mg/kg of glyphosate.
That’s more than five times higher than the current New Zealand maximum residue level (MRL) for wheat, which sits at 0.1 mg/kg.
It’s a number that should have triggered questions, concern — maybe even a product review. But instead, what we found was silence.
No recall. No regulatory investigation. But there was a statement from the brand. Following the release of our test results, Sanitarium acknowledged the glyphosate detection in Multigrain Weet-Bix and responded that the levels found were legal under the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) code, which permits higher MRLs in Australia.
And therein lies part of the problem. Under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement, food legally sold in Australia can also be sold in New Zealand — even if it exceeds our local residue limits. That’s why independent testing of both local and imported food matters more than ever.
At the same time the public was still processing what the results meant, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) was in the middle of a process to raise the legal limit on glyphosate in wheat 100-fold — from 0.1 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg.
It was a revealing moment — while consumers were just beginning to question what was in their food, policy was already moving to redefine what would be considered acceptable.
Now, a third wave of testing is already underway. We’ve just submitted seven more cereal samples to the lab — mueslis, oat-based blends, supermarket brands — the kinds of products New Zealanders eat every day under the assumption that they’re both healthy and safe. The results aren’t back yet. But if previous tests are any indication, they could add fuel to a story that’s growing harder to ignore.
This isn’t about sensationalism. It’s about facts. And so far, the facts suggest that glyphosate isn’t just in the soil — it’s on our breakfast tables.
Natural’, ‘Clean’, ‘Wholesome’ — Are These Labels Meaningful?
Walk down any supermarket aisle and you’ll see it everywhere: cereals made with “wholegrain goodness,” breads “baked with care,” oats that are “natural,” “clean,” “nourishing.” The packaging speaks softly, but confidently — this is food you can trust.
But trust in what, exactly?
Words like natural, wholesome, and clean aren’t tightly regulated in New Zealand or Australia. In most cases, they’re treated as marketing language — not nutritional claims. As long as the label isn’t demonstrably false or misleading under the Fair Trading Act 1986, companies can use them liberally, even if the food contains residues of synthetic pesticides like glyphosate.
There’s no requirement to disclose glyphosate residues on packaging. No upper limit for making a “natural” claim. No definition of “clean food” under the joint Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) code. That means a product sprayed with glyphosate days before harvest, or made from ingredients containing trace residues, can still be branded with these reassuring terms — legally.
The result is a widening gap between what consumers think they’re buying and what’s actually in the box.
For most shoppers, “natural” suggests something minimally processed, free from synthetic chemicals. “Wholesome” evokes images of clean soil, healthy crops, and food that hasn’t been tampered with. These words do a lot of heavy lifting — they build trust, comfort, and loyalty.
But when independent tests detect glyphosate in those same products — even at low levels — that trust starts to crack.
Take Multigrain Weet-Bix, for example. The front of the box promotes “natural energy,” “fuel for busy mornings,” and “goodness from whole grains.” Nowhere does it mention glyphosate — or that the wheat inside may have been chemically dried using it just before harvest.
Or consider supermarket-branded oats and mueslis. Imported, rebranded, repackaged — but never tested publicly for pesticide residues. Labels like “natural,” “no added nasties,” and “made with real ingredients” reinforce the assumption that the food is clean.
But clean compared to what?
Without meaningful oversight, these terms become more about image than integrity. And when the public discovers that “natural” doesn’t necessarily mean pesticide-free, the damage isn’t just to individual brands — it’s to the credibility of the entire label system.
This is where the risk lies. Not in a single lab result, but in the cumulative erosion of trust. Because once consumers realise that feel-good language on packaging isn’t backed by actual testing or transparency, they start asking harder questions.
And so they should.
Legal Precedent and Regulatory Silence
When news broke that General Mills would remove the phrase “100% Natural” from its Nature Valley bars following legal pressure over glyphosate residues, it sent ripples through the North American food industry. The underlying argument was simple: if your food contains synthetic pesticide residue, it’s misleading to market it as natural — even if that residue falls within regulatory limits.
In the U.S., this kind of case is increasingly common. Consumer watchdog groups and law firms routinely file class-action lawsuits against companies for misleading packaging. And in Canada, similar pressure has led to pre-emptive label changes in an effort to avoid legal liability.
But in New Zealand? Silence.
Despite growing public concern over glyphosate and other chemical residues, we’ve yet to see a single product recall, label correction, or court case. There’s no sign of the Commerce Commission launching investigations into “natural” food claims — even as evidence mounts that many products contain traces of glyphosate.
So why the discrepancy?
The short answer: New Zealand consumers have very few legal tools available when it comes to challenging what’s on a food label.
We don’t yet have a class-action framework like those in the U.S., Australia, or Canada. Although the Law Commission recommended one in 2022, progress has stalled. Without it, collective redress is expensive, risky, and rarely attempted — even in the face of legitimate public concern.
Consumers can theoretically bring a case under the Fair Trading Act 1986, which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade. But few individuals have the resources to take on major food companies, and successful prosecutions are rare. The Commerce Commission can also investigate breaches of the Act — but typically only acts when a large number of complaints are lodged, or when the deception is obvious and well-publicised.
What’s more, our food labeling regime is tied to the joint Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) framework, which currently does not require glyphosate residues to be disclosed — even when residues are detected in staple products like bread, oats, or baby food. Unless a health risk is officially recognised by regulators, there’s no obligation to disclose pesticide residues — even though new risks are being uncovered all the time.
So, unlike in North America, there’s no realistic path for New Zealand consumers to legally challenge a product branded as “natural,” even if it contains synthetic pesticide residues. And without media coverage, public testing, or consumer pressure, companies have little incentive to voluntarily adjust their labels or test their ingredients.
Which raises a more troubling question:
If there’s no legal accountability, and no regulatory pressure — who’s watching the labels at all?
What If Testing Expanded?
It started with honey.
When No More Glyphosate NZ launched its first round of independent testing, we weren’t looking to prove a point — we were looking for answers. Of the six commercial honey samples we sent to the lab, three — half — showed measurable levels of glyphosate, ranging from 0.023 to 0.026 mg/kg. That might seem low at first glance, but these are products derived from native bush, manuka, and multifloral blends — supposedly some of the cleanest, most natural foods in our diet.
Next, we tested Weet-Bix. Four varieties. One — Multigrain Weet-Bix made in Australia — came back with 0.56 mg/kg of glyphosate, more than five times New Zealand’s current allowable limit.
And just days ago, we sent seven more cereal samples to the lab. We haven’t received the results yet — but we’re not optimistic.
This isn’t alarmism. This is data. And it raises a crucial question:
What if we didn’t stop at ten products? What if we tested everything?
What if we began systematically checking the foods New Zealanders eat every day — our breads, our oats, our crackers, our infant cereals? The ones branded as “natural,” “clean,” or “wholesome.” The ones that sit on our shelves with an unspoken promise of trust.
The truth is, we simply don’t know how widespread glyphosate contamination is in our food supply — because no one is looking. There is no publicly funded program that routinely tests finished food products for glyphosate. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) might monitor raw ingredients at the border or sample commodities for export compliance, but finished, everyday foods? Branded supermarket items? No data. No disclosure.
And when glyphosate is detected, there’s no obligation to alert the public. In fact, rather than investigate why glyphosate is in our food, MPI is proposing to dramatically raise the allowable limit — from 0.1 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg — effectively legalising levels 100 times higher than before. The message seems to be: if it shows up, just move the goalposts.
But what happens if independent testing reveals glyphosate residues in more products — and consumers start to notice?
Imagine the implications if we began uncovering traces of glyphosate in:
- Mainstream supermarket breads, made from Australian wheat where pre-harvest glyphosate spraying is standard
- Imported oats and muesli bars, sold as clean and natural but never tested post-processing
- Breakfast cereals for children, branded with “no nasties” but potentially carrying invisible residues
- Baby rice snacks, marketed with wholesome language, yet never screened for what was sprayed on the field
Even low levels could raise serious questions — not just about health, but about honesty. Are food producers testing their ingredients? Are retailers asking for lab reports? Or are we all just assuming that someone, somewhere, is making sure it’s safe?
Because if those assumptions fall apart, so does consumer trust. And once that’s gone, the label on the front of the box doesn’t mean much anymore.
The Risk to Industry Reputation
New Zealand has long traded on its “clean, green” image — not just in tourism, but in food exports and branding at home. The idea that our food is safe, natural, and responsibly produced underpins trust in our biggest grocery brands. But what happens when that trust is quietly undermined by something no one sees on the label?
The risk here isn’t just chemical — it’s reputational.
If independent testing continues to uncover glyphosate in products marketed as natural, healthy, or kid-friendly, food companies will face a stark choice: acknowledge it and respond, or deny and deflect. Neither path is without cost.
Let’s consider some likely flashpoints:
- Retailers and brands that rely on consumer trust — think “farm fresh,” “clean eating,” “free from nasties” — may find their claims challenged, not in court, but in the court of public opinion.
- Exporters may see increased scrutiny from international buyers, especially in markets like the EU, where residue tolerances are often stricter and consumer watchdogs are active.
- Supermarkets may come under pressure to explain whether they verify supplier claims about food purity — or if “natural” just means a nice font and brown packaging.
And if MPI’s proposal to increase glyphosate MRLs becomes law, the optics get worse. Even if products comply with the new legal limits, the reputational gap between what’s legal and what’s acceptable to consumers is already beginning to widen.
That’s a dangerous place for the food industry to sit — especially in a world where consumers can access lab tests, post results online, and trigger media coverage in days.
We’ve already seen how this plays out internationally. General Mills didn’t face regulatory action over glyphosate in Nature Valley bars. What they faced was consumer backlash, class action lawsuits, and damage to a trusted brand. That was enough to force a label change — even though the product was technically compliant with U.S. law.
Here in New Zealand, companies may believe they’re shielded from that kind of fallout. But reputational damage doesn’t wait for regulatory reform. It happens the moment public trust is broken — and once gone, it’s hard to win back.
The irony is, many producers likely have no idea whether their raw ingredients contain glyphosate. Grain from Australia, oats from Europe, mixed origin flours — unless brands are proactively testing, they’re guessing. And if consumers find out before they do, the fallout won’t stop at a lab report.
This isn’t about blaming food producers. It’s about acknowledging that transparency is no longer optional — it’s a brand risk management strategy.
Because in a glyphosate-aware world, silence starts to look a lot like complicity.
What Comes Next?
If glyphosate residues are showing up in products that New Zealanders trust — and if regulators are quietly planning to loosen the rules rather than tighten them — then it’s time to ask what happens next. Not just from the government, but from food producers, retailers, and the public.
Because once the data is out there, it doesn’t go back in the box.
For food companies, the smartest move may be the simplest: start testing. Not because they’re required to, but because transparency is now a baseline expectation. Proactively screening ingredients — especially high-risk imports like Australian wheat or North American oats — could give brands a head start in protecting their reputations.
Some producers are already heading in that direction. Comvita, for example, proudly markets its manuka honey as “glyphosate-tested” and has turned that into a premium feature for export. If one of our largest honey exporters sees value in testing, why not cereal companies? Bread brands? Supermarkets?
Retailers, too, have a role to play. If Woolworths and New World are willing to stock organic, gluten-free, low-sugar, and allergen-free options — why not glyphosate-tested? Shelf tags, QR codes, or third-party certifications could help consumers make more informed choices without waiting for a regulatory overhaul that may never come.
For consumers, the most powerful tools are awareness and action. Asking questions, reading labels, supporting brands that test — and pushing for better oversight — all send a clear signal. If glyphosate becomes a defining issue in food transparency, as palm oil, cage eggs, and artificial additives have before, the industry will eventually respond.
But perhaps the most important next step is one we’ve already begun: independent testing. Because right now, public knowledge is being driven not by regulators or industry bodies — but by ordinary people willing to pay out of pocket to find out what’s really in their food.
We don’t yet know what the next round of results will show. But we know this: the more we look, the more we’re likely to find. And every new data point chips away at the silence.
This isn’t a fringe concern anymore. It’s a mainstream issue waiting to break.
Final Thought
For too long, we’ve trusted the label on the front of the box without asking about the chemicals that might be hiding inside. We’ve assumed that if a product says “natural,” it must be. That if it’s on the shelf, it’s been checked. That if there were a problem, someone else would have spoken up.
But glyphosate is quietly rewriting that script — not through scandal or headlines, but through steady, invisible drift. Higher residue limits. Less scrutiny. Looser definitions. And in the middle of it all, a growing disconnect between what consumers believe and what the system allows.
The real issue isn’t whether a particular cereal or slice of bread contains a trace of weedkiller. It’s that no one told us. No one asked us. And no one gave us the chance to decide if we were okay with it.
That’s why independent testing matters. Not because it’s perfect, but because it breaks the silence. It forces a conversation. It challenges the idea that “clean” food should be based on paperwork instead of proof.
The glyphosate question isn’t going away. If anything, it’s just beginning to surface. And the next chapter — whether it’s reform, resistance, or real transparency — will be written by what happens now.
Editorial Note from No More Glyphosate NZ
We’re not trying to scare anyone. We’re trying to inform everyone.
At No More Glyphosate NZ, we believe the public deserves to know what’s in their food — especially when regulators and producers won’t tell them. That’s why we’ve taken it upon ourselves to test everyday products, share the results, and ask the questions that still haven’t been answered.
We’re a grassroots initiative, not a lab or a lobby group. Just concerned citizens, doing what we can to make food transparency a reality in New Zealand.
If you support what we’re doing, help us keep going.
Because every test result is one step closer to the truth.
Make a secure donation to support future testing
Further Reading
Want to dig deeper?
If this article raised more questions than answers, you’re not alone. The conversation about glyphosate, food safety, and label integrity is just beginning — and understanding the full context means stepping beyond the headlines. The following resources offer more insight into the science, the policy shifts, and the quiet tension between regulation and public trust.
Glyphosate in Weet‑Bix? Independent Test Results
In-depth coverage of our Weet‑Bix testing — including lab breakdowns and comparisons to New Zealand and Australia residue limits.
MPI’s Consultation on Glyphosate MRLs
Official Ministry for Primary Industries page explaining the proposed increases to glyphosate and other pesticide residue limits.
RNZ Explains Why the MRL Increase Is Controversial
Radio New Zealand breaks down the public reaction, international context, and concerns over lifting wheat, barley, and oat MRLs by 100×.
The Spinoff: Why Glyphosate MRLs Spark Strong Opposition
Commentary from The Spinoff on why both environmental and trade groups are challenging MPI’s decision to raise residue levels.
Comvita’s Glyphosate‑Free Honey Approach
A feature from Comvita, showing how one NZ brand marked a new standard by certifying and independently testing its honey to ensure zero glyphosate.
Still trusting the label? Or ready to read between the lines?
Keep asking questions. Keep following the data. Because informed consumers don’t just eat — they influence what gets grown, sprayed, sold, and ultimately accepted.
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 homank76.
