(Image Courtesy: Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission)
Vineeta Rao
Auckland, May 16, 2025
The ongoing controversy surrounding glyphosate, a widely used herbicide, has taken a new turn as New Zealand Food Safety (NZFS) opened a call for public submissions on proposed changes to glyphosate residue limits in staple foods. This move reignited debates over the herbicide’s safety and its impact on health and the environment.
A survey found levels higher than the default Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) of 0.1 mg/kg, but significantly lower than food safety risks. The proposed MRLs are 10 mg/kg for wheat, barley, and oats, and 6 mg/kg for dry peas.
The New Submissions Call
In March 2025, NZFS proposed increasing the maximum residue levels (MRLs) of glyphosate in key staple foods such as wheat, oats, barley, and peas. The proposed changes would raise the allowable glyphosate residue limits by up to 100 times, a move that has sparked significant public outcry.
NZFS has now opened a call for submissions, inviting the public, industry stakeholders, and health professionals to share their views on the proposed changes. The submission process aims to gather a wide range of perspectives to inform the final decision on glyphosate residue limits. Indian Newslink encourages its readers to urgently file their submissions on this important issue. Click here to read the NZFS Discussion Paper
The story so far
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in over 90 herbicides like Roundup, is extensively used in New Zealand for weed control in agriculture, forestry, and domestic settings. Despite its effectiveness, glyphosate has been classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.
This classification has fuelled public concern and calls for stricter regulations.
The chemical was first registered as a poison in New Zealand in 1975 but, say activists, a more comprehensive assessment of potential side effects in the New Zealand context was never done.
“Glyphosate-based herbicides are the most widely used weed killer in New Zealand. Yet it is alarming that we’ve been using these products for nearly 50 years without a full understanding of their impact on our people, native species, land, water, and ecosystems,” says Environmental Law Initiative’s Senior Legal Advisor Tess Upperton, adding ‘With a growing body of scientific evidence that demonstrates harm to human health and the environment, ELI believes a full and comprehensive risk assessment of glyphosate’s use in Aotearoa is well overdue.”
What is the fallout?
Farmers prefer glyphosate because of its efficacy in comparison to natural alternatives. It is cheap, easy to access, and comparatively non-toxic. Advocates for Glyphosate, including industry groups, land managers and domestic users argue that glyphosate is broad spectrum and systemic, which is what makes it cost effective. They argue that there is no real empirical evidence to correlate glyphosate with cancer or any significant health concern.
However, the excessive residual amounts present in food have manifested in tangible terms in our exports.
In 2021, Japan, a significant market, threatened to stop importing New Zealand honey after finding excessive residual amounts of the chemical in exports. To mitigate this threat, the Ministry for Primary Industry (MPI) mandated glyphosate testing for honey exporters, adding another level of cost for apiculturists.
In 2022, Apiculture New Zealand (ApiNZ) had raised concerns in a submission to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) that while they believed that the chemical itself was safe for bees, the surfactant used by many popular brands pose a health risk for them, impacting gut health, causing infections, matting of bee body hair and subsequent death.
“It is not the active ingredient that does the damage, it is often what is in the formula and in the tank mix that causes health and environmental effects.” said ApiNZ in their submission to the EPA in 2022.
Councils are among the biggest users of glyphosate as land managers find them useful in weed control in large public green spaces. Cambridge Tree Trust, in their EPA submission stated “We use glyphosate simply because it provides excellent control of the broad spectrum of weeds we encounter.”
However, some local boards, particularly on the North Shore and Central Auckland have expressed their concerns around the potential side effects of the chemical and have asked for alternative methods to be used for weed control.
Public and Professional Reactions
The response to the call for submissions has been polarised. Environmental groups and health advocates argue that increasing glyphosate residue limits poses serious risks to public health and undermines New Zealand’s reputation for clean, green food production. They emphasise the potential long-term health effects, including cancer and endocrine disruption, and the negative impact on biodiversity and soil health.
On the other hand, many in the agricultural sector defend the use of glyphosate, highlighting its role in efficient weed control and its benefits for crop yields and soil conservation. They argue that, when used according to regulations, glyphosate is safe and essential for modern farming practices.
The Path Forward
As the submission period draws to a close, the debate over glyphosate’s safety and its role in New Zealand’s food system is expected to intensify. The outcome of this consultation will have significant implications for farmers, consumers, and the environment.
NZFS encourages all interested parties to participate in the submissions process, which remains open until the close of business on 16th May. The agency aims to ensure that the final decision on glyphosate residue limits is informed by comprehensive and balanced input from all stakeholders.
Vineeta Rao is an Indian Newslink Reporter based in Auckland.
