Glyphosate is everywhere. From our cereal bowls to our soil, in our air and water, it’s the world’s most widely used herbicide—and one of the most controversial. Now, New Zealand authorities are proposing a dramatic increase in allowable glyphosate residues in everyday foods like wheat, oats, barley, and peas. But what’s really at stake?
We explore why glyphosate use must be urgently re-evaluated and why New Zealand’s future depends on shifting away from chemical dependency in agriculture.
Glyphosate was never designed to be part of our food system. Originally patented as an industrial pipe cleaner in 1964, it was later rebranded by Monsanto in 1974 as a herbicide. Its effectiveness stems from its chelating properties—binding to essential minerals that plants need to survive. But what really kills the plant isn’t the mineral deficiency; it’s glyphosate’s antibiotic action that weakens soil life and invites harmful pathogens.
Today, it’s used to kill weeds, dry crops before harvest (a process called desiccation), and suppress regrowth between planting cycles. Its convenience masks a troubling reality: this “clean-up” chemical leaves behind toxic residues and long-term ecological damage.
It is difficult to get factual information of glyphosate due to the influence Monsanto and more latterly Bayer, is able to exert on scientists and government agencies. Despite claims of safety from industry voices, independent research paints a different picture. The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” At even low doses, studies link glyphosate to cancer, reproductive harm, antibiotic resistance, and endocrine disruption.
It acts like a stealth agent—disrupting the gut microbiome, impairing plant immunity, and compromising soil health. Yet, New Zealand’s MPI is considering raising allowable glyphosate residues up to 100x in some foods. It is hard to understand the rationale for such a decision. It is not a step forward in food production or food safety. It’s a step toward increasing the incidence of cancers, Alzheimer’s, leaky bowel syndromes and diabetes.
The implications aren’t just health-related—they’re economic and reputational. One of the fastest moving of the consumer preferences in the US is glyphosate free. The US is now one of our largest markets for our produce. New Zealand prides itself on clean, green, high-value exports. Increasing tolerance for glyphosate residues could erode global consumer trust, particularly in markets that demand transparency and sustainability.
Farmers who avoid synthetic chemicals and embrace regenerative methods are penalised by a system that favours chemical convenience. The use of glyphosate is not about the harm a farmer will do to their own land, it is the what harm it will do to the entire ecosystem, it will show up throughout the entire food system. Consumers are unknowingly exposed to a compound they didn’t choose—and likely wouldn’t accept if fully informed.
Interestingly, glyphosate doesn’t kill plants directly. It disrupts the Shikimate Pathway, vital for producing amino acids essential for plant life. This is used as a defense to promote the wide use of glyphosate as it supposedly has no direct impact on animals including humans; but this doesn’t consider that 80% of human DNA is microbiological and susceptible to glyphosate.
But that’s only half the story. Its real power lies in its antibiotic properties—it selectively destroys beneficial soil microbes while allowing harmful pathogens to flourish. This microbe imbalance ultimately kills the plant.
Glyphosate is not just a weedkiller. It’s an ecosystem destroyer.
Yes—regenerative agriculture offers a way forward. We’ve seen firsthand that farming without glyphosate isn’t just possible—it’s profitable.
Regenerative methods build healthier soils, produce nutrient-dense food, and reduce input costs while supporting biodiversity. We don’t have to kill something to grow something; nature works on collaboration not competition.
Landowners, councils, and food producers across New Zealand are successfully moving away from chemical dependence. The results are tangible: stronger plant resilience, improved water retention, and better outcomes for people and planet.
Allowing more glyphosate in our food is not just bad for the health of land and people—it makes no sense.
As a nation, we have a unique opportunity to lead by example. Our global brand relies on integrity, quality, and care for the environment. Allowing more glyphosate in our agricultural system jeopardises all of that.
At Farmer’s Footprint New Zealand, we urge regulators, consumers, and farmers to take a stand. Let’s protect our health, our soil, and our international reputation. It’s time to rethink glyphosate and ask better questions, demanding better answers. Join us at Farmer’s Footprint NZ as we explore regenerative alternatives that work—for farmers, families, and future generations.
Our mission is to unite, inspire, and accelerate the movement towards regenerative food systems as a means to restore human and planetary health. Let’s build a food system that nourishes life instead of degrading it.
Stay updated by following us on social media.