The ELI is challenging the EPA’s 2024 refusal to reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-based substances.
Photo: AFP
WELLINGTON, 2025-06-15
Glyphosate Under Scrutiny
The Environmental Law Initiative is challenging the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) refusal to reassess glyphosate, a common herbicide, sparking a two-day judicial review.
- The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) is challenging the EPA’s 2024 decision.
- The judicial review will examine the EPA’s refusal to reassess glyphosate.
- The EPA approved glyphosate use in the 1970s without a full risk assessment.
- New Zealand has some of the most permissive glyphosate regulations globally.
The Environmental Law Initiative (ELI) is taking on the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), challenging their 2024 decision to not reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-based substances. This legal battle, starting Monday, is expected to last two days, putting the spotlight on the herbicide’s safety.
ELI’s senior legal advisor, Tess Upperton, points out that despite significant scientific research over the past 50 years since glyphosate was first introduced to New Zealand, a full risk assessment has never been conducted. Upperton highlighted that the EPA reviewed some aspects, such as glyphosate’s carcinogenicity in 2015, but never undertook a comprehensive risk assessment, which is the usual practice for new product approvals.
“That’s largely because it was first approved in the 1970s. We have asked the EPA for a record of that original risk assessment. They don’t have a copy of that. They don’t know what it is,” Upperton said. She added that glyphosate-based formulas, like RoundUp, have been “grandfathered through successive regimes.”
In 2021, the EPA sought public input on reassessing glyphosate, but Upperton notes that this didn’t provide scientific evidence. “Certainly when we submitted our request to them providing significant new information and asking them to take the good hard look that hadn’t been taken domestically before, we were surprised they said no,” Upperton stated. She added that “There’s a wealth of new published peer-reviewed, well conducted research on glyphosate and there are new studies coming out all the time.”
What is the Environmental Law Initiative challenging?
The core of the challenge focuses on the EPA’s refusal to reassess glyphosate, given the emergence of new scientific data.
The government is considering increasing the MRL from 0.1 milligrams per kilogram for wheat, barley, and oat grains to 10 milligrams per kilogram, and 6 milligrams per kilogram for peas. A public submission period closed in mid-May, with the ministry receiving over 3100 submissions.
Upperton clarified that ELI is not advocating for an immediate ban on glyphosate. Any potential controls resulting from a reassessment would be determined by the EPA, based on scientific findings.
New Zealand’s regulatory approach to glyphosate is notably permissive, allowing its use in situations where it’s banned elsewhere, like a pre-harvest desiccant on crops. Some European countries have banned domestic glyphosate sales, limiting its use to regulated agricultural and commercial contexts. In contrast, in the United States, Bayer, the manufacturer of Roundup, withdrew the product from the residential market to avoid further litigation. The company has already paid billions to settle cases over potential cancer links, with tens of thousands more pending.
The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015 found glyphosate was a probable carcinogen. Upperton said there’s a growing body of evidence on the possible health impacts of glyphosate for two reasons: long-term effects take time to surface and the assessment of these chemicals often relies on studies conducted by industry itself.
“It’s not to discount industry studies in their entirety, but in ELI’s view, independent science is also important because it’s a check on that kind of inherent conflict of interest that industry has,” Upperton stated.
She added that New Zealanders rely on the EPA because they can’t sue companies for glyphosate-related health issues due to limitations on personal injury claims. The situation underscores the under-resourcing of the EPA and environmental regulation. ELI aims to put glyphosate on the agenda for further evaluation. “We recognise that there’s a lot of competing interest and resources at play here. What we want to do is is put it on the radar, put it on the list of things to be thought about, because there is a really big backlog of chemicals that need to be looked at by the EPA. I recognise they aren’t resourced to be adequately doing their job at the moment.”
