The need for another expensive enquiry into glyphosate, the active compound in Roundup, still draws different opinions from equally qualified experts.
Whether or not another enquiry gets the green light will depend on the decision of the judge following a recent hearing where the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) was taken to court by the Environmental Law Initiative .
Glyphosate, the active compound in Roundup, was licensed in 1974. In 2022, the EPA decided that a review was not warranted based on its call for information upon which it based its decision. The farmers lobby was very strong.
The Environmental Law Initiative argued in this appeal that there is enough new evidence around the human health and environmental effects of glyphosate, or Roundup, to warrant a reassessment from our chemical’s regulator.
“We have learned much about the compound since then [1970s] and, importantly, its use profile has changed significantly,” reckons Ian Shaw, Professor of Toxicology at the School of Physical & Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury.
“This points to the need for a review to determine the current risk-benefit balance for environmental and human impact (via operator exposure and food residues).
Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia Oliver Jones disagrees. He conducts research into environmental pollution and toxicology and says “there would have to be substantive new information indicating the risk has changed to warrant the expense of another review in New Zealand, and there just isn’t any.
“There have been extensive reviews by regulatory agencies worldwide on this issue, including those of the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, and the European Union (the EU Commission reapproved glyphosate for 10 years in July 2023).
Professor Shaw still maintains there are too many unknowns relating to glyphosate’s long-term environmental impact and its effects in humans.
“The current approval is largely based on 1970s toxicity data (environmental and human): we have learned much (risks and benefits) in the intervening 50-years that warrants consideration via a review. Importantly, other countries have reviewed or are in the process of reviewing glyphosate.
“More recently, the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) has proposed an increased maximum residue level (MRL) for glyphosate in some crops and their food products from the default 0.1 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg. This is a completely different issue to the need for a glyphosate review.
“Indeed, a simple glyphosate residue in food intake calculation shows that the proposed MRL increase will have negligible or no health impact on consumers. This is not evidence against a review of glyphosate’s use in New Zealand.”
Professor Jones says that the New Zealand EPA was entirely correct to state that there isn’t enough new evidence to support another review of glyphosate.
“Judges and court decisions don’t make science. Science is based on evidence and logical deduction. However, the Federal Court of Australia reached a similar judgment to others in 2024 in what is known as the McNickle case. The court found no conclusive scientific evidence linking glyphosate/Roundup to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
“It is also worth noting that non-Hodgkin lymphoma is not a single disease but rather a catch-all term for approximately 60 different lymphoma subtypes that are not all the same. It is a little like classifying all voters as Labour voters or non-Labour voters. It is technically correct but misses essential context.
“Bayer and Monsanto may or may not be perfect corporate citizens, but the overwhelming scientific evidence from over thirty years of testing is that glyphosate does not cause cancer even in the most exposed users such as farm workers.
