EPA Faces High Court Challenge Over Glyphosate
The Environmental Law Initiative is challenging the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in the High Court today over its decision that there were no grounds to reassess the herbicide glyphosate, along with more than 90 glyphosate-based formulations currently approved for use in Aotearoa.
Despite glyphosate being used in Aotearoa for over 50 years, the EPA has never conducted a full risk assessment of the chemical.
'The EPA should have a full understanding of the effects of glyphosate to ensure Aotearoa's regulatory settings are fit for purpose,' says Tess Upperton, Senior Legal Advisor at the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI).
'Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in Aotearoa. It's sprayed on our food, roadsides, public spaces, around playgrounds, and in backyards.'
'Given its widespread use, it's alarming that we've never undertaken a comprehensive risk assessment to understand the impacts on our people and the environment,' says Upperton.
In addition to glyphosate itself, the EPA has never done a full risk assessment for glyphosate-based formulations that have been 'grandfathered in' under current regulations—many of which are significantly more toxic than glyphosate alone. These formulations often include additional ingredients that amplify glyphosate's toxicity, including surfactants such as POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine), classified as a "forever chemical" due to its persistence in the environment.
'These formulations should be undergoing risk assessments that consider their effects in Aotearoa—but they're not. And that's deeply concerning, particularly as their approvals do not expire,' says Upperton.
Over recent decades, scientific evidence of glyphosate's harm to human health, biodiversity, and ecosystems has grown. Many regulators overseas have responded by tightening restrictions on glyphosate use. In contrast, the regulatory approach in Aotearoa has remained largely unchanged.
'While other countries have moved to protect public health and the environment, Aotearoa remains one of the most permissive regulators of glyphosate globally,' says Upperton.
That includes allowing glyphosate use in settings where it's banned elsewhere—for instance, as a pre-harvest desiccant on crops, a practice prohibited in the European Union. Several European countries have also banned the domestic sale of glyphosate, restricting its use to regulated agricultural and commercial settings.
Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the Ministry for Primary Industries has recently proposed increasing the Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for glyphosate on certain crops—by up to 100 times.
'This legal challenge is not about banning glyphosate,' Upperton clarifies. 'It's about the EPA making informed decisions about how these chemicals are regulated in Aotearoa.'
About the Case
In 2023, the Environmental Law Initiative formally requested for the EPA to determine whether there were grounds for reassessing glyphosate and glyphosate-based substances under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The application was based on significant new scientific information that has emerged since glyphosate was first introduced in Aotearoa in the 1970s.
In July 2024, the EPA declined the request, stating it did not believe sufficient grounds for reassessment existed.
ELI will challenge that decision in the Wellington High Court on 16 and 17 June 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
EPA's Glyphosate Decision Challenged In Court
The Environmental Protection Authority is being taken to court over its decision not to re-assess the pesticide glyphosate. The Environmental Law Initiative is arguing that there is enough new evidence around the human health and environmental effects of glyphosate, or Roundup, to warrant a reassessment from our chemicals regulator. The hearing has now finished and we are awaiting the judge's decision. Professor of Toxicology Ian Shaw, School of Physical & Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury, comments: 'Glyphosate, the active compound in Roundup, was licensed in the mid-1970s. We have learned much about the compound since then and, importantly, its use profile has changed significantly. 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). In 2022, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) decided that a review was not warranted based on its call for information upon which it based its decision. The EPA's report quotes farmers who extol the virtues of glyphosate as evidence against the need for a review. The farmers' views illustrate the key role (benefit) that glyphosate plays in New Zealand agriculture, but does not take account of its risks. 'In my opinion, there are too many unknowns relating to glyphosate's long-term environmental impact and its effects in humans not to review the compound. In addition, 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.' No conflict of interest declared. Professor Oliver Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, comments: 'In my view, the New Zealand EPA was entirely correct to state that there isn't enough new evidence to support another review of glyphosate. 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). 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. '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.
Techday NZ
4 days ago
- Techday NZ
Major healthcare providers leave email systems open to phishing risk
More than a third of the world's largest healthcare providers are yet to implement essential email security measures against phishing and spoofing, according to research conducted by EasyDMARC. The report analysed the adoption of DMARC, an email authentication protocol, across 4,100 prominent hospitals and clinics in both the United States and Europe, including the 100 highest-ranked healthcare organisations worldwide. The research revealed that while the proportion of top providers using DMARC increased marginally from 62% in 2024 to 65% in 2025, a substantial 35% still operate without DMARC protection altogether. Of those that have put DMARC in place, the study found that nearly half are not fully utilising its protective capabilities. Just 18% of the top 100 global providers have enforced DMARC to actively block suspicious emails, whilst 48% are using the weakest setting-known as 'p=none'-which merely monitors email activity and does not prevent fraudulent messages from reaching inboxes. Ongoing cyber threats The findings come against a backdrop of significant cyberattacks targeting the healthcare sector in recent years. This includes a notable breach at the UK's National Health Service (NHS) in 2024, where almost 400GB of patient data was illicitly obtained, as well as disruptions experienced by Yale New Haven Health in Connecticut. The report highlights that the sensitive nature of healthcare data and the sector's vital societal role make it an attractive target for cybercriminals. Healthcare organisations, which are heavily reliant on digital communication and critical infrastructure, are especially susceptible to cyber threats such as phishing attacks. Such incidents not only threaten financial loss but can also impact patient safety and healthcare delivery. DMARC functions by verifying whether incoming emails originate from approved sources, allowing organisations to block potentially fraudulent emails before they reach users. Full enforcement requires setting DMARC to 'p=reject', which rejects unverified emails outright rather than simply monitoring them. Regional differences in protection EasyDMARC's analysis of 2,000 of the largest European healthcare providers indicated that only 48% have DMARC implemented, and of those, over half have the setting at 'p=none'. This approach fails to block harmful messages, leaving significant vulnerabilities. In the United States, DMARC adoption reaches 55%, but nearly 40% of these providers also operate with the weakest monitoring-only policy. The research indicates that, despite an increase in awareness of email security, many healthcare providers remain exposed and have not moved towards policies that fully block phishing attempts. With over 90% of all cyberattacks said to originate via email phishing, the lack of comprehensive DMARC enforcement is highlighted as a substantial and ongoing risk. Industry-wide changes in policy from major email providers, including Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft, have made it mandatory for bulk email senders to enforce DMARC, reflecting the protocol's place as an industry standard. Microsoft's requirements came into force in early May. Call for stricter enforcement Gerasim Hovhannisyan, CEO of EasyDMARC said: "The healthcare sector is under constant pressure to protect patients, keep services running, and manage sensitive data, but too many organisations are still stopping short of full protection. DMARC only works when it's configured properly and enforced, and that means setting it to 'p=reject'. Anything less leaves inboxes open to impersonation and phishing attacks. For healthcare providers, the risk isn't just financial; it's operational and deeply human. Every unprotected email domain is another opportunity for attackers to disrupt care and put lives at risk." Data from the report also breaks down DMARC deployment within each region. In Europe, 955 of the 2,000 largest healthcare domains have valid DMARC records, but only 241 are set to 'p=reject' and 229 to 'p=quarantine', with the remainder on monitoring only. In the United States, 1,103 of 2,000 have DMARC records, 170 set to 'p=reject', and 501 to 'p=quarantine'. For the top 100 global providers, 65 domains have DMARC, with just 12 set to enforcement and 22 to quarantine. Healthcare providers are being encouraged by security experts to review their DMARC configurations and move toward full enforcement settings to better safeguard sensitive information and maintain the continuity of essential services in the face of increasingly sophisticated cyber threats.
Scoop
6 days ago
- Scoop
EPA Faces High Court Challenge Over Glyphosate
The Environmental Law Initiative is challenging the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in the High Court today over its decision that there were no grounds to reassess the herbicide glyphosate, along with more than 90 glyphosate-based formulations currently approved for use in Aotearoa. Despite glyphosate being used in Aotearoa for over 50 years, the EPA has never conducted a full risk assessment of the chemical. 'The EPA should have a full understanding of the effects of glyphosate to ensure Aotearoa's regulatory settings are fit for purpose,' says Tess Upperton, Senior Legal Advisor at the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI). 'Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in Aotearoa. It's sprayed on our food, roadsides, public spaces, around playgrounds, and in backyards.' 'Given its widespread use, it's alarming that we've never undertaken a comprehensive risk assessment to understand the impacts on our people and the environment,' says Upperton. In addition to glyphosate itself, the EPA has never done a full risk assessment for glyphosate-based formulations that have been 'grandfathered in' under current regulations—many of which are significantly more toxic than glyphosate alone. These formulations often include additional ingredients that amplify glyphosate's toxicity, including surfactants such as POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine), classified as a "forever chemical" due to its persistence in the environment. 'These formulations should be undergoing risk assessments that consider their effects in Aotearoa—but they're not. And that's deeply concerning, particularly as their approvals do not expire,' says Upperton. Over recent decades, scientific evidence of glyphosate's harm to human health, biodiversity, and ecosystems has grown. Many regulators overseas have responded by tightening restrictions on glyphosate use. In contrast, the regulatory approach in Aotearoa has remained largely unchanged. 'While other countries have moved to protect public health and the environment, Aotearoa remains one of the most permissive regulators of glyphosate globally,' says Upperton. That includes allowing glyphosate use in settings where it's banned elsewhere—for instance, as a pre-harvest desiccant on crops, a practice prohibited in the European Union. Several European countries have also banned the domestic sale of glyphosate, restricting its use to regulated agricultural and commercial settings. Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the Ministry for Primary Industries has recently proposed increasing the Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for glyphosate on certain crops—by up to 100 times. 'This legal challenge is not about banning glyphosate,' Upperton clarifies. 'It's about the EPA making informed decisions about how these chemicals are regulated in Aotearoa.' About the Case In 2023, the Environmental Law Initiative formally requested for the EPA to determine whether there were grounds for reassessing glyphosate and glyphosate-based substances under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The application was based on significant new scientific information that has emerged since glyphosate was first introduced in Aotearoa in the 1970s. In July 2024, the EPA declined the request, stating it did not believe sufficient grounds for reassessment existed. ELI will challenge that decision in the Wellington High Court on 16 and 17 June 2025.
