Glyphosate to be debated in High Court

The ELI is challenging the EPA's 2024 refusal to reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-based substances.
Photo:
AFP
The judicial review hearing - which is expected to last two days - will see ELI challenge the EPA's 2024 refusal to reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-based substances.
There had been significant scientific research on the herbicide since it was first introduced to New Zealand about 50 years ago, Environmental Law Initiative senior legal advisor Tess Upperton said.
That was the grounds ELI used in their formal request for a risk reassessment, but the EPA refused last year, prompting the judicial review set to be heard today and tomorrow.
Upperton said while the EPA had reviewed some aspects over the years, such as looking at carcinogenicity of glyphosate in 2015, there had never been a full risk assessment, which is the usual protocol when a new product is first approved for use.
"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."
Since then, RoundUp and the more than 90 other glyphosate based formulas sold in New Zealand had been "grandfathered through successive regimes," she said, even though some of the glyphosate-based formulas have been found to have additional ingredients that amplify glyphosates toxicity.
In 2021, the EPA issued a "call for information" to assess whether there were grounds to reassess the use of glyphosate.
"It went out to the public and asked industry, NGOs, lay people, how do you use glyphosate? What do you see as the risks? And they got a lot of useful information back, but that isn't providing scientific evidence of what the risks are, which there's a lot of information about overseas."
She said there was a dearth of domestic studies, particularly on the impact on indigenous species in Aotearoa.
"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.
"There's a wealth of new published peer-reviewed, well conducted research on glyphosate and there are new studies coming out all the time."
The bid for a risk assessment did not directly relate to a proposal
being considered by the Ministry for Primary Industries
, which could see the amount of glyphosate allowed on some crops increased exponentially , but Upperton says one assessment feeds into another, and ELI believed any reassessment of the MRL should wait until after the EPA had conducted a full risk assessment.
The government was proposing 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.
The MRL is partially based on a permitted daily exposure for food (PDE), which was set by the EPA's predecessor, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA), more than 20 years ago.
A public submission period which closed in mid-May saw the ministry receive more than 3100 submissions on the proposal. A spokesperson said it was too soon to have analysed the large of submissions, or to give a timeframe for that to happen.
ELI was not calling for an immediate ban on glyphosate, and any possible controls coming out of a reassessment would be up to the EPA and based on scientific conclusions, Upperton said.
New Zealand is one of the most permissive regulators of glyphosate globally, including allowing glyphosate use in settings where it's banned elsewhere - such as a pre-harvest desiccant on crops, a practice prohibited in the European Union, she said.
Several European countries have banned the domestic sale of glyphosate, restricting its use to regulated agricultural and commercial settings, while in the United States, the manufacturer of the leading glyphosate-based herbicide, Bayer, pulled RoundUp from the residential market itself in an effort to pre-empt further litigation, which has seen the company
pay billions of dollars to settle cases over potential links to cancer
, with another 67,000 cases pending.
Last year, the European Union approved glyphosate use for another decade after member states deadlocked for a second time on the issue, but a number of European countries, including France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Germany have partial bans in place. Multiple challenges to the decision are before the European Court of Justice.
"There's a whole spectrum of regulation out there. Some countries have banned it, some have restricted its use. New Zealand is at the really permissive end of the spectrum in terms of those with developed regulatory systems, we use a lot of it and everyone can use it, which is quite unusual."
The human health impacts of glyphosate are disputed. In 2015, the World Health Organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer
found glyphosate was a probable carcinogen
and found strong evidence for genotoxicity, or the ability to damage DNA.
One of the grounds to trigger a reassessment is the existence of significant new information about the effects of the chemical, which was the route ELI took in it's request.
"There's a whole wealth of new, published, peer reviewed, well conducted research out there about glyphosate, and there's new studies coming out all the time, it's a really developing area."
Upperton felt there were two reasons for burgeoning body of evidence on the possible health impacts of glyphosate.
"Firstly, long term or chronic effects take a while to show up and into evidence. So if we've had glyphosate now for about 50 years in our populations, those effects are going to be more and more widely felt, but the other primary reason is that when these chemicals are introduced, the assessment of them is reliant on studies of their toxicity, for example, that are conducted by industry itself.
"Which makes sense - they should be looking into the safety of their own products - but they also have a very clear direct financial interest in these things being approved. It does mean - and it has been borne out in relation to several different substances, including glyphosate - their studies might focus on less real world effects and more in the laboratory where it doesn't really represent how it would be used In the real world.
"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."
The inability to sue companies in the same way as some other jursidictions - Bayer has spent more than US$11 billion settling close to 100,000 lawsuits in the United States, and is attempting to have legislation passed in some states to shield it from future litigation, while reportedly considering dropping the product altogether - meant New Zealanders had to rely even more on the EPA, she said.
"You can't sue someone for using glyphosate, or getting sick from glyphosate in New Zealand because of the bar on personal injury claims - that actually makes us more dependent on our regulator to step in and do these things because we can't take these actions in private capacities. We have to use the EPA and ask the EPA to do its job, which is really what this case is about."
The situation also highlighted a "wider issue for the EPA and for environmental regulation in Aoteaora generally" which was the under resourcing of the EPA, Upperton said.
"ELI is not saying the EPA needs to ban glyphosate tomorrow - 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."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

RNZ News

7 hours ago

• RNZ News

Destiny Church protesters set flags on fire in Auckland rally

Protesters at a Destiny Church rally in Auckland, 21 June 2025. Photo: RNZ Fire and Emergency crews have been called to a Destiny Church march in downtown Auckland after flags were set on fire. Hundreds have marched from Aotea Square down Queen Street in what the church billed as a rally "in defence of faith, flag and family". At one point flags - which an RNZ reporter said appeared to include rainbow flags and flags representing mainstream media - were set alight. Rally goers then put the flames out with water and arriving fire crews then left without taking action. During the march, people chanted "no immigration without assimilation". Destiny Church said the march was to take "a bold public stand for Christian values, Kiwi identity and the future of this nation". Church leader Brian Tamaki claimed "uncontrolled immigration" in the United Kingdom had led to spikes in crime and a collapse in British identity. Tamaki said the church was building a "Commonwealth crusade" to "reclaim Christina nations". Protesters and counter-protesters at a Destiny Church rally in Auckland, 21 June 2025. Photo: RNZ The Destiny marchers were met by about 20 counterprotestors waving tino rangatiratanga and Palestine flags. A large number of Police were also in attendance. Ahead of the march, Tamaki said church leaders had sent an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon calling for a reversal on a position that the country has no official religion. He said a demand included enforcing a "no immigration without assimilation" policy. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Newsroom

7 hours ago

• Newsroom

PM appeals to China's ego in the pursuit of peace and order

Analysis: The Prime Minister has singled out the Pacific, the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea as tension points during his meetings with his Chinese counterpart in Beijing. And when pushed, he all-but confirmed he also raised China's live-firing exercises in the Tasman Sea in February – something he's previously said 'alarmed' New Zealanders. But in contrast to what NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte says, Luxon pushed back against the idea of a 'China threat', saying he did not believe China was creating a fearsome foursome with Iran, Russia and North Korea. 'We haven't seen any evidence of a wholesale force from those four countries coming together against the West in that way. And so that might be a difference of opinion, but that's very much how we put it.' In Beijing on Friday, Luxon engaged in a series of leader meetings at the historic Great Hall of the People, including with President Xi Jinping, as well as his Chinese counterpart Premier Li Qiang. He came away from those meetings saying the China-New Zealand relationship was in 'good heart'. Ahead of his meeting with Li, Luxon received an official welcome, with the full military pomp and ceremony – just hours ahead of flying to Europe to spend time with New Zealand's security partners at the NATO summit. In the Luxon-Xi meeting, neither side skirted around the edges, directly addressing the fact that the relationship had been a rocky one. 'More than 50 years since the establishment of diplomatic ties to China, New Zealand relationship has experienced many ups and downs, but we have always respected each other and worked together,' Xi said in his opening remarks ahead of his closed-door meeting with Luxon. The Prime Minister responded in the same way, with a directness that was respectful and predictable – exactly the type of communication the New Zealand side said it was striving for in its relationship with China. The Chinese and New Zealand teams at the formal leaders' meeting. Photo: Pool In what seemed to be an attempt at positive manifestation, Luxon appealed to China's view of itself as a predictable, constructive player at a time of global turmoil. 'We are meeting at a time of increasing global uncertainty and strain, and the world looks to China as a major global power to play a constructive role in addressing many of the challenges that are facing us all,' Luxon said. In this context, ongoing discussions with China were 'more important than ever before – and we value it highly'. 'Stability in our region and our deep and abiding support for the rules-based system are fundamental to New Zealand's interests … our long-standing connections and cooperation supports us to continue our positive, constructive, open and comprehensive discussions, as partners should do.' While Luxon did not mention the US, China already sees itself as the antithesis to Donald Trump's chaos. Playing to that ego in the hope of maintaining peace in the region (and the globe) couldn't hurt. 'As a small country, you have to acknowledge we're not a medium power, not a large power, right? So I have to find ways to influence what I believe in and what we believe in in New Zealand – which is a set of values – and actually put voice to those values and articulate them well,' Luxon said following the bilateral. In return, Li said that Xi had 'chartered the direction for the next phase' of the relationship, while also saying that New Zealand should place greater emphasis on cooperation. 'In these turbulent times, the fundamental interests of both countries call for the relationship to be defined and underpinned by cooperation, rather than anything else,' Chinese Ambassador to New Zealand Wang Xiaolong said. The meetings took place against the back-drop of heightened tensions in the Indo-Pacific Region. Following China's live-firing combat exercises in the Tasman in February, China has said it planned for the normalisation of deployment of the naval forces of the People's Liberation Army into the South Pacific. Meanwhile, the day before the meetings, AFP reported that a tranche of classified government briefing notes showed deep concern within the New Zealand government in the wake of the surprise intercontinental ballistic missile launch off the coast of Tahiti last year, which China shrugged off as 'routine.' In briefing documents provided to Foreign Minister Winston Peters, officials called the missile launch a 'significant and concerning development'. On the flip side, China has consistently hit back at New Zealand's indication of joining Aukus Pillar II, warning against joining 'small circles', and stoking a regional arms race. This was another topic Luxon wouldn't be drawn on following his day of meetings. China has also pushed back at New Zealand's retaliatory action against the Cook Islands after Prime Minister Mark Brown signed a strategic deal with Beijing, without consulting New Zealand. Luxon refused to confirm whether the Cook Islands issue was raised in his meetings with Xi and Li, but said he raised the importance of respecting the Pacific Islands Forum as the way to advance development in the Pacific. It seemed to be a tight-lipped Luxon way of acknowledging the under-lying issue with China's role in the Cook Islands saga, without disclosing the specifics of what was said in the room. During a 25-minute press conference at the conclusion of Luxon's three-day trip that had covered Shanghai and Beijing, the Prime Minister went out of his way to not divulge any further information about the diplomatic discussions, beyond what was included in his press release and a joint statement. 'We need to respect that they are private diplomatic conversations,' he said. 'What I can reassure you is that I raise issues of common interest; I raise issues of difference. We had a very fulsome conversation. We discussed everything we needed to discuss.' While it was expected for some topics to remain in the room, Luxon joined the tradition of New Zealand prime ministers to be particularly evasive following discussions with China's leaders. But he reassured Kiwis and security partners that – 'as you would expect in a mature relationship' – New Zealand canvassed the range of topics 'very openly, very candidly'. Despite the direct acknowledgement of the shared differences, there was more positive than negative in the remarks between the two countries. It seemed China still regarded New Zealand as 'the best in the west' and understood the importance of keeping New Zealand onside at a time of increasing global uncertainty. This marked Luxon's second meeting with Xi. In November, the president asked for a bilateral on the sidelines of the Apec summit in Peru. Xi referenced this first face-to-face, saying the two had a 'good discussion' last year, saying he was 'very impressed' with Luxon and appreciated his 'positive attitude'. Both sides played up the positives of the trading relationship, with Luxon noting the $39 billion in two-way trade and opportunities for further collaboration. But one trade area that remained a sticking point was China's bid to join the CPTPP. China has been angling to join the trade grouping since 2021, and ahead of this visit government officials made a point of saying they believed they had taken steps to meet all the Auckland Principles required for ascension into the partnership. Despite repeated questioning Luxon refused to say whether New Zealand supported China's bid to join the CPTPP, relying on the final 'principle' that required consensus from all 12 countries. But a joint statement issued by the two countries said New Zealand had 'noted' China's application. Chinese Premier Li Qiang with Christopher Luxon as he inspects an honour guard. Photo: Pool The Xi meeting, which was scheduled for 40 minutes, lasted about an hour. It came after a bilateral with Zhao Leji, the chairman of the country's top legislative body – akin to the Speaker of the House – and before a detailed bilateral with Luxon's counterpart Premier Li Qiang. Following the final meeting, Li and Luxon had a banquet dinner with the full delegation of officials and business leaders. For these crucial first meetings, the Prime Minister brought along Wellington's full diplomatic might. Ambassador to China Jonathan Austin, Foreign Secretary Bede Corry and division head Wendy Matthews all joined Luxon in the room. And for good measure, he took in former senior diplomat and head of DPMC Ben King, Customs chief executive Christine Stevenson, as well as foreign affairs advisers from both DPMC and PMO. While it was unlikely either side was surprised by the topics raised, the experienced officials in the room would have been listening carefully to the specific language used and how things were said. It was the nuance in China's statements and responses that would communicate the CCP's strength of feeling on specific issues. From Beijing, Luxon left his business delegation and the Airforce 757 and jumped on a commercial jet to Brussels late Friday night. The juxtaposition of the Beijing visit abutted against the Prime Minister's trip to NATO provided a fitting illustration of New Zealand's competing priorities, which Luxon said were inextricably linked.

RNZ News

12 hours ago

• RNZ News

Tai Rāwhiti protest: A burning question on Ngāti Oneone's redress

Ngāti Oneone chairwoman Charlotte Gibson stoking the fire at the protest movement taking place at Te Pā Eketū Shed, on Hirini St, calling for the return of Ngāti Oneone's ancestral lands. Photo: Zita Campbell / LDR A fire signalling Tai Rāwhiti hapū Ngāti Oneone's call for the return of their ancestral lands has been burning for over six weeks. The hapū said it will stoke the fire until the grievance is resolved, but after three generations of attempting to remedy it, does not want the redress to fall on them. "It always falls on us to 'make the case'," Ngāti Oneone chairwoman Charlotte Gibson told Local Democracy Reporting (LDR) when the movement started on 5 May. The Crown said any potential redress in this case is the responsibility of the landowner and the hapū. As part of its protest, members of Ngāti Oneone have inhabited Te Pā Eketū Shed, a warehouse-sized property on Gisborne's Hirini St. Rather than an "occupation", the hāpu calls the action "a reclamation of whenua". The location is where Ngāti Oneone's marae and pā were originally established in 1852 before being removed for harbour development under the Private Works Act. Eastland Port, of which Trust Tai Rāwhiti is the sole shareholder, owns the shed and others on the hapū's ancestral land on Hirini St and the Esplanade. At the beginning of the protest movement, the hapū called on the trust, Eastland Port and Gisborne District Council to return land not used for "core business". Council chief executive Nedine Thatcher Swann told LDR the council had started exploring how land could potentially be returned following formal requests from Ngāti Oneone in 2024. This includes investigating the relevant legal processes, policy settings and the interests of other Treaty partners. However, Trust Tai Rāwhiti, which has a funding partnership with the council and serves as the region's economic development and tourism organisation, earlier said addressing historical Treaty breaches was not its responsibility, but rather a matter for the Crown, after it sought independent legal advice. "We support Ngāti Oneone in pursuing this with the Crown," chairman David Battin told LDR when the protest started. Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka had a different view. The 2010 Ngāti Porou settlement of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims includes Ngāti Oneone, Potaka told LDR. "The matter being raised ... is outside of the process for the settlement of historical Treaty claims. "Any exploration of options to return and/or purchase the land is a matter for the landowner agency to undertake in discussion with Ngāti Oneone," he said. Regarding Potaka's statement, a Trust Tai Rāwhiti spokesperson this week said trustees continued to "engage directly with Ngāti Oneone and remained focused on constructive resolutions". Gibson confirmed the hapū had met with the landowner groups involved under Trust Tai Rāwhiti and would have a meeting with the council next week. She was unsure whether the groups would respond individually or together. The hapū has committed to maintaining the protest for two months and then will reassess depending on outcomes, she said. "We'll keep the fire burning until we've had an acceptable response." In addition to the return of land, the hapū has made other requests to the landowners through an online petition signed by over 1950 as of Friday. The petition urges the Tai Rāwhiti leaders to take three actions: "Whakahokia Whenua Mai", which requests the return of land not used for core business, "Whakamana Tangata" and "Te Tiriti". Whakamana Tangata requests that Trust Tai Rāwhiti financially compensate Ngāti Oneone for "the alienation" of their lands without conditions. "Te Tiriti" requests that the leaders seek a pathway that treats Ngāti Oneone in the same vein as a "Treaty" partner, rather than "a community group". Gibson said that after Eastland Port sold a shed on their ancestral land to the Gisborne Tatapouri Sports Fishing Club three years ago, they worried about what could happen to the rest of their ancestral land, so they started negotiations for the Te Pa Eketū Shed. If the land were sold, it would be harder to reclaim, she said. However, they then realised the port had other sheds in the area, not used for "core business". "In my view, it's not an occupation, it's a reclamation of whenua," Gibson said, explaining that the shed had been leased while negotiating the sales and purchase agreement. The port would send the hapū the bill, which they would send to Trust Tai Rāwhiti, who would pay Eastland Port (owned by the trust), she said. Trust Tai Rāwhiti was going to give them $1.4 million to purchase the shed, but the hapū wanted to use the money to buy the lot. When their request was denied, they understood and looked into other ways of obtaining the sheds, Gibson said. However, when the hapū got the sales and purchase agreement, things shifted. "There were four clauses within the sales and purchase agreement, which undermined Mana motuhake [self-determination], which made it untenable," said Gibson. On 5 May the beginning of the hapū's "Reclamation of whenua", they were supposed to sign the sales and purchase agreement but decided to "reclaim" the land instead. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.