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.
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.
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.
RNZ News
28-05-2025
- RNZ News
Primary sector not impressed with government's horticultural product approval targets
Access to agricultural and horticultural products is managed under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisims (HSNO) Act. Photo: AFP/ Costfoto / NurPhoto Those in the primary sector say the government's new targets to reduce the queues to approve new agricultural and horticultural products don't go far enough. It follows a regulatory review which found the approval process for the agricultural and horticultural products, like pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers, wasn't always allowing timely access to the products. Cabinet has agreed to all 16 of the recommendations from the regulatory review, including updating the Environmental Protection Authority's risk assessment models, reducing efficacy requirements for inhibitors to the minimum required to manage risks and introducing targets to reduce product queues. Access to the products is managed under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisims (HSNO) Act. Environment Minister Penny Simmonds said she had set a target to reduce the HSNO queue by 10 percent in 2025-26 and would set a more ambitious target once additional staff were appointed. Environment Minister Penny Simmonds. Photo: RNZ / Angus Dreaver Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard said he wanted a 20 percent queue reduction for ACVM products by the end of June 2025, compared to October 2024. By the end of June 2026, he wanted to see queues reduce by a further 30 percent. The ministers would be responsible for an Omnibus Bill to accelerate the improvements. However, Animal and Plant Health New Zealand (APHANZ) chief executive Dr Liz Shackleton said the targets to reduce product queues seemed unlikely to deliver the rapid change that industry needed. "While it's positive that Ministers have answered industry's calls to set targets that hold regulators to account, hitting the bullseye requires a bold focus on the targets that matter most. "Industry keenly await the more ambitious target signalled by the Minister for Environment and hope it's not too little too late." Dr Shackleton said the priority should be parent products with new active ingredients in the queue already, rather than just increasing approvals for generic products. She said this would allow farmers and growers to rotate products to manage resistance, improve environmental outcomes and phase out older chemistry. Many of the products - which have been in the queue for years - are already being used by countries like Australia, Canada and the United States, she said. "Let's look at blackspot. It's in the queue, there's a solution for that. Apple growers it's their number one barrier to trade and it's been sitting under assessment for almost four years." Dr Shackleton feared manufacturers of agricultural and horticultural products would exit the New Zealand market unless more bold action was taken. ""The companies that make the new stuff are talking about pulling out of New Zealand. "New Zealand had once been seen as a desirable place to get early registration. That's no longer the case, the global view is we're now well behind." Dr Shackleton said time was running out. The Environmental Protection Authority says the proposed rule changes for hazardous substances would give the industry a clearer path for making use of new chemicals in New Zealand. Photo: supplied Horticulture New Zealand's general manager of strategy and policy Michelle Sands also felt the targets to reduce product queues didn't go far enough and would not make a difference to the existing backlog. "We have a situation in New Zealand where other countries have access to newer, softer innovative actives and in New Zealand our process is very slow and so that means we don't have access to those sort of things. "What that means is that we're actually missing out on things that might have lesser impacts on the environment, on human health." Sands was also worried that manufacturers would stop providing agricultural and horticultural products to the New Zealand market because of the delayed approvals process. Chief executive of the New Zealand Veterinary Association Dr Kevin Bryant said under the current system New Zealand was "missing out". He said the proposed changes were a good start but more was needed to get products into the vet clinics faster. "For vets on the ground treating animals and coming at it from an animal welfare perspective, we know there are products available in Australia that are not available here that are needed. "The issue we have is why can we not have a process that enables products that have been approved in other jurisdictions which New Zealand trusts, that they cannot be actually fast-tracked in terms of registration in New Zealand." Dr Bryant said there was a balance to be achieved between speed and effectiveness, which was why he wanted to see the ACVM better resourced. "We want to see government prioritising resourcing for ACVM so that new medicines and vaccines can be approved and in our vet clinics as fast as possible." The Environmental Protection Authority said the proposed changes to the rules for hazardous substances would give the industry a clearer path for making use of new chemicals in New Zealand. It said the proposed changes would make it easier for applicants to apply in cases where chemicals had already been used safely in other countries, allow the temporary use of some new products and improve transparency around application timeframes and processes. Meanwhile the Environmental Law Initiative's senior legal advisor Tess Upperton said the EPA's focus must remain on rigorously assessing the possible risks to human and ecosystem health, especially as hazardous substance approvals did not expire. She said decisions must be "carefully made" and the EPA shouldn't become too focused on having to "shorten the queue" of products waiting for assessment which may divert the EPA from its core environmental obligations. Upperton agreed with the review that the EPA was "significantly under-funded". "The best way to streamline applications would be for the EPA to be fully funded to perform as an effective regulator through recovery of the costs of its HSNO (Hazardous Substances and New Organisms ACT) functions from applicants. As it stands, the public is subsidising private interests through majority Crown funding of these EPA functions." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
