Why Freshwater Fishers Should Care
Observation by Andi Cockroft, Chair CORANZ
For many years, assurances about the safety of glyphosate have leaned on a small number of highly cited review papers. One of the most influential of these — a 2000 review that concluded glyphosate and Roundup posed no meaningful risk to human health — has now been formally retracted by its journal.
This retraction does not suddenly prove glyphosate is unsafe. But it does matter — particularly for freshwater communities — because the paper was withdrawn for ethical and integrity reasons, not minor technical errors. In plain terms: questions were raised about independence, undisclosed industry involvement, and reliance on unpublished manufacturer studies.
For people who fish, swim, kayak, and gather food from rivers and lakes, this isn’t an abstract academic debate. It goes to the heart of who we are asked to trust, and how decisions affecting waterways are justified.
Why this matters to freshwater users
Freshwater users live downstream — literally and figuratively — of
Glyphosate is not only used in agriculture. It is also used:
- along road reserves and drains,
- in parks and green corridors,
- near stopbanks, flood infrastructure, and culverts,
- in areas hydrologically connected to streams and rivers.
When concerns are raised, recreational users are often told “the science says it’s safe” — without being shown which science, how independent it is, or how uncertainties are handled near water.
The retraction of a
This is not about panic — it’s about transparency
NZFFA does not need to argue that glyphosate should be banned overnight. That is not our role, and it is not a credible position.
Our role is simpler and stronger:
When chemicals are used near water, freshwater communities are entitled to
high-quality disclosure, conservative safeguards, and independently defensible evidence.
The retraction strengthens that position.
If a paper that helped shape global reassurance is now withdrawn on ethical grounds, then agencies relying on “settled science” should be prepared to clearly explain what evidence they now rely on, and why it is robust.
The New Zealand context: lawful process vs public confidence
In New Zealand, glyphosate is regulated under the HSNO framework and related legislation. The EPA has maintained that a reassessment of glyphosate is not required, and a High Court decision in 2025 found the EPA acted lawfully in making that decision.
But lawful process is not the same as earned trust.
Freshwater users are not challenging the existence of regulation. They are questioning whether:
- decisions affecting waterways are transparent,
- uncertainties are acknowledged rather than dismissed, and
- communities bearing the exposure risk are treated as stakeholders rather than obstacles.
The retraction makes those questions more reasonable, not less.
What freshwater people should be asking for
NZFFA’s strength has always been asking practical, testable questions, not ideological ones. The retraction supports pushing for the following — none of which are radical:
1. Waterway-adjacent spray registers
Councils and agencies should publicly list:
- where glyphosate is used near water,
- when it is applied,
- what product and rates are used,
- and why alternatives were not chosen.
If spraying is safe, transparency should not be a problem.
2. Clear buffers and conservative rules near water
Freshwater users should expect:
- meaningful setbacks from rivers, streams, wetlands, and drains,
- strict weather and drift controls,
- special caution where drains connect directly to waterways.
“Compliance” alone is not enough — the rules themselves must be conservative.
3. Monitoring that is published, not just claimed
If monitoring occurs, results should be:
- publicly accessible,
- understandable to
non-experts , - and specific to
freshwater-connected areas.
Statements like “no issues detected” are not evidence.
4. Genuine assessment of alternatives
Mechanical control, targeted application, shading, and
Where waterways are involved, the bar should be higher.
Why the retraction matters going forward
This is not about winning an argument about glyphosate toxicity.
It is about recognising a pattern freshwater users know all too well:
- Confidence is asserted early,
- doubts are minimised,
- and only much later do we discover that key reassurances were not as independent as claimed.
For people who rely on rivers and lakes for food, recreation, and cultural connection, trust must be earned continuously — not inherited from
Bottom line
The retraction of a major glyphosate safety review does not end the debate — but it legitimises tougher questions.
NZFFA’s position remains reasonable and defensible:
When chemicals are used near water, freshwater communities deserve transparency, conservative safeguards, and evidence that stands up to independent scrutiny — not assurances built on authority alone.
That is not
It is exactly how science is supposed to work.