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 But it does matter — particularly for freshwater communities — because the paper was withdrawn for ethical and integrity reasons, not minor technical errors. In plain terms: questions were raised about independence, undisclosed industry involvement, and reliance on unpublished manufacturer studies.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If a paper that helped shape global reassurance is now withdrawn on ethical grounds, then agencies relying on “settled science” should be prepared to clearly explain what evidence they now rely on, and why it is robust.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.
Roundup aka glyphosate has always been considered dodgy for years and is known to be an effective poison.
It may well be a factor in the decline in the whitebait adult numbers and even possibly the stream and river habitats too.
There needs to be sound and robust science around the product, and also a solid review of alternatives. It definitely has been a key tool managing the environment over the years
Glyphosate is not banned in New Zealand, but its use is regulated by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) for both commercial and home use. But who monitors its use? Not the EPA and MPI or local bodies. Yet one sees weed spray contractors sitting on the back of a driven truck spraying roadsides. One sees weed spraying done in windy weather.
Rules and regulations are meaningless unless enforced. Rachel Carson of “Silent Spring” fame must be groaning in her grave.
It is not only glyphosates. There’s other deadly ones like Karate is a brand name for an insecticide with the active ingredient lambda-cyhalothrin. Karate is lethal to aquatic ecosystems and kills everything in its path. There’s a cocktail of chemicals being sprayed around out there and no one is doing anything about it.
Is poisoning the land a greater threat to the environment than global warming was the question posed by the UK’s “Guardian” noted columnist George Monbiot back in 2017. I had to google to find it.
Monibot, a 54 year old British writer and author well known for his “environmental and political activism” did not dismiss global warming and ranked it as vitally important but in 3rd place after commercial fishing and the impact of agri-chemicals on the insect life of the planet.
If insects perish or diminish so does pollination, vital to food production and feeding the growing population.
Population growth is on-going, destruction of insects by agri-chemicals is on-going. It’s not hard to see where the world’s future is – bleak.
Freshwater anglers are an apathetic lot but there are a few who care and I must commend the NZ Federation of Freshwater Anglers who poke their heads above the parapet. This excellent, vigilant article on NZFFA’s website is an example.
But the question begs an answer. Where is the Department of Conservation and the Ministry for the Environment and Fish and Game? I have not heard a black stilt’s peep out of them.
That reminds me, rivers and their adjacent beds are the habitat of birds like stilts, dotterels, terns yet ECan I understand, sprays glyphosates over river beds.
ECan – Environment Canterbury? The word environment has to be a bad joke.
.