The Environmental Law Initiative applied to the Environmental Protection Authority to decide if there were grounds to reassess glyphosate and glyphosate-containing substances, citing significant new information about the negative effects of the substance on the environment and human health.
EPA hazardous substances and new organisms general manager Dr Chris Hill said after reviewing information provided by the Environmental Law Initiative and recent international research on the substance, an authority committee decided there were no grounds for a reassessment.
"What we received from the applicant does not meet the criteria for significant new information and does not justify a reassessment of this substance — particularly when considered alongside the findings of other international regulators."
Federated Farmers Southland arable chairwoman Sonia Dillon, of Riversdale, applauded the government’s announcement, saying farmers could not afford to lose the use of glyphosate as there was no alternative available to them.
"It is good news that nothing has changed."
Weedkillers including glyphosate had a broad use on farms, making it a "mainstay for our businesses".
Dr Hill said regulators from jurisdictions including the European Union, Australia and the United States extensively reviewed glyphosate and concluded it should not be classified as a carcinogen and that any potential risks from using the substance had not changed.
"We carefully weighed the information provided by the applicant alongside a large amount of other evidence and consider that products containing the substance are safe to use if the existing rules are followed.
"We will review any new research on glyphosate that shows a change in the risks and is relevant to the New Zealand context," Dr Hill said.
Environmental Law Initiative research and legal director Matt Hall said ELI was disappointed by the authority’s decision.
"We struggle to understand how information which shows glyphosate has impacts on the human nervous system, endocrine system and acts as a possible human carcinogen is not deemed to be significant.
"We will closely scrutinise the decision and will assess whether there are grounds for an appeal," Dr Hall said.
