Recently, an announcement from New Zealand Food Safety (NZFS) has attracted widespread attention. Amid strong public opposition, the authority officially withdrew its previous plan to raise the maximum residue limit (MRL) of glyphosate in some crops and explicitly prohibited the direct use of glyphosate on cereal crops for human consumption. This regulatory shift not only demonstrates the significant value of public participation in food safety governance but also reflects the in-depth balance between agricultural production norms and consumer safety demands.

Looking back to March this year, NZFS put forward a controversial proposal: it planned to significantly increase the glyphosate MRL for wheat, barley, and oats from the current default value of 0.1 mg/kg to 10 mg/kg, while setting the limit for dry peas at 6 mg/kg. The authority's seemingly "pragmatic" reasoning was that the existing 0.1 mg/kg limit was based on data submitted during the initial product registration, and recent residue monitoring of commercially available grains found that some wheat samples exceeded this limit. Based on this, the regulatory authority believed it was necessary to reset the limit in line with "Good Agricultural Practice (GAP)" to better align with actual production conditions.

However, the proposal sparked an immediate outcry once announced. Public concerns about the health risks of glyphosate residues, combined with differing opinions within the industry, eventually formed a strong public feedback. NZFS subsequently collected 3,100 comments from various stakeholders, including industry practitioners, consumers, and environmental organizations. After comprehensively sorting through and evaluating these comments, the regulatory authority ultimately made a decision drastically different from the initial proposal: maintaining the existing 0.1 mg/kg residue limit for wheat, barley, and oats, while further tightening restrictions on the use of glyphosate on arable crops.

Behind this reversal, in addition to the strong impetus from public opinions, the subtle changes in agricultural production practices were even more crucial. NZFS found in its assessment that the usage pattern of glyphosate in New Zealand has undergone significant changes over the past five to six years. As consumers' attention to food safety has increased, the market-driven mechanism has begun to play a role—farmers and flour mills have increasingly agreed on "zero or extremely low glyphosate residues" through contracts. This self-regulatory mechanism formed spontaneously within the industry has essentially achieved a de facto ban on pre-harvest glyphosate application. Against the backdrop of a consensus on low residues already established in actual production, the proposal to raise the residue limit naturally lost its practical basis and failed to gain public acceptance.

Notably, in this adjustment, the glyphosate MRL for dry peas was still raised to 6 mg/kg as originally planned. This "exceptional" arrangement does not indicate a dual regulatory standard but rather a precise consideration based on crop characteristics and market demands. It is reported that dry peas have a relatively small planting area in New Zealand, and its main export markets all adopt a 6 mg/kg residue standard. This adjustment is actually an effort to align with international standards, reduce technical barriers in export trade, and balance practical production needs with trade convenience.

New Zealand's adjustment of glyphosate residue limits provides valuable insights for global food safety regulation. On one hand, it confirms the important value of public participation in regulatory decision-making—open channels for public comment make regulatory measures more in line with public will and more feasible. On the other hand, it also demonstrates the regulatory authority's respect for market realities: when self-regulatory norms formed within the industry have met or even exceeded regulatory standards, regulators should promptly respond to such changes to avoid "standard inversion." In food safety governance, only by achieving positive interaction between regulatory guidance, industry self-regulation, and public supervision can a sustainable system be built that both ensures consumer safety and takes into account industrial development.