“We can identify the illness — but not what caused it.”

That quote, buried in a formal OIA response to NoMoreGlyphosate.nz, reveals a disturbing public health blind spot, says NoMoreGlyphosate NZ.

No Data, No Codes, No Cause

According to the response, hospitalisation records in New Zealand are coded using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10-AM). This system tracks symptoms or diagnosed conditions — but not the cause of those conditions.

So if a person is hospitalised with respiratory distress after glyphosate spraying, or a worker becomes ill following long-term exposure, their illness might be recorded — but the suspected glyphosate link isn’t.

The only way to find out would be to manually review individual patient files, which Health NZ says is not feasible without a specific reason or complaint.

Instead, they pointed us to a general data set showing hospital discharges with the external cause code:

“Accidental poisoning by and exposure to pesticides” (ICD-10-AM code X48)

Here’s what they provided:

Hospital Discharges — Accidental Pesticide Exposure (ICD-10-AM-VIII code X48)
Publicly funded hospital discharges over the past three years:

Reporting Year Number of Discharges

• 2021/2022 27
• 2022/2023 30
• 2023/2024 23

Source: National Minimum Dataset (NMDS)

This figure includes all pesticide-related poisonings — not just herbicides, and not specifically glyphosate. The ICD-10-AM-VIII code X48 covers “Accidental poisoning by and exposure to pesticides,” including insecticides, fungicides, and fumigants.

What This Means for Public Health

This might come as a shock to those who believe our health system is closely monitoring the effects of widely used chemicals like glyphosate. The reality is that no such surveillance system exists.

If a clinician suspects pesticide-related illness, there’s no consistent mechanism for reporting it. No central database. No routine alerts. No mandated data sharing across agencies like MPI, the EPA, or WorkSafe.

In fact, when asked whether Te Whatu Ora had participated in any inter-agency discussions on glyphosate exposure, their answer was simple: No.

U.S. A Better Model: California’s Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program

Some countries do this better. In California, for example, pesticide-related illnesses are tracked and investigated through a formal system involving public health, environmental agencies, and workplace safety regulators.

Doctors are required to report suspected pesticide poisoning, and the data is publicly available — helping researchers, regulators, and citizens spot patterns early.

New Zealand has no equivalent.

Why This Matters Now

Government agencies continue to insist that glyphosate is “safe when used as directed.” But what does “safe” really mean if we’re not measuring the impact of exposure?

Without proper monitoring, we’re flying blind. We have no way of knowing how many workers, residents, or children may have suffered effects after spray events. No way to track long-term exposure patterns. No way to link illness to exposure — even when suspicion is strong.

As we wrote previously:

• Auckland Council Glyphosate Exposure Warning
• Glyphosate Urine Testing in NZ — Why It’s So Hard to Get Answers

If glyphosate exposure isn’t being tracked in the health system, and isn’t being tested for in our urine, how exactly are we supposed to prove harm?

Final Thought

We’re told that glyphosate is safe — but that reassurance is built on a void.

You can’t find what you’re not looking for.

For further information visit the NoMoreGlyphosate NZ website.

Image credit: Louis Reed