Printed from https://fyi.org.nz/request/34770-epa-use-of-the-term-safe-new-request?unfold=1 on June 17, 2026 02:08

EPA Use of the Term “Safe” New Request

Nigel Gray made this Official Information request to Environmental Protection Authority

Currently waiting for a response from Environmental Protection Authority, they must respond promptly and normally no later than (details and exceptions).

From: Nigel Gray

Official Information Act Request — EPA Use of the Term “Safe”

Dear Environmental Protection Authority,
This is a request for official information under the Official Information Act 1982.

Following the EPA’s response dated 21 May 2026 (Ref: OIA 26083), I request the following information, limited to the EPA’s Communications Team, Legal Team, and Risk / Hazardous Substances Team.

1. Communications Team — Use of the Term “Safe”
Please provide:

all internal emails, drafts, briefing notes, messaging guidelines, or communication strategy documents that discuss, reference, justify, or approve the use of the word “safe” in the EPA’s public mission statement or website content;

any internal discussions regarding the decision to rely on the dictionary definition of “safe” for public communications;

any internal review, risk assessment, or sign‑off relating to the accuracy or appropriateness of using “safe” in public‑facing material.

If no such documents exist, please provide the Communications Team’s section 23 explanation for using the term “safe” in public communications despite the absence of any internal definition, criteria, or framework.

2. Legal Team — Interpretation and Risk of Using “Safe”
Please provide:

all legal advice, internal memos, or discussions concerning the legal implications of using the term “safe” in EPA communications;

any analysis of whether the use of “safe” could mislead the public or imply a regulatory assurance the EPA cannot substantiate;

any legal review of the EPA’s reliance on the dictionary definition of “safe.”

If no such documents exist, please provide the Legal Team’s section 23 explanation for the EPA’s continued use of the term “safe” without any internal definition or criteria.

3. Risk / Hazardous Substances Team — Operational Meaning of “Safe”
Please provide:

any documents, emails, or internal discussions that address how the EPA operationalises or interprets “safe” in the context of hazardous substances, approvals, controls, or risk management;

any internal analysis of the statement in the EPA’s letter that “we do not describe approved substances as ‘safe’”;

any documents explaining how the EPA reconciles this position with the public claim of “enhancing a safe way of life.”

If no such documents exist, please provide the Risk Team’s section 23 explanation for the EPA’s operational use of the term “safe” in the absence of any definition or criteria.

4. Cross‑Team Coordination
Please provide:

any cross‑team communications (Comms ↔ Legal ↔ Risk) relating to the EPA’s use of the term “safe”;

any internal discussions triggered by OIA 26083 or earlier OIAs concerning the meaning or use of “safe.”

Format
Electronic copies (PDF or native format) are preferred.

Yours Faithfully,
Nigel Gray

Link to this

From: Ministerials
Environmental Protection Authority

Attachment image.png
17K Download

Hi Nigel
Thanks for your email below. 

This has been logged as an Official Information Act request, and we are
now working on our response. Under the Official Information Act the EPA
has 20 working days to make a decision on your request.

Ngā mihi 

Anna 

 [1]The EPA's logo in a dark teal colour.

Follow us on [2]Facebook, [3]Instagram, and [4]LinkedIn. 

Our New Zealand Business Number is 9429041901977.

This email message and any attachment(s) are intended for the addressee(s)
only.

If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
the message and any attachment(s).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nigel Gray <[FOI #34770 email]>
Sent: Friday, 22 May 2026 9:05 pm
To: Ministerials <[EPA request email]>
Subject: Official Information request - EPA Use of the Term “Safe” New
Request
 
[You don't often get email from
[FOI #34770 email]. Learn why this is
important at [5]https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific...

Official Information Act Request — EPA Use of the Term “Safe”

Dear Environmental Protection Authority,
This is a request for official information under the Official Information
Act 1982.

Following the EPA’s response dated 21 May 2026 (Ref: OIA 26083), I request
the following information, limited to the EPA’s Communications Team, Legal
Team, and Risk / Hazardous Substances Team.

1. Communications Team — Use of the Term “Safe”
Please provide:

all internal emails, drafts, briefing notes, messaging guidelines, or
communication strategy documents that discuss, reference, justify, or
approve the use of the word “safe” in the EPA’s public mission statement
or website content;

any internal discussions regarding the decision to rely on the dictionary
definition of “safe” for public communications;

any internal review, risk assessment, or sign‑off relating to the accuracy
or appropriateness of using “safe” in public‑facing material.

If no such documents exist, please provide the Communications Team’s
section 23 explanation for using the term “safe” in public communications
despite the absence of any internal definition, criteria, or framework.

2. Legal Team — Interpretation and Risk of Using “Safe”
Please provide:

all legal advice, internal memos, or discussions concerning the legal
implications of using the term “safe” in EPA communications;

any analysis of whether the use of “safe” could mislead the public or
imply a regulatory assurance the EPA cannot substantiate;

any legal review of the EPA’s reliance on the dictionary definition of
“safe.”

If no such documents exist, please provide the Legal Team’s section 23
explanation for the EPA’s continued use of the term “safe” without any
internal definition or criteria.

3. Risk / Hazardous Substances Team — Operational Meaning of “Safe”
Please provide:

any documents, emails, or internal discussions that address how the EPA
operationalises or interprets “safe” in the context of hazardous
substances, approvals, controls, or risk management;

any internal analysis of the statement in the EPA’s letter that “we do not
describe approved substances as ‘safe’”;

any documents explaining how the EPA reconciles this position with the
public claim of “enhancing a safe way of life.”

If no such documents exist, please provide the Risk Team’s section 23
explanation for the EPA’s operational use of the term “safe” in the
absence of any definition or criteria.

4. Cross‑Team Coordination
Please provide:

any cross‑team communications (Comms ↔ Legal ↔ Risk) relating to the EPA’s
use of the term “safe”;

any internal discussions triggered by OIA 26083 or earlier OIAs concerning
the meaning or use of “safe.”

Format
Electronic copies (PDF or native format) are preferred.

Yours Faithfully,
Nigel Gray

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #34770 email]

Is [EPA request email] the wrong address for Official Information
requests to Environmental Protection Authority? If so, please contact us
using this form:
[6]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[7]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. http://www.epa.govt.nz/
2. Original URL: https://www.facebook.com/EPAgovtNZ/. Click or tap if you trust this link.
https://www.facebook.com/EPAgovtNZ/
3. Original URL: https://www.instagram.com/epagovtnz/. Click or tap if you trust this link.
https://www.instagram.com/epagovtnz/
4. Original URL: https://www.linkedin.com/company/epagovt.... Click or tap if you trust this link.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/epagovt...
5. https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific...
6. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
7. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

Link to this

From: Ministerials
Environmental Protection Authority

Attachment image.png
17K Download

Attachment Outlook The EPA.png
17K Download

Hi Nigel
I'm getting in touch about your request below. 
Please can you clarify what you mean by "section 23 explanation"? Please
can you explain what Act this refers to? 
I look forward to hearing from you. 

Ngā mihi 

Anna 

 [1]The EPA's logo in a dark teal colour.

Follow us on [2]Facebook, [3]Instagram, and [4]LinkedIn. 

Our New Zealand Business Number is 9429041901977.

This email message and any attachment(s) are intended for the addressee(s)
only.

If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
the message and any attachment(s).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ministerials <[EPA request email]>
Sent: Monday, 25 May 2026 10:02 am
To: Nigel Gray <[FOI #34770 email]>
Subject: Re: Official Information request - EPA Use of the Term “Safe” New
Request
 
Hi Nigel
Thanks for your email below. 

This has been logged as an Official Information Act request, and we are
now working on our response. Under the Official Information Act the EPA
has 20 working days to make a decision on your request.

Ngā mihi 

Anna 

 [5]The EPA's logo in a dark teal colour.

Follow us on [6]Facebook, [7]Instagram, and [8]LinkedIn. 

Our New Zealand Business Number is 9429041901977.

This email message and any attachment(s) are intended for the addressee(s)
only.

If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender and delete
the message and any attachment(s).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Nigel Gray <[FOI #34770 email]>
Sent: Friday, 22 May 2026 9:05 pm
To: Ministerials <[EPA request email]>
Subject: Official Information request - EPA Use of the Term “Safe” New
Request
 
[You don't often get email from
[FOI #34770 email]. Learn why this is
important at [9]https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific...

Official Information Act Request — EPA Use of the Term “Safe”

Dear Environmental Protection Authority,
This is a request for official information under the Official Information
Act 1982.

Following the EPA’s response dated 21 May 2026 (Ref: OIA 26083), I request
the following information, limited to the EPA’s Communications Team, Legal
Team, and Risk / Hazardous Substances Team.

1. Communications Team — Use of the Term “Safe”
Please provide:

all internal emails, drafts, briefing notes, messaging guidelines, or
communication strategy documents that discuss, reference, justify, or
approve the use of the word “safe” in the EPA’s public mission statement
or website content;

any internal discussions regarding the decision to rely on the dictionary
definition of “safe” for public communications;

any internal review, risk assessment, or sign‑off relating to the accuracy
or appropriateness of using “safe” in public‑facing material.

If no such documents exist, please provide the Communications Team’s
section 23 explanation for using the term “safe” in public communications
despite the absence of any internal definition, criteria, or framework.

2. Legal Team — Interpretation and Risk of Using “Safe”
Please provide:

all legal advice, internal memos, or discussions concerning the legal
implications of using the term “safe” in EPA communications;

any analysis of whether the use of “safe” could mislead the public or
imply a regulatory assurance the EPA cannot substantiate;

any legal review of the EPA’s reliance on the dictionary definition of
“safe.”

If no such documents exist, please provide the Legal Team’s section 23
explanation for the EPA’s continued use of the term “safe” without any
internal definition or criteria.

3. Risk / Hazardous Substances Team — Operational Meaning of “Safe”
Please provide:

any documents, emails, or internal discussions that address how the EPA
operationalises or interprets “safe” in the context of hazardous
substances, approvals, controls, or risk management;

any internal analysis of the statement in the EPA’s letter that “we do not
describe approved substances as ‘safe’”;

any documents explaining how the EPA reconciles this position with the
public claim of “enhancing a safe way of life.”

If no such documents exist, please provide the Risk Team’s section 23
explanation for the EPA’s operational use of the term “safe” in the
absence of any definition or criteria.

4. Cross‑Team Coordination
Please provide:

any cross‑team communications (Comms ↔ Legal ↔ Risk) relating to the EPA’s
use of the term “safe”;

any internal discussions triggered by OIA 26083 or earlier OIAs concerning
the meaning or use of “safe.”

Format
Electronic copies (PDF or native format) are preferred.

Yours Faithfully,
Nigel Gray

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #34770 email]

Is [EPA request email] the wrong address for Official Information
requests to Environmental Protection Authority? If so, please contact us
using this form:
[10]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[11]https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlo...

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. http://www.epa.govt.nz/
2. Original URL: https://www.facebook.com/EPAgovtNZ/. Click or tap if you trust this link.
https://www.facebook.com/EPAgovtNZ/
3. Original URL: https://www.instagram.com/epagovtnz/. Click or tap if you trust this link.
https://www.instagram.com/epagovtnz/
4. Original URL: https://www.linkedin.com/company/epagovt.... Click or tap if you trust this link.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/epagovt...
5. http://www.epa.govt.nz/
6. Original URL: https://www.facebook.com/EPAgovtNZ/. Click or tap if you trust this link.
https://www.facebook.com/EPAgovtNZ/
7. Original URL: https://www.instagram.com/epagovtnz/. Click or tap if you trust this link.
https://www.instagram.com/epagovtnz/
8. Original URL: https://www.linkedin.com/company/epagovt.... Click or tap if you trust this link.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/epagovt...
9. https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentific...
10. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
11. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

hide quoted sections

Link to this

From: Nigel Gray

Dear Ministerials,
Kia ora,

Thank you for your email of 5 June requesting clarification.

To confirm: “section 23 explanation” refers to section 23 of the Official Information Act 1982.

Section 23 requires an agency to provide the reasons for a decision when no documents exist that would otherwise answer the request. In my request, this applies only where the relevant team holds no internal documents relating to the EPA’s use of the term “safe.”

As your 5 June email was a request for clarification under section 15(1AA) of the OIA, the statutory timeframe was paused and now resumes upon receipt of this clarification.

I look forward to your decision within the recalculated timeframe.

Ngā mihi,
Nigel Gray

Yours sincerely,

Nigel Gray

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Environmental Protection Authority only: