"In terms of the housing estate, mould is far more dangerous that meth," Gluckman told the Herald.
Andrew King, NZ Property Investors Federation executive officer, said the issue generally had resulted in people having huge fears about property contamination yet their health was not necessarily endangered if meth had only been used but not manufactured.
Fears about property meth contamination had caused many people much anxiety, disruption and money, King said.
King went on to say that the expensive process of remediating properties did not necessarily result in any real benefits to residents' or tenants' health for the less-risky properties.
According to the survey, landlords were less inclined to pay for a methamphetamine test on an existing property, with only 39 per cent saying they would.
This was down on the 47 per cent who said they would in August 2016.
Of the 39 per cent of landlords who would pay for the test, 4 per cent said they would be prepared to do it every six months, 14 per cent said they would do it yearly and 21 per cent said they would do it every two years.