Glyphosate reauthorization: Science and politics collide as EU decision looms
11 Oct 2023 --- Ahead of the European Commission (EC) vote on the reauthorization of glyphosate, coming up on October 12 and 13, the pan-European Pesticide Action Network (PAN) and the global advocacy group Ekō continue their campaign against the controversial chemical commonly used in weedkillers.
The environmental groups are responding to statements made by the EC and the Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG) that glyphosate poses no threat to human health or the natural environment.
The EC and GRG statements were a reaction to the PAN, Ekō and FoodWatch Germany arguments against the reauthorization of glyphosate, which they say impacts the nutritional value of crops, the well-being of consumers and nature.
Nutrition Insight speaks to PAN, Ekō and FoodWatch Germany to get their response to the EC and GRG defense of glyphosate, as the vote is set to take place tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.
No “strict conditions”
In response to the concerns regarding the toxicity of glyphosate, an EC spokesperson last week told us that “we are proposing to member states to renew the approval of glyphosate under strict conditions. Examples of these conditions are the prohibition for pre-harvest use as a desiccant and the need for certain measures to protect non-target organisms.”
Eoin Dubsky, on behalf of Ekō, tells us that he disagrees with the assertion made in the EC comment.
“The EC’s proposal entails the renewal of glyphosate approval for ten years, with hardly any restrictions to minimize its use included in the text. The only exception is pre-harvest desiccation, which is already restricted in certain member states.”
“The EC has only added non-binding recommendations of use, which are insufficient to guarantee implementation and therefore are bound to fail to ensure the protection of the health of workers and residents of agricultural zones, including children, as well as of the environmental ecosystems and biodiversity,” Dubsky adds.
“The EC is simply offloading the responsibility for risk management onto the member states.”
There are inconsistencies between the scientific data about the toxicity of glyphosate to humans, crops and the natural environment.
Scientific evidence
In their statements, the EC, the GRD and two of their members, Bayer and Nufarm Europe, argued that the scientific research on glyphosate is on their side.
“The EC is fully committed to ensuring that the approval of active substances in plant protection products such as glyphosate is based on the most recent scientific evidence and in strict compliance with EU law,” a spokesperson told us.
“(The evaluation of glyphosate) is the most comprehensive and transparent assessment of a pesticide that the EU Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the EU member states have ever carried out, taking into account thousands of studies related to human and animal health and the environment, and involving dozens of scientists from EFSA and national authorities across Europe,” said the GRG.
Dubsky responds, “The content of the proposal is extremely alarming in light of the considerable amount of scientific knowledge on glyphosate’s toxicity, both through independent research and industry data.”
“Scientific evidence shows that glyphosate can potentially cause carcinogenicity and genotoxicity, as well as oxidative stress, a mechanism which may result in DNA damage and is linked to cancer. It also disrupts people’s microbiome and potentially the endocrine system. It is neurotoxic and massively harms biodiversity.”
Tjerk Dalhuisen of PAN Europe tells us, “The proposal to renew glyphosate is mainly based on old industry studies, rejecting recent scientific evidence. Therefore, it directly contradicts EU law, which prioritizes the protection of human health and the environment.”
“Recently, we have won court cases in the EU Court of Justice against the EC and national pesticide authorities because they misapplied the law,” he adds.
Old industry and independent studies
Dalhuisen continues, “The problem with all regulatory bodies in the world is that they work with a set of rules written by industry. As a result, their conclusions rely mainly on industry studies, while discarding most independent studies as not according to guidelines, not relevant or not conclusive.”
“This fundamental problem keeps many toxic pesticides on the market and in our food. It explains why EFSA, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and similar national regulatory organizations see no harm.”
“This is in stark contrast to the conclusions of fully independent bodies like the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer or the French National Health Institute INSERM and Parkinson’s specialists. These institutions include the full weight of independent scientific studies, look at new evidence and conclude that glyphosate has many problems.”
Dubsky makes a similar statement: “Several civil society organizations have established that the EFSA and ECHA have discarded hundreds of independent scientific studies demonstrating such harm, while EU agencies keep prioritizing industry data.”
If EC’s glyphosate proposal does not reach the necessary support this week, there might be a second vote in the appeal committee.
The vote
EU member states are set to vote on the EC’s proposal to re-authorize glyphosate on October 12 and 13 during a Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) meeting.
”It looks as if there is no qualified majority for the current proposal of the EU Commission, maybe they will devise an adapted bid to reach the necessary majority. If they don’t reach the necessary support, there will be a second vote in the appeal committee in a few weeks,” explains Dalhuisen.
“I hope member states will send the EC back to the drawing board, but it’s difficult to be optimistic,” Dubsky says.
“There can only be one decision: No to glyphosate! A ban on glyphosate would be the first important step toward an EU agriculture without dangerous agricultural toxins. A transition to a pesticide-free production of grains and cereals is crucial for biodiversity, climate protection and soil quality,” Andreas Winkler of FoodWatch Germany tells us.
Dubsky reminds, “Today at 2 pm, Ekō is delivering our 2.5 million-strong joint petition to a top EC official on behalf of the SCoPAFF committee, together with representatives from Avaaz, WeMove Europe and PAN Europe. People not only in Europe but all over the world want glyphosate banned here.”
Dalhuisen similarly points out the unpopularity of glyphosate amongst citizens across the EU. He quotes a recent study published by PAN involving participants from six member states (Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Romania and Spain), 81.8% of whom asserted their concern about the environmental impact of pesticides, and 61.9% said that they want glyphosate banned.
“The proposal to renew the license for the most widely used herbicide glyphosate is contrary to what the vast majority of Europeans want,” he concludes.
By Milana Nikolova
