Brussels, 01/12/2015(Agence Europe) - Unhappiness is growing with the opinion issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that glyphosate is “probably not carcinogenic” for humans. This is a view that flies in the face of the conclusions of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that this pesticide was a probable carcinogen (see EUROPE 11409).
The European Commission, however, remains unperturbed.
In an open letter published on 30 November, 96 independent scientists from all over the world called on European Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis to ignore EFSA's biased and misleading opinion. They argue that those who drafted the BfR (of Germany) opinion which the EFSA opinion closely follows used, in part, out of date information and turned a blind eye to the OECD recommendations on evaluation.
“For science to be able effectively to offer guidance in decisions on public health, it has to show clarity, rigour, transparency and common sense. The EFSA evaluation contains serious shortcomings on this triple viewpoint”, stated Professor Christopher J. Portier, one of the signatories.
When asked by the press about the letter, the European Commission confirmed on the same day that it had been received. “The response will be provided in due course. The re-evaluation of glyphosate was conducted with a view to renewal of its authorisation. The decision will be taken in 2016”, was the terse comment of Enrico Brivio, spokesperson to the commissioner.
In response to the letter from Greenpeace on 29 October, the commissioner said that, with regard to the EFSA re-evaluation process, he had full confidence in its robustness and credibility, not only because it was based on the expertise of EFSA and of the risk assessment bodies of 28 member states but also of additional agencies, such as the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
Greenpeace says it is a matter of concern that the expertise of the EU and of national authorities should produce a scientific opinion of such mediocre quality that 96 scientists feel the need to challenge it. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)