Brussels, 13/01/2016 (Agence Europe) - The response from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to scientific criticism of its opinion on the pesticide glyphosate was not long in coming, published as it was on Wednesday 13 January. It had to be swift, as European Health and Food Safety Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis announced on 5 January (see EUROPE 11461).
EFSA, which stood accused by Swiss professor Christopher J. Portier of delivering a “biased and misleading” scientific opinion in concluding, like the German BfR, that glyphosate was “probably not carcinogenic”, vigorously defended itself in a letter signed by Bernd Url, EFSA executive director, on Wednesday 13 January with a point-by-point response to the professor's criticisms.
Portier wrote a vitriolic open letter, dated 27 November 2015, addressed to Commissioner Andriukaitis and signed by another 96 scientists from the international community. His criticism was all the more sharp as he had been involved in the earlier report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which had concluded that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic” (see EUROPE 11443).
In rebutting the criticism, EFSA advances the following main arguments:
- EFSA carried out an open and transparent assessment. Refuting the claim that EFSA did not apply the criteria of openness and objectivity in its evaluation, Url states that EFSA met all the statutory requirements, in cooperation with member states and experts and in carrying out public consultations. All who took part, with the exception of Sweden, concluded that it is unlikely that glyphosate presents a carcinogenic risk for humans.
- The IARC assessment was only a first step, compared with EFSA's more comprehensive evaluation conducted within the framework of a peer re-appraisal (that is to say, by the member states, apart from Germany, the reporting member state and EFSA) of the assessment of glyphosate. According to the WHO itself, the IARC assessment could be seen as a first step in evaluating carcinogenic risks that national and international authorities should take into account when conducting their own assessments. “However, we should not compare this first screening assessment with the more comprehensive hazard assessment done by authorities such as EFSA, which are designed to support the regulatory process for pesticides in close cooperation with the Member States in the EU”, states EFSA, pointing out that it is an international authority;
- Glyphosate is not the first chemical where there has been a difference between the IARC screening and the final comprehensive assessment by regulatory bodies. “If you compare IARC categorisations with the EU harmonised classifications, you will find substances with equivalent classifications and others with different classifications”, Url notes.
- The EU regulatory system for pesticides, of which EFSA's assessment of glyphosate forms a part, is “widely regarded as one of the strictest in the world” and risk assessments carried out by EFSA have, since 2003, identified potential concerns for human health and the environment. This has “allowed the Commission and member states to establish requirements for the safe use of pesticides in Europe” and has led to “the removal from the EU market of more than 40 active substances and their corresponding formulations”, EFSA highlights, citing the example of the partial moratorium, decided in May 2013 (see EUROPE 11465 and 10852), on the use in the EU of three neonicotinoid pesticides that are harmful to bees.
- EFSA and IARC will have the opportunity to debate the differences between their respective assessments at a joint conference that they arranged to hold at the start of this year to discuss the different evidence and different methodologies used.
While the response by Andriukaitis to Portier was rather brief, the Commission leaving it to EFSA to defend its own work, the EFSA response was supported by an 18-page scientific annex. In addition to Professor Portier, copies of the response were sent by email to Commissioner Andriukaitis, Agriculture Commissioner Phil Hogan, Director General and Deputy Director General at the European Commission DG Health Xavier Prats Monné and Ladislav Miko, Chair of the European Parliament agriculture committee Giovanni La Via, German Federal Minister of Food and Agriculture Christian Schmidt, BvL President Helmut Tschiersky, BfR President Andreas Hensel, Director of IARC Christopher Wild and Assistant Administrator at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Jim Jones. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)