Brussels, 18/05/2016 (Agence Europe) - Glyphosate's license is due to expire on 30 June next. It will, however, have a lot more time ahead of it in the EU if member states follow the European Commission proposal to reauthorise its use for a further nine years without restrictions. This controversial molecule is the basic substance of Monsanto's Round Up herbicide, which is the most widely used herbicide in Europe. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the WHO, it is also probably carcinogenic to human beings. At the beginning of Wednesday evening 18 May, however, everything was still left to play for.
This proposal corresponds to the most recent casting of the text and was published several days ago (see EUROPE 11552 and1551). The European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, Vitenys Andriukaitis, presented it to his colleagues on Wednesday 18 May. The College of Commissioners described it as a "balanced compromise" between the initially proposed fifteen years and the seven years Parliament wanted, with substantial restrictions on its use (see EUROPE 11531), as well as the different points of view expressed by member states since their meeting on 8 March.
This draft Commission regulation was submitted afterwards to member state representatives at the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF Committee) as a means of gauging the views of national experts. The latter debated it at length on Wednesday afternoon with Commission services, which were eager to push forward on this dossier and see whether member states would assume their responsibility in committee procedures.
As we go to press, it was clear that the discussion would continue on Thursday 19 May, in view of going to vote on the same day but this could again be deferred, if no qualified majority is obtained in favour or against the Commission project.
On 8 March last, the Commission understood that it would be unable to obtain sufficient support from member states for a 15-year reauthorisation and no vote took place (see EUROPE 11507). Italy, France, the Netherlands and Sweden expressed their opposition and Germany announced that it intended to abstain.
The project on the table is based on the EFSA opinion of 2015, which believes that it is rather unlikely that glyphosate is carcinogenic and on the opinion by the FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) published on Tuesday 17 May, which stated that it is "unlikely that glyphosate presents a carcinogenic risk to human beings through diet". The Commission's draft regulation also calls on companies to provide proof before 1 August 2016 that glyphosate does not contain any endocrine interrupters and that if the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) establishes that glyphosate is an endocrine interrupter, the Commission would review its authorisation decision.
Irrespective of all this, France is still opposed. The Minister for Health, Marisol Touraine, clearly stated on Wednesday morning 18 May on the France Info radio station that "Our studies show that it is an endocrine interrupter. Other studies are expected in 2017. Whilst awaiting these new studies, we will not renew its authorisation".
What about the precautionary principle? Speaking at the European Parliament on Wednesday morning, Martin Haüsling (Greens/EFA, Germany), again urged the European Commission to "See reason and apply the precautionary principle, irrespective of what member state representatives decide". He was not happy with the fact that the Commission was ignoring the IARC's research results that clearly show a link with the risk of cancer. In a press release he stated, "The opinion that the WHO's pesticide committee has just delivered does not change anything. This was already made in this sense several years ago. Its opinion is based on risk, whereas in Europe, as soon as that there is a suspicion of damage to health, the precautionary principle must apply". He also accused the Commission of, "genuflecting in front of the agricultural industrial lobby" which is so much less understandable given that "glyphosate-free farming is possible, as proved by thousands of organic farmers in Germany and other parts of Europe".
Greenpeace echoed these sentiments and in a press release emphasised that the reauthorisation of glyphosate, even for a shorter period than the 15 years initially envisaged, did not protect citizens or the environment. It stated that "only significant restrictions or a full ban will do that". The NGO also calls for, "immediate glyphosate restrictions to limit human exposure" for citizens and workers who are most exposed. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)