The EU and the European Parliament’s special PEST Committee will not be ignoring the results of the Californian trial which, on 10 August, ordered Monsanto to pay around $289 million to the gardener Dewayne Johnson. Mr Johnson is a cancer victim, which he says was due to his exposure for a number of years to herbicides containing glyphosate, explained Éric Andrieu MEP (S&D, France), on Thursday 30 August in Brussels.
Whilst addressing the press, he expressed the same ideas, following the resumption of the work by the special PEST at the European Parliament (see EUROPE 12082). He is the chairperson of his body in charge of providing full disclosure on the European pesticide authorisation procedure, following the renewed controversy involving the EU glyphosate license in November 2017.
Addressing a group of journalists, he stated "for the first time, a court has reached a judgement on the Roundup. Even if the case law is not transferable from one continent to another and if Monsanto appeals, this trial makes it incumbent upon us to follow what happens in the US attentively, in the work carried out at the PEST Committee. The molecules authorisation protocol remains at the core of the subject and protecting health remains at the heart of our work. We have to be more attentive with regard to quality requirements in the report drafted by the two co-rapporteurs, Bart Staes [Greens /EFA, Belgium] and Norbert Lins [EPP, Germany]”. Mr Andrieu said that he trusted the quality of this report and insisted that “it involves human health, we do not have the right to compromise". He also said that the California trial was important because all the controversial scientific data and internal elements at Monsanto revealed that its practices had been analysed.
Although the sitting on 30 August focused on the comparative analysis of pesticide authorisation systems in the EU and other countries of the OECD (Australia, Canada and the US), “that sustain our work", Mr Andrieu said that he was disappointed about the withdrawal of one Californian representative.
Marylou Verder Carlos, a scientist and head of the department for pesticide regulation (DPR) at the California Environmental Protection Agency, which had given its agreement, withdrew on Sunday 26 August. Mr Andrieu said “I am very surprised. This undermines our work because the approaches of OECD countries are similar".
One source informed EUROPE that although the official reason for the withdrawal was because the agenda was excessive “it is suspected that pressure was being exerted at a US federal level".
Hearings finally went ahead with Chris Parker from the Australian regulatory authority, Richard Aucoin from the Canadian agency and Richard Keigwin from the Department of pesticides at the US environmental protection agency (EPA). The GUE/NGL political group was the only one to oppose the participation of the latter because it considered that a hearing of this party would not bring any added value, explained the chairperson of the special PEST Committee at the beginning of the work.
Angélique Delahaye (EPP, France), who was speaking on behalf of the co-rapporteur Norbert Lins, asked Mr Keigwin what were the specificities of the Californian agency in relation to the EPA. The US Representative explained that the Californian agency pursued a risk based approach and expected a second revision after the decision by the US government. He explained that sometimes it introduces specific conditions to take into account geographical conditions, which involved other risk management measures.
The co-rapporteur Bart Staes expressed doubts about the level of the US EPA’s independence “which changed its point of view according to the president in power”.
The draft report by the special PEST Committee will be submitted on 18 September for translation, before an exchange of views on 27 September. The cut-off date is 11 October for submitting amendments, before another exchange of views on 8 November and the vote on the report on 6 December at the special PEST committee.
With regard to the hearing planned for 24 September during a teleconference with Aimee H. Wagstaff, the US lawyer coordinating the class action from the US civil parties against Monsanto (see EUROPE 12082), Mr Andrieu said that he expected her to provide the PEST Committee with all the elements that had so far been obtained by the press.
Mr Andrieu indicated that “no member state had attacked the decision for renewing the authorisation of glyphosate in the EU but they could still prohibit glyphosate derived products”. The latter conceded to EUROPE that the recommendations from the report, despite being ambitious, would not change anything due to the fact that the active glyphosate substance is authorised for five years in the EU.
Greens organise complementary hearing on 5 September. This hearing will focus on the effects of pesticides on human health and the environment. It will be attended by the lawyers of the gardener, Mr Johnson. Speaking on behalf of the Greens/EFA, Michèle Rivasi from France, criticised the “difficulties there were at the PEST Committee in receiving experts that were critical about the shortcomings in the system”. She argued that these difficulties are illustrated by the surprise withdrawal of the Californian expert. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)