The General Court of the European Union has annulled two decisions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that prevented the publication of studies on the toxicity and carcinogenicity of the active chemical glyphosate, a herbicide produced by Monsanto and licenced for five years at the end of 2017 (see EUROPE 11913/1), in two judgments delivered on Thursday 7 March (Cases T-716/14 and T-329/17).
In the first case (T-716/14), Mr Tweedale had requested in 2014 the publication of two toxicity studies used to determine the acceptable daily intake of glyphosate. In the second, four Greens/EFA MEPs called for access to parts of the glyphosate carcinogenicity studies (see EUROPE 11800/17), recalling that the International Agency for Research on Cancer had concluded in March 2015 that glyphosate was potentially carcinogenic.
These requests are based on the Regulation (1049/2001) on public access to documents and the Regulation (1367/2006) applying the Aarhus Convention to EU institutions and bodies.
In its judgment, the General Court ruled in favour of the complainants. In the General Court’s view, an institution of the Union, when receiving a request for access to a document, cannot justify its refusal to disclose it by claiming the protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person, when the information contained in that document constitutes information which " relates to emissions into the environment" within the meaning of the Aarhus Regulation.
In this case, there is a greater public interest in having access to this information.
The General Court examines to what extent the studies requested constitute "information relating to emissions into the environment". In particular, it notes that, in normal use, the active substance glyphosate is intended for release into the environment and is present as residues in plants, water and food.
EFSA cannot therefore argue that the studies requested do not cover actual emissions or the effects of actual emissions, the General Court concludes.
According to the General Court, the public must have access not only to information on emissions as such, but also to information on the more or less long-term consequences of these emissions on the state of the environment.
The notion of "information relating to emissions into the environment" therefore includes, according to the General Court information on emissions (nature, composition, quantity, date, location) as well as data on the more or less long-term environmental impacts of these emissions.
Since the requested studies constitute information which "relates to emissions into the environment", their disclosure is of overriding public interest, the Court emphasises, and EFSA could not therefore refuse to disclose them on the grounds that such publication would harm the commercial interests of their owners.
Describing these "historic" judgements as the culmination of a Europarliamentary mandate, Michèle Rivasi (Greens/EFA, France) said that the General Court's case law would make it possible to request all the documents on which the renewals of "pesticides", "biocides" and "any chemical substance that may have an impact on the environment in the broad sense" are based. She promised that all the studies requested would then be appraised in order to eventually lobby for a review of the licences granted.
The European Parliament and the Council of the EU recently reached agreement on a legislative reform aimed at increasing the transparency and sustainability of EFSA's scientific risk assessment of certain substances such as pesticides or food additives (see EUROPE 12192/19). (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)