According to the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority, Bernhard Url, EFSA has made “a lot of progress in the transparency of risk assessment in the food chain” since its creation 20 years ago, but there is still a lot of work to be done to promote the ‘One Health’ approach - a priority for the future.
With these words, he took stock of the EFSA and looked ahead to the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on Tuesday 8 November. An opportunity for him to answer MEPs’ questions.
Glyphosate. On behalf of his Group, Günter Sidl (S&D, Austrian) (who replaces Simona Bonafé as coordinator, who has gone back to Italy), said that “a decision is needed” and called for the search for ecological alternatives to toxic pesticides. He therefore asked Mr Url about the progress of the deferred re-evaluation of this controversial pesticide, for which the Commission is now seeking a one-year renewal of authorisation (see EUROPE 13044/6). Mr Url reiterated that the evaluation group (France, Netherlands, Hungary, Sweden) had asked for an extension of the deadline, which he said was “legitimate” in view of the number of contributions received during the public consultation (see EUROPE 12950/14).
He indicated that EFSA had received the updated draft assessment in September and that the peer review process was currently underway. “We invite the experts from the Member States and since October we have been reviewing the different chapters, up until December. Afterwards, the Evaluation Group will carry out a further update and EFSA will carry out a new evaluation of glyphosate. This should be presented to the Commission by July 2023 at the latest”, he confirmed.
He added that EFSA would do a full assessment, not just of the intrinsic properties of the molecule, but also an assessment of the risks of exposure and the risks to the environment.
What about co-formulants? Jutta Paulus (Greens/EFA, German) asked whether EFSA had taken into account the synergies between co-formulants and the active substance glyphosate - “co-formulants that can make glyphosate and other pesticide active substances 1,000 times more toxic”, added France’s Michèle Rivasi, of the same Group.
According to Mr Url, the legislation requires EFSA to evaluate the active substance and a representative use in Europe, with a representative formulation, on the basis of available data.
“It would be good to ask for additional data when it is missing”, Mrs Paulus said. Unsatisfied with the response, Mrs Rivasi called on Mr Url “to take responsibility” if an authorisation is given by the Commission when EFSA “has not provided all the long-term data on all the pesticide products”.
New genomic techniques. To Mr Sidl, who was in favour of taking into account new genomic techniques (NGTs), Mr Url reminded the audience that a month ago EFSA published its scientific opinion stressing that “our tools and methodology are ready to evaluate NGTs as well”.
However, he clarified that the type of data that will be required for the risk assessment will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. “Whether more or less data will be required depends on the intervention in the genome. This is a risk management issue, not a scientific issue, because it is about the acceptable level of risk”, he said, passing the responsibility back to the Member States and the Commission.
Nitrates/nitrites in processed meat. Nathalie Colin-Oesterlé (EPP, French) expressed concern about nitrates and nitrites in charcuterie, which have been recognised as carcinogenic by both ANSES and the International Agency for Research on Cancer, although EFSA concluded in 2017 that existing safety levels were sufficient for these substances added to industrial meat. She asked whether EFSA had any initial results from its public consultation on nitrosamines and suggested a European action plan to reduce the use of these additives.
Bernhard Url replied that nitrosamines - metabolites in nitrates - were indeed a concern and needed to be addressed. He called for more research. Recalling that EFSA had just published a scientific opinion (see EUROPE 13041/10), he felt that the ball was in the Member States and the Commission’s court “to draw the consequences”. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)