The political debate on the possible renewal of glyphosate authorisation before mid-December promises to be virulent in the run-up to the European elections in June 2024. This was reflected in the split between left and right late on Tuesday afternoon 18 July, when the EFSA orally presented its conclusions in favour of renewing the authorisation of this controversial pesticide to the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), reading the press release published on 6 July (see EUROPE 13217/7).
Reiterating that there is no “area of critical concern”, and stressing that there is a lack of data to finalise several points, in particular the impact on biodiversity, EFSA Executive Director Bernhardt Url pointed out that the decision rests “with the risk managers” - the European Commission and the Member States.
“This is by far the most comprehensive and transparent assessment of a pesticide that EFSA and the Member States have ever carried out, given the thousands of studies relating to animal and human health and the environment, involving 100 scientists from EFSA and the Member States throughout the EU”, he said. He added: “The peer review was also supported by unprecedented participation in public consultations and comments from Member States”.
Ahead of the criticisms already levelled by the NGO network PAN Europe (see EUROPE 13224/11) and by concerned MEPs, Mr Url pointed out that the conclusions, communicated to the Commission and the Member States on 6 July, had not been communicated to the public because the applicant for authorisation “may request protection of personal data and trade secrets”. The information sheet and press release issued to the public on the same day were, in his view, a response to “a concern for transparency”.
He confirmed that the conclusions should be published at the end of July and that the reference documents, “which comprise around 20,000 pages”, would be published “in mid-August, once the confidentiality procedure has been completed”.
The draft renewal report, which has already been sent to the Member States, should give them the opportunity to comment. A draft Regulation will then be submitted to the Standing Committee (ScoPAFF), “probably in mid-September”, and the vote is scheduled for October. “This tight timeline is necessary, because we are required to take a decision on renewal or non-renewal before 15 December” to avoid a further extension.
Klaus Berend, Head of Unit ‘Pesticides and Biocides’ at the European Commission (DG Health) said: “We have carefully analysed EFSA’s assessment and found that there is no reason not to propose a renewal of glyphosate. No major areas of concern have been identified by EFSA and the issues identified by Mr Url as outstanding can still be addressed through appropriate risk mitigation measures and through the conditions that may be set out in the renewed authorisation”.
He assured that the Commission is “committed to proposing a decision that guarantees the protection of health and the environment, which are fundamental principles of the ‘Pesticides’ Regulation” (Regulation 1107/2009 governing the market authorisation of plant protection products).
Satisfaction on the right. Alexander Bernhuber (EPP, Austrian) welcomed this favourable assessment. “A week ago, we were criticised in plenary (of Parliament: Editor’s note) for not basing the Nature Restoration Law on scientific facts. And now our own authorities have analysed 180,000 pages of files, and 90 scientists have worked on them. They arrive at a result that will be delivered to us. And now we don’t even believe in our own institutions!”, he ironized. In his view, glyphosate could be “an ally in the fight against soil erosion”.
Sylvia Limmer (ID, German) is equally satisfied, “on behalf of farmers and scientific facts”.
Emma Wiesner (Renew Europe, Swedish) “welcomed this assessment”, stressing “the importance of a vote before the end of October to put an end to uncertainty for farmers”.
Concern on the left. Left-wing MEPs were alarmed by this “rush”, calling for the precautionary principle to be applied to protect health and the environment and restore public confidence. Günther Sidl (S&D, Austrian) asked: “wouldn’t it be in our interest to do so rather than expose ourselves to criticism?”, referring to “conflicts of interest between national interests and commercial interests, which must be avoided”.
“I understand that EFSA will not make the decision, but please provide us with the information as quickly as possible”, added Marie Arena (S&D, Belgian), otherwise Parliament will not have all the data before October. “Perplexed”, she referred to “hundreds of scientific studies that have not been taken into consideration and which demonstrate the potential risks of the effects of glyphosate: neurotoxic risks, but also cancer risks”.
Michele Rivasi (Greens/EFA, French) pointed out that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had already concluded that glyphosate was carcinogenic. She pointed out that patients in the United States had been compensated during the Monsanto trial. “Do not renew the authorisation! It’s up to us to find innovative solutions to replace glyphosate!”, she implored.
How can EFSA consider an area of concern to be critical when it relates to all uses of glyphosate, Germany’s Jutta Paulus (Greens/EFA) was outraged, criticising “a misleading definition for neophytes” when EFSA recognises risks to mammals for 12 out of 23 uses.
For Christophe Clergeau (S&D, French), “the lack of data to finalise is, on the contrary, in itself an area of critical concern”.
See the information sheet published by EFSA: https://aeur.eu/f/85v (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)