The extension of the approval of glyphosate in the EU remained unresolved following a vote by Member State representatives on Friday 13 October within the Standing Committee on Plants, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF).
The Member States are divided and failed to achieve the qualified majority required (at least 15 countries representing 65% of the EU population) to approve or reject the European Commission’s proposal to authorise use of the active substance in the most widely used and highly controversial total herbicide (see EUROPE 13254/1) for a further 10 years. This result was expected (see EUROPE 13269/10).
Austria, Luxembourg and Croatia voted against the proposal. Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Bulgaria abstained.
The Commission has therefore decided to convene an appeal committee at ministerial level in mid-November, which will also have to decide by qualified majority. If the result is the same, “the Commission will have to decide for itself”, Health and Food Safety spokesman Stefan de Keersmaeker told the press.
At the appeal committee meeting, the same proposal - namely the one marginally amended on 5 October to reduce the volume of spraying near small mammals - will again be presented to the Member States. However, “there will be an opportunity to continue the dialogue in order to arrive at a text on which the Member States can agree”, added the spokesman.
Why present the same proposal? “Because a decision has to be taken by 14 December at the latest, as the current authorisation expires on 15 December”, he explained.
Asked why the Commission is ignoring the recognition this month by the French courts (victims’ compensation fund) of the link between a teenager’s birth defect and his mother’s exposure to glyphosate when she was pregnant with him, he replied: “I cannot comment on individual cases. Our proposal is based on a multitude of scientific studies provided by companies and independent bodies”.
France considers the Commission’s proposal unacceptable due to the lack of restrictions on use (with the exception of the ban on pre-harvest desiccation), and believes that the lack of data reported by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) itself, particularly with regard to the impact on biodiversity, due to a lack of methodology, and the long-term effects on mammals, are all “grey areas” that justify the need at European level to “restrict the use of glyphosate wherever possible”, when non-chemical alternatives exist, explained centre-right MEP Pascal Canfin (Renew Europe, French) ahead of the vote.
“Germany’s abstention is the fault of the FDP (German Liberals), which is once again deliberately breaking the coalition agreement (of the German federal government: editor’s note). In so doing, it is ignoring human health, which is threatened by glyphosate, and showing that it has completely failed to understand the consequences of the gradual extinction of species”, said Jutta Paulus MEP (Greens/EFA, German), once again calling on the Member States to vote against the proposal on the table in the name of the precautionary principle.
She went on to point out to the press that “a ban on glyphosate - which kills all green plants and many micro-organisms - would make it possible to achieve the objectives of the ‘SUR’ regulation” on the sustainable use of pesticides, “which is of such concern to farmers”.
The Greens/EFA in the European Parliament, like the health and environmental NGOs that are campaigning strongly against the Commission’s proposal (see EUROPE 13268/19, 13259/7), welcomed Friday’s vote as a sign that glyphosate could still be banned.
According to the NGO PAN Europe (Pesticide Action Network), this vote “does right to the concerns of a majority of Europeans about the impact of pesticides on health and the environment” (see EUROPE 13255/15).
It added: “A wide range of independent scientists have expressed their concerns and their studies show the serious negative effects of glyphosate use. Re-approval of glyphosate breaches the EU pesticide law, under which health and environment should come first. In case of doubt, the precautionary principle must be invoked”.
The largest farming union, Copa-Cogeca , on the other hand, deplored in a press release that “once again, despite the conclusions of both EU agencies that carried out the assessment, we have witnessed a media-political shuffle, far removed from the aspirations of the European Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen to depolarise agricultural debates” and called on the Member States to assume their responsibilities.
According to Copa-Cogeca, there is currently no equivalent alternative to the total herbicide and, “without glyphosate, soil conservation would be rendered complex, leaving farmers with no solutions”.
The Commission’s proposal: https://aeur.eu/f/91o (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)