EU authority sees no unacceptable dangers of glyphosate Inspired by “Star Wars”: Queen’s failed assassin wanted to create new empire

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) does not see any unacceptable dangers in the debate about extending the authorization of the controversial herbicide glyphosate. However, it pinpoints data gaps in several areas.

According to an assessment published Thursday by the Parma, Italy-based authority, the risks are not so great that further approval should be banned, but there are still open questions.

The aspects that have not been definitively clarified include nutritional risks to consumers and the assessment of the risks to aquatic plants, as announced by Efsa. Also with regard to species protection, the available information does not allow clear conclusions.

Detailed analysis will follow at the end of the month

The authority initially only published a notice. The full analysis is expected to follow at the end of this month.

In addition, no so-called critical bottlenecks for humans, animals or the environment have been identified in the risk assessment. A problem is defined as “critical” when all proposed uses of glyphosate are “affected” and may have adverse effects on human or animal health.

According to the information, the proposed uses include application of the active substance before sowing or after harvesting. A total of 23 proposed applications have been investigated. In view of glyphosate’s environmental harm, “a high long-term risk to mammals was identified” for 12 of the 23 proposed uses, Efsa said.

According to the agency, any adverse effects on human or animal health would need to be determined for all 23 proposed uses for it to be considered a critical issue preventing approval. The communication does not explain why the authority uses this definition.

harsh criticism

According to Guilhem de Seze, head of the responsible department, the risk assessment is the result of the work of dozens of scientists from EFSA and the EU Member States in a three-year process.

Nevertheless, there is harsh criticism: The Munich Environmental Institute accuses Efsa of relying unilaterally on industry-funded studies that confirm glyphosate’s harmlessness. The environmental institute described the conclusions as “questionable”. It is incomprehensible that Efsa has not identified any critical problem areas.

Glyphosate manufacturer Bayer, on the other hand, was pleased with Efsa’s results. “This latest scientific conclusion lays the foundation for the successful re-registration of glyphosate in the EU,” it said. It is in line with the assessments of leading health authorities.

Approval until mid-December

Glyphosate is allowed throughout the EU until December 15. Taking into account the EFSA results, the European Commission will develop a proposal for further approval. The agriculture ministers of the EU countries then decide whether to allow the farm again.

Unlike the European Chemicals Agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had come to a review that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. Critics of the weed killer also refer to this.

contradictions

“The European Food Safety Authority’s new assessment of glyphosate contradicts the assessment by the World Health Organization and numerous scientific studies,” said Federal Director of German Environmental Aid, Jürgen Resch.

Glyphosate manufacturer Bayer rejects the suspicion that the weed killer is carcinogenic and points to several studies – including a statement from the US Environmental Protection Agency EPA.

Furthermore, a glyphosate review group within the EU – consisting of France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary – concluded that classification of the substance as a carcinogen was not warranted.

Still, the federal government wants to ban glyphosate from next year. “We will remove glyphosate from the market at the end of 2023,” says the coalition agreement between SPD, Greens and FDP. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture said that the extension of the herbicide’s authorization was not justified because the effects on biodiversity were not taken into account.

Glyphosate “undoubtedly harms biodiversity as part of our natural resources, which are the essential foundation of sustainable and resilient agriculture.” At the end of 2022, the European Commission extended the approval of glyphosate for another year. (sda/awp/dpa)