Glyphosate Renewal Group rallies behind pesticide amid food security fears as EU prepares to vote

03 Oct 2023 --- Glyphosate supporters are fighting back against scientists and organizations that recently denounced the European Commission’s (EC) move to potentially reauthorize the weed-killing pesticide. 

Proponents of the reauthorization are responding to claims that the pesticide diminishes crop nutrients and may be toxic, reaffirming that glyphosate poses no critical concerns to human health and supports conservation agriculture.

Nutrition Insight speaks with a spokesperson from the EC’s department of public health and food safety, along with the Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG) and two of its members, Bayer and Nufarm Europe, about the veracity of these claims.

“The protection of human health and the environment are the very essence of the EU food safety rules,” says the EC spokesperson. “That is why the Commission is fully committed to ensuring that the approval of active substances in plant protection products such as glyphosate is based on the most recent scientific evidence and in strict compliance with EU law.”

A spokesperson for the Brussels-based GRG, the association of manufacturers that applied to the EC for the re-approval of glyphosate, tells us that calls to maintain the glyphosate ban represents, “a renewed attempt to discredit the scientific dossier submitted with the application for the renewal of the EU authorization of glyphosate and to undermine trust in the regulatory authorities in order to prevent the re-approval.”

EFSA and ECHA verdict 
GRG’s application to the EC was assessed by a group of four EU member states (France, Sweden, Hungary and the Netherlands) and the Assessment Group on Glyphosate (AGG).

In 2021, the AGG submitted its findings to the EU Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in the form of a draft Renewal Assessment Report (dRAR) and a CLH Report.

According to Brussel's EFSA and ECHA glyphosate is of no critical concern.

“On the basis of EFSA’s comprehensive assessment, which demonstrates that the impact of glyphosate on health does not raise any critical concerns, the EC can confirm that it is proposing to the member states to renew the approval of glyphosate under strict conditions. Examples of these conditions are the prohibition for pre-harvest use as a desiccant and the need for certain measures to protect non-target organisms,” the EC tells us.

Austria is one member state which has already indicated that it will vote against the proposal to re-approve glyphosate.

The recent draft legislation references EFSA and ECHA’s evaluation that glyphosate poses no “critical concern.”

“It is important to know that it is the most comprehensive and transparent assessment of a pesticide that EFSA and the EU member states have ever carried out, taking into account thousands of studies related to human and animal health and the environment, and involving dozens of scientists from EFSA and national authorities across Europe – they left no stone unturned,” the GRG tells us.

“The most recent EFSA assessment also included criticisms raised by NGOs as part of a public consultation. The assessment of the impact of glyphosate on the health of humans, animals and the environment did not identify critical areas of concern.” 

Scientific evidence
Last week, Tjerk Dalhuisen of the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe told us, “Most independent expert scientists agree that glyphosate has a very negative effect on health, biodiversity, soil life and water quality.”

The WHO further described glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015.

Addressing the statements made by Dalhuisen, as well by Chris Methmann, executive director of FoodWatch Germany and Eoin Dubsky of Ekō, GRG says, “The scientific dossier for the current approval process is more extensive than ever before, with more than 1,500 studies, including more than 100 new studies, and the evaluation of more than 12,000 scientific articles.”

“For nearly 50 years, leading health regulators around the world have repeatedly concluded that glyphosate-based products can be used safely, and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, not genotoxic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. This includes recent conclusions by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the AGG, the EFSA, the ECHA and the leading health authorities in Germany, Australia, Korea, Canada, New Zealand, and Japan.”

Glyphosate and the EU Green Deal
Responding to a statement given to us by Methmann at FoodWatch Germany, in which he questioned the EU Green Deal based on the EC’s decision to support the re-authorization of the chemical, Utz Klages, a spokesperson for the crop science division of Bayer, tells us that, “Glyphosate supports the EC’s climate change and biodiversity goals outlined in the European Green Deal.”

“Bayer welcomes the objectives of the EU Green Deal and supports the ambition to accelerate the transition toward an even more sustainable and resilient food system and enhanced biodiversity.”

Klages tells us that the chemical is not just inline with, but facilitates the EU Green Deal in two main ways. 

“Glyphosate enables efficient, safe, and sustainable integrated weed management programs and it enables conservation agriculture and carbon farming. To enable conservation agriculture in Europe, farmers must have the necessary tools to reduce tillage and manage cover crops.”

“No herbicide or combination of herbicides currently registered in Europe provide the same benefits as glyphosate in terms of reducing tillage, plowing and enabling cover crops,” he explains.Bayern tells Nutrition Insight that there is no real glyphosate alternative at present. 

“Maximizing yields in an environmentally sustainable manner is a major challenge for Europe’s agricultural sector. Agriculture’s ability to meet these challenges will depend on well-functioning and sustainably managed soils and water, and on maintaining biodiversity.” 

“Without glyphosate, weed control in the EU would be less effective. To produce the same yields, farmers would require more inputs, such as fertilizer and tillage, both of which are resource intensive and detrimental to climate change mitigation, and more agricultural land, leading to a loss of biodiversity.”

Member states will submit comments and then vote on the Commission’s proposal on October 12 and 13 in the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed meeting. 

 “A decision needs to be taken before the current approval of glyphosate expires on December 15, 2023,” says the EC spokesperson. 

By Milana Nikolova