Wednesday

16th Jan 2019

Opinion

The anti-glyphosate lobby strikes again

  • Activists 'sabotage' Monsanto's Roundup product with fake health warnings (Photo: Global Justice Now)

The current authorisation period for glyphosate in the EU comes to an end in December this year. But still no agreement on a renewal has been agreed upon.

What should really be a non-issue and a formality has turned into a total mess, since the anti-glyphosate lobby has mobilised on all fronts to hinder a renewal. It is a story about flawed science and scientists wearing two hats.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Support quality EU news

Get instant access to all articles — and 18 year's of archives. 30 days free trial.

... or join as a group

Glyphosate is the most commonly-used active substance in herbicides. It has revolutionised agriculture since it was developed in the 1970s. Today it is used in 140 countries and has increased crop yields for farmers all over the world, while at the same time the need for manpower has decreased alongside with CO2 emissions.

Still the Green group in the European Parliament, with substantial help from activist scientists, has continuously questioned the use of glyphosate, with the result that no agreement on a renewed authorisation has been reached.

You could of course oppose the use of glyphosate on ideological grounds, in the end politics is about values and depending on what values you prioritise you reach different political conclusions.

However, it is hypocrisy when the Greens try to dress up their purely ideological arguments in scientific reasoning.

Especially since the one scientific study the anti-glyphosate gang rely upon is doubtful, to put it mildly.

The study in question was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organisation cancer agency, and shows that glyphosate is probably cancerogenic.

Not only has the IARC findings been refuted repeatedly by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the German Institute for Risk Assessment and regulatory bodies all over the world, including in the US, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

Conflict of interest?

Later it was also revealed that the scientist in charge of the IARC evaluation was part of another research team, which, too, studied the link between glyphosate and cancer.

In the scientific data from that research no evidence of a link between cancer and glyphosate was found. IARC, however, takes into consideration only published research in its evaluations.

And as a coincidence the research was not published in time for the IARC evaluation and the scientist never mentioned the study's results for the IARC panel.

The scientist later said that if the scientific data from that study would have been included, it is less likely that IARC would classify glyphosate as "probably cancerogenic".

But it is does not end with that. Just a couple of days ago it was revealed that changes were made between the IARC draft report and the finalised published version.

Central sections of the draft were changed or deleted in the report that was later made public. Conclusions from multiple studies that showed no connection between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals were removed.

In other cases negative conclusions on the link between glyphosate and cancer were replaced with a positive or neutral one. When asked why that was the case IARC has not been able to give a sufficient answer. It is worth repeating: this is the only evaluation opponents to glyphosate refer to.

It is not the most solid case to say the least.

The IARC classification of glyphosate as probably cancerogenic has also been a key aspect of an ongoing trial in the US, where people accuse Monsanto, that the company's glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup has caused them cancer.

One might ask, why is this of interest in this context? It is of interest because one of the advisers of the IARC evaluation received no less than $160,000 from the law firms bringing claims by cancer victims against Monsanto.

'Activist' scientists

The same adviser has been one of the most activist scientists in the debate surrounding glyphosate. When he in a letter called on the European Commission to accept the IARC classification he did not declare his links to the law firms. The scientist thus tried to hide the fact that he was obviously wearing two hats - that do not match very well.

It has almost turned into a sport for the anti-glyphosate lobby to insinuate that politicians who are in favour of renewing the authorisation for glyphosate are either tricked by the industry or more likely paid by it. Of course, no evidence is provided. But the mere accusation is enough for most people to stay silent.

But if there is one thing the mess of the IARC evaluation and the Monsanto trials show, it is that the anti-glyphosate side do not play by the rules.

Really it should come as no surprise. When you lack proper arguments you get desperate and start not only to suspect the other side and the other side's intentions and motives, but also circumvent the rules yourself.

It is time to stop this nonsense. Feel free to oppose a renewal of glyphosate in the EU, but please argue for your sake in an honest and grown-up way. This issue is way too important both for millions of European farmers and for the environment to be treated like this.

Christofer Fjellner is a Swedish MEP with the EPP group

EU fails again to agree glyphosate renewal

Member states failed to agree on a licence renewal for weedkiller glyphosate. A new vote will take place before 22 November at the European Commission's appeal committee.

Focus

EU postpones decision on glyphosate

Member state representatives met on Wednesday to discuss a renewal of the licence of the controversial weedkiller. 'At the conclusion of the meeting, no vote was taken', the commission said.

Focus

Health MEPs want to phase out glyphosate by 2020

A committee resolution said the proposal to renew the glyphosate permit for a decade "fails to ensure a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment".

On Morocco, will the EU ignore its own court?

If the European parliament votes in favour of the new Morocco agreement without knowing that it complies with the European Court of Justice judgement, how can it demand that other countries respect international law and their own courts?

Trump's wall vs Europe's sea

Though we would never admit it, the only difference between Trump and the EU is we don't need a wall - because we're 'fortunate' enough to have the Mediterranean.

News in Brief

  1. British PM scrapes through no confidence vote
  2. Spanish PM calls for EU gender equality strategy
  3. Farage says bigger Brexit majority if second referendum
  4. Macron starts 'grand debate' tour after yellow vests protests
  5. Barnier: up to London to take Brexit forward
  6. Stimulus still needed, ECB's Draghi says in final report
  7. May's Brexit deal defeated by 230 votes
  8. German economy hit by global economic turbulence

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. International Partnership For Human RightsKyrgyz authorities have to immediately release human rights defender Azimjon Askarov
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersSeminar on disability and user involvement
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersInternational appetite for Nordic food policies
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNew Nordic Innovation House in Hong Kong
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Region has chance to become world leader when it comes to start-ups
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersTheresa May: “We will not be turning our backs on the Nordic region”
  7. International Partnership for Human RightsOpen letter to Emmanuel Macron ahead of Uzbek president's visit
  8. International Partnership for Human RightsRaising key human rights concerns during visit of Turkmenistan's foreign minister
  9. Nordic Council of MinistersState of the Nordic Region presented in Brussels
  10. Nordic Council of MinistersThe vital bioeconomy. New issue of “Sustainable Growth the Nordic Way” out now
  11. Nordic Council of MinistersThe Nordic gender effect goes international
  12. Nordic Council of MinistersPaula Lehtomaki from Finland elected as the Council's first female Secretary General

Latest News

  1. MEPs allow Draghi's membership of secretive bank group
  2. EU parliament backs Morocco deal despite row
  3. Barnier open to 'future relations' talks if UK red lines shift
  4. German spies to monitor far-right AfD party
  5. On Morocco, will the EU ignore its own court?
  6. UK parliament rejects May's Brexit deal in historic defeat
  7. EU suggests majority vote on digital tax by 2025
  8. MEPs redouble appeal on sexual harassment

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic design sets the stage at COP24, running a competition for sustainable chairs
  2. Counter BalanceIn Kenya, a motorway funded by the European Investment Bank runs over roadside dwellers
  3. ACCACompany Law Package: Making the Best of Digital and Cross Border Mobility,
  4. International Partnership for Human RightsCivil Society Worried About Shortcomings in EU-Kyrgyzstan Human Rights Dialogue
  5. UNESDAThe European Soft Drinks Industry Supports over 1.7 Million Jobs
  6. Mission of China to the EUJointly Building Belt and Road Initiative Leads to a Better Future for All
  7. International Partnership for Human RightsCivil society asks PACE to appoint Rapporteur to probe issue of political prisoners in Azerbaijan
  8. ACCASocial Mobility – How Can We Increase Opportunities Through Training and Education?
  9. Nordic Council of MinistersEnergy Solutions for a Greener Tomorrow
  10. UNICEFWhat Kind of Europe Do Children Want? Unicef & Eurochild Launch Survey on the Europe Kids Want
  11. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Countries Take a Stand for Climate-Smart Energy Solutions
  12. Mission of China to the EUChina: Work Together for a Better Globalisation

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us