Friday

17th Sep 2021

Opinion

Glyphosate renewal is a Pyrrhic victory for Monsanto

  • EU citizens petitioned against the continued use of glyphosate, amid disputed evidence on whether the chemical was carcinogenic (Photo: GLOBAL 2000/ Christopher Glanzl)

The final stage of the glyphosate saga epitomises the outer limits of the EU regulatory framework and the contested nature of its scientific decision-making.

How can the decision upon the future of an herbicide realistically escalate to the level of heads of state and government - with President Macron defiantly declaring that France won't respect the decision? In the aftermath of the adoption of such a decision, one may wonder who actually won the glyphosate war?

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

Much of the current furore around the decision to maintain on the market the use of glyphosate vanishes when is checked against some basic factual, legal and policy considerations.

First, contrary to what the industry representatives expected only a few months ago, glyphosate hasn't been renewed for 15 years – as foreseen by the relevant EU regulation – but merely for a five-year term.

After years of campaigning by NGOs and citizens about its alleged harmful health effects, as substantiated by the four million signatures collected by the European Citizen Initiative (ECI) Stop Glyphosate supported by WeMove and Avaaz, no decision-maker could turn a blind eye to such concerns.

This suggests that what has largely been depicted as an industry's win may soon reveal a Pyrrhic victory. The limited duration of the reauthorisation is set to further stigmatise the substance in the eyes of the public thus incentivising the industry search for alternatives. In other words, glyphosate lives on borrowed time.

Second, after struggling to win member state support for the licence's renewal under the EU Pesticide Regulation, it is not the EU Commission but a majority of EU member states who took their responsibilities and voted to reauthorise the herbicide.

Germany switches sides

This was largely unexpected as until a few hours ago the Commission was unable to obtain the required majority (16 countries representing 65% of the population). The game-changer was Germany who – as the talks with the anti-pesticide Greens fell apart in the formation of its new government – ultimately voted in favour of renewal.

Third, in the aftermath of the vote, some countries who opposed re-authorisation, such as France and Italy, publicly proclaimed that they will suspend the authorisation of the substance in their territories.

While this will put them in conflict with EU law, this rebellious stance will further weaken the political and legal agreement enshrined in the forthcoming reauthorisation decision.

The very same countries, acting under the pressure of public opinion, may even decide to challenge that decision before EU courts by arguing inter-alia that it failed to take into account the precautionary principle.

Fourth, to further weaken the support for the measure, one may realistically expect that civil society groups, including the ECI citizen committee, may challenge both the EU re-authorisation before EU Courts and the national implementing measures before national courts. The last word on the future and safety of the substance belongs to EU Courts.

When examined under this perspective, the glyphosate story allows us to not only depart from the cliche depiction of EU decision-making as a win-or-lose dynamic, but also to better understand the new, growing interactions between the democratic participatory mechanisms, such as ECI, and the day-to-day EU decision-making.

This is the space that will determine the incipient, transnational political space that will be shaping the EU's future.

Alberto Alemanno is Jean Monnet professor of EU Law at HEC Paris and founder of The Good Lobby

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

The anti-glyphosate lobby strikes again

Opponents of glyphosate too often rely on one - contested - piece of research, or smear their opponents as stooges for the chemicals industry.

Investigation

The most dangerous pesticide you've never heard of

Scientists say there is no acceptable dose to avoid brain damage. Its use is banned in several European countries. Yet its residues are found in fruit baskets, on dinner plates, and in human urine samples from all over Europe.

Fast fashion vs. climate - how 'repair & resell' is the new model

With the drive for lower prices and emergence of more and more 'fast-fashion' brands, durability is inevitably compromised. However, through new regulation, selling durable products shall no longer be a design option - it will be a legal requirement.

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNATO Secretary General guest at the Session of the Nordic Council
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersCan you love whoever you want in care homes?
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersNineteen demands by Nordic young people to save biodiversity
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersSustainable public procurement is an effective way to achieve global goals
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Council enters into formal relations with European Parliament
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersWomen more active in violent extremist circles than first assumed

Latest News

  1. MEPs suspect Gazprom manipulating gas price
  2. Fast fashion vs. climate - how 'repair & resell' is the new model
  3. Right of reply: Erik Bergkvist, S&D MEP and shadow rapporteur
  4. EU Commission blocks anti-fraud funds without explanation
  5. Centre-right MEPs abstain on gender-violence vote
  6. World off track to meet climate targets, despite Covid-19
  7. EU to call out Russian aggression at Kyiv summit
  8. EU urges member states to better protect journalists

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us