The precautionary principle must prevail, insists the lawyer while the 27 are consulted again on Thursday on the question of renewing the authorization of glyphosate for ten years within the European Union.
“If we want, we can: agriculture was already producing before glyphosate existed”, pleads Thursday November 16 on franceinfo Me Guillaume Tumerelle, lawyer for rural law and agricultural issues, who defends several victims of the herbicide. Member States of the European Union must decide today on the renewal of the authorization of glyphosate for 10 years. For avocados, it is possible to find alternatives to this harmful product.
franceinfo: Scientific reports and associations point out the dangerousness of the herbicide, suspected of being carcinogenic and accelerating degenerative diseases. Are you one of those who consider it imperative to oppose this extension?
Guillaume Tumerelle: Quite. There are a very large number of scientific studies on this subject, there are fairly regular recognitions of occupational illnesses which demonstrate that these products cause illnesses. Glyphosate has been classified as a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is an organization dependent on the WHO. This was already the case during the last renewal and it shocked public opinion that a product classified as probable carcinogen by the WHO was reauthorized.
The Minister of Agriculture said on franceinfo that we have an independent agency, ANSES, which is not opposed to glyphosate. What do you answer him?
There is a problem with methodology and European regulations. It provides that when we renew or authorize an active substance, such as glyphosate, we must base ourselves on all the scientific studies which concern the active substance, but also all the products composed from this active substance. Today, the European Agency and the French Agency are ruling out all publications on the complete product, composed of part glyphosate and other substances that make the product up to 10,000 times more toxic. We only retain studies relating to the molecule alone, and therefore we exclude a large number of studies, particularly university ones, to concentrate only on industrial studies which only relate to the active substance, which in itself , is less toxic than the complete products that are on the market.
So we need to push the studies further, broaden them?
Exactly, moreover today, there is a judgment of the European Court which was rendered on October 1, 2019, which provides that the evaluations must take into account the cocktail effects, therefore the effects of the products with each other. the others, which is not the case today.
Defenders of glyphosate say that if you use this product by following the instructions, then there is no proven danger…
This is entirely debatable since today, you have dozens of recognitions of occupational illnesses, you have compensation commissions which are starting to compensate the victims, so if there are victims, it is good that there is a problem, it is not just people who have misused the products.
You point out a contradiction: in France, we compensate the victims, but we do not recognize a causal link with glyphosate?
The difficulty in France is that it is up to the victim to provide proof of the causal link, and at State level, there are insufficient studies, the products are undervalued. toxic. The expertise and the costs of the expertise relate to the victims.
For you, the precautionary principle should prevail?
Of course, it is provided for in the French Constitution and the European Constitution and the State must respect it.
Farmers say there are no alternatives?
There too, there are several positions. There have been studies on alternatives, notably by Inrae a few years ago, which demonstrate that there are many alternatives. Where there’s a will, there’s a way ; agriculture was already producing before glyphosate existed, this does not prevent exploitation.
Are there any possible remedies if glyphosate is renewed?
There are appeals which are unfortunately limited, before the Court of Justice of the European Union, which is quite closed to appeals from associations or individuals. But I am already mandated, by European deputies, associations, collectives, victims, to initiate this procedure, an appeal for annulment, if the reauthorization was pronounced.