The European Food Safety Authority did not object on Thursday to the renewal of the authorization of glyphosate in the EU. “It is surprising that the European Health Security Agency continues not to look at the studies correctly”, answers this Friday the association Future Generations.
“You have to listen to Inserm, Madame Borne”launched on Friday July 7 on franceinfo François Veillerette, spokesperson for the association for the defense of the environment Future Generations and co-author of the book To put an end to pesticides, published in 2022 by Terre Vivante. Experts from the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) have given the green light to renew the authorization of glyphosate within the European Union. However, the National Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm) highlights the possible carcinogenic effects of this controversial herbicide.
>> Glyphosate: “We should not ban products because it makes three ecologists from the 8th arrondissement happy”, says farmer and former deputy Jean-Baptiste Moreau
“It is surprising that the European Health Security Agency continues not to look at the studies correctly”, did he declare. EFSA considers that glyphosate does not present any “critical area of concern” preventing the renewal of its authorization, but nevertheless observes several shortcomings and outstanding questions, which will “be taken into account by the European Commission and the Member States” at the next stage which will decide on its renewal. The current authorization for glyphosate runs until December 15.
franceinfo: Should we expect a favorable opinion to authorize glyphosate for an additional five years?
Francois Veillerette: It is extremely important to continue to highlight the weaknesses of this assessment in order to convince the States that glyphosate should not be reauthorized, in particular because, as Inserm points out, it is a product which has genotoxic effects, c that is, it has the ability to also lead to carcinogenic effects. It is now French public medical research at Inserm that says so, after the International Center for Research on Cancer. It is surprising that the European Health Security Agency continues not to look at the studies properly and not to look at all the science in order to be able to draw the same conclusions as Inserm. But we will endeavor to repeat it to the French government in the months to come.
On what basis do these European experts disavow the opinion of Inserm?
They just don’t look at science the same way. The experts from Inserm and the International Agency for Research on Cancer look at all the published university studies, sort them according to their quality, and then, based on the conclusions of the best studies, according to standards that are clear. and transparent, there are conclusions that are now clear on glyphosate. At the level of the health agencies, it does not work like that. There is an agency sorting system that is extremely unfavorable to university studies. Basically, out of over 7,000 academic studies of glyphosate toxicity at the end of the screening process, only 30 remain that are actually considered for evaluation. Compared to the number of studies provided by the industry, it weighs nothing. Suddenly, the scales for weighing the weight of scientific evidence lean mechanically on the side of industry studies. Which explains this completely radical difference of opinion.
Is there a risk that this pesticide ends up on our plate?
Yes. It can end up on the plates. There are things that are even more worrying in this Efsa report published yesterday. EFSA considers that there is no major point of concern. But there are data gaps which they themselves recognize. They recognize that the consumer risk assessment could not be finalized because the residue data in rotational crops were incomplete in the dossier. It is still quite surprising to be able to say that there is no major point of concern when the evaluation is not really finished because important data is missing.
Can lobbies influence the decision?
Obviously there is enormous pressure on glyphosate from the various agricultural industrial lobbies since it is the main pesticide. In France, it is about 12% of the pesticides sold. It’s an absolutely colossal market share. And it is also the technical keystone of the agro-industrial system, because it allows large areas to be weeded very quickly, efficiently and inexpensively. It helps maintain this system, which is based on the existence of very large farms now in France. The agro-industrial system clings to glyphosate because it allows it to survive at low prices. But normally the pesticide legislation is clear. We cannot market a product if there are undesirable effects on humans or on the environment, so we cannot approve them if we are not certain that all the points of uncertainty are lifted. However, in this report provided by EFSA, there are lots of points of uncertainty. And then there is this question of cancer which remains fundamental for us since for us, EFSA does not look at science correctly.
>> Glyphosate: Hundreds of Personalities Secretly Filed and Targeted Based on Their Support for Monsanto
What is the government’s position?
France’s position seems to be an alignment with EFSA’s opinion. Today we want to warn the French government, and Mrs Borne in particular, about the fact that this EFSA opinion is not satisfactory on a scientific level because it does not take into account the risk carcinogenic. That France and the government have confidence in its public medical research. We have to listen to Inserm, Madame Borne, that’s what we really want to tell her. Nor can we content ourselves with a report in which heaps of data on biodiversity or on human health are missing and look elsewhere, assuming that everything is fine. Wisdom and rationality today is to vote against stopping the registration of glyphosate for all these reasons.