Le Monde | • Updated | By
The European Commission announced Wednesday 1 st June press conference that it would propose a temporary reauthorization of glyphosate in Europe for eighteen months. The time for the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to decide on the dangers of the product.
Active ingredient of the famous Monsanto’s Roundup, the herbicide is at the heart of a controversy that has lasted more than a year and that the EU executive seems unable to extricate himself that leaving a firm decision until later. Because time: the authorization of glyphosate on European soil expires at the end of June
Read also:. The vote on the authorization of glyphosate in Europe was adjourned
on March 8, the Commission proposed a reauthorization of fifteen glyphosate, but the vote in the Standing Committee of Member States had not held a qualified majority of fault. The working version of a new proposal, for ten years at it, immediately began to circulate.
Slightly down, it did not prevent a further blow. On May 19, Brussels advancing a re-registration of nine, but again, no qualified majority was found, Sweden, France, the Netherlands and even Germany are not willing to vote favorably.
the provisional authorization of glyphosate proposal adopted by the Member States Monday, June 6, in permanent plant Committee, animals, food and feed. But if Brussels claims to have gathered a majority of member states about its latest proposal, nothing is yet certain about the outcome of the vote, a qualified majority is necessary … Otherwise, an appeal committee will be convened within days following
Read. Roundup: pesticide divides the European Union and WHO
the dithering of the Member States
But the deal looks uncertain enough that vytenis andriukaitis, the European Commissioner for health, recalls that Member States may, if they wish, prohibit or restrict their territory, the use of a plant protection product authorized at European level … at the risk, however, introduce a distortion of competition between European farmers.
on this theoretically technical file, but become explosive, Brussels has continued to undergo valse- reluctance of Member States. The European Parliament is also invited into the controversy by voting on April 13, a non-binding resolution, calling for a renewal of the miracle molecule limited to seven years, and accompanied by significant usage restrictions.
in February, it was the European Ombudsman that was highly critical of how certain pesticides Brussels authorizes the placing on the market, despite the absence of certain scientific data required by regulation … And two months ago, in December 2015 it was the Court of justice of the European Union condemning the EU executive for failing to regulate endocrine disrupting pesticides – able to interfere with the human hormone system and thus have deleterious effects below the thresholds deemed safe
Read. for European experts, glyphosate is safe
mines fields
The regulation of pesticides in Europe has become, in a few months, a dangerous minefield. Pesticide iconic – it is not only the most widely used and most frequently found in the environment – glyphosate began to crystallize tensions in March 2015. In the midst of the European risk re-evaluation of the substance, the International agency for research on cancer (IARC), the agency of the World health Organization (WHO) charge to inventory and classify carcinogens, classified the product as “probable carcinogen” to humans.
This paved thrown into the pond by IARC brought discredit on the process of European expertise, conducted by the European food safety Authority (EFSA). In November 2015, it concluded, in fact, unlike the IARC, the character “unlikely” for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, attracting the ire this time a part of the scientific community.
a hundred scientists academics published an article on March 3 vitriolic on European expertise accusing the latter a variety of shortcomings: trust in confidential studies of higher industry to that granted to academic studies published in scientific literature, non-application of certain principles of toxicology, etc.
This was followed by an exchange of acrimonious correspondence between Bernhard Url, the Executive Director of EFSA, and Christopher Wild, the IARC boss. So acrimonious that the bridges are now almost broken between the two agencies. – An unprecedented event in the recent history of scientific expertise
IARC, it is argued that the EFSA’s response contain factual errors and inaccuracies and indicated that further discussion is suspended for rectification
Read also:. Roundup, the herbicide divisive
Conflicts of interest of experts
the scientific controversy was not limited to the battle between EFSA and IARC. New twist on May 16 with the announcement of new results of expertise: according to the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), a group of common expert at the WHO and the United Nations Food and agriculture Organization (FAO), glyphosate does not pose carcinogenic risks for the population, “to the expected levels of exposure through diet.”
Las! NGOs ascend immediately niche, alleging conflicts of interest within the JMPR. In fact, it was chaired and co-chaired by two toxicologists also consultants to the International Life Science Institute (ILSI), a scientific lobby organization funded including agrochemical companies marketing glyphosate.
Read also: new expertise minimizes the effects of glyphosate
throughout this saga, civil society did not remain far behind. Taking advantage of the discord between experts, non-governmental organizations have been busy: polls showing the opposition of much of the European population in the reauthorization of glyphosate (nearly two-thirds, according to a survey by mid-April YouGov survey of the institute); urinalysis showing exposing the general population to glyphosate, etc. Complaints have been filed even in Paris, Berlin and Vienna, against European experts, accusing them of deception and endangering the lives of others …
Paying provisional authorization of eighteen months waiting to take a firm stand the opinion of a new agency experts – ECHA, including European REACH responsible – the Commission procrastinate to let the pressure drop. Therefore considerable pressure weighs on the ECHA, especially as the US Agency Environmental Protection (EPA) is also currently re-evaluating glyphosate, whose agrochemists ensure it is aujourd ‘hui the least problematic herbicide to health and the environment.
the future of the miracle molecule, controversial symbol of the dominant agricultural model, plays out in the coming months.
glyphosate, a leviathan of the crop protection industry
glyphosate is the Leviathan of the crop protection industry. Far from being the sole Roundup – the flagship product of Monsanto – it is a component of nearly 750 products sold by over 90 manufacturers, distributed in twenty countries … Global production has soared in recent years everywhere in the world, pulled up by the rapid adoption of corn and other transgenic soybeans “Roundup ready”.
600 000 tons in 2008, global glyphosate production increased to 650 000 tonnes in 2011, to 720 000 tonnes in 2012, according to data compiled by the International Agency for research on cancer (IARC). In the US, the amounts applied have been multiplied by 20 in the space of twenty years, from 4000 tonnes per year in 1987 to 80,000 tons in 2007.
In 2011, in a study published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , the US Geological Survey announced that it had detected glyphosate in three quarters of rainwater and air samples analyzed in an area of arable crops.
in France, it spreads by approximately 8000 tonnes per year. With its main degradation product, AMPA, it is the most frequently detected in rivers in France metropolitan product.
No comments:
Post a Comment