Glyphosate: Europe could authorize it again

The German giant Bayer, which bought Monsanto in 2018, has always disputed the carcinogenic risk of its herbicide Round Up.

Robyn Beck / AFP

Text by: Agnès Rougier

4 min

After provisional authorization given in 2017, glyphosate, a controversial herbicide marketed under the name Round Up in particular, could be re-authorized in the European Union at the end of 2022, on the basis of a preliminary assessment, on which the NGO Génération Futures looked into it and found many flaws, which cast doubt on the objectivity of the renewal report. 

Advertising

Read more

After the publication of the

Monsanto Papers

, glyphosate had received provisional authorization from the European Union until 2022. Four member states, Hungary, Sweden, the Netherlands and France, have since been mandated to publish a report of “ renewal ”- RAR, Renewal Assessment Report - bringing together scientific and industrial studies.

The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) - must now in turn examine the dossier to

express their opinions

.

A report with biased conclusions

The preliminary findings of the RAR report affirm that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic to reproduction, and is not an endocrine disruptor.

But the studies on which the report is based would be, according to

the observations of the NGO Générations Futures

, questionable.

First, the selection of relevant scientific studies raises questions: this is done first by an evaluation of the title and the abstract, on the basis of key words: toxicity, ecotoxicity, and endocrine disruptors, before being read.

A second reading stage then judges the reliability of the studies.

However, out of 7,188 studies presented at the outset, originating from scientific articles, but also from studies produced by industry, 30 were considered reliable, relevant and useful for the evaluation, which represents 0.4%.

The majority of studies were therefore eliminated.

A selection process called into question 

Out of 1,550 toxicology studies, 881, or 57%, were deemed irrelevant after the first selection and after reading, only 11 were ultimately retained.

Out of 1,614 ecotoxicity studies, 11 were also selected and the rate is even lower on the effects of endocrine disruption where only four studies out of 4,024 were finally taken into account.

First of all, an initial bias: the RAR report indicates at the beginning that " 

any publication dealing with a formulation of Round Up which is not the representative formulation of the renewal file

 " will not be taken into account.

However, the formulation of glyphosate is confidential, therefore all the studies which relate to glyphosate mixed with other substances - “co-formulants” allowing in particular better penetration of glyphosate - have been eliminated, and there is no way compare the formulations and their relative toxicity.

Discriminating criteria

Genetic toxicity studies, which do not relate to mammals, were also rejected, and in particular, studies on fish are known to be relevant in this area.

The studies carried out in Asia and South America were also disqualified from reading the summary, because " 

the conditions would not be comparable to Europe

 ", denounces Générations Futures in its report.

Finally, studies examining the effects of glyphosate at the cellular and molecular level were not taken into account because they “ 

cannot be linked to the risk assessment 

”.

Each study from the scientific literature has been the subject of an evaluation table of reliability criteria, which is not the case for studies by industrialists, whose reliability comes down to writing that they were conducted. in compliance with " 

good laboratory practices

 ", according to the OECD guidelines.

An opaque method

For Générations Futures, it therefore seems that studies in the scientific literature were the subject of a much more severe evaluation than those in the industry: in the end, 92% of university studies were deemed irrelevant. The scientific literature published on the toxicity and ecotoxicity of glyphosate could not therefore influence the opinion of the evaluators.

The report of the NGO (

to consult here

) affirms that " 

the quality of the studies of the industry, in particular the studies of genotoxicity - on DNA -, show significant methodological flaws calling into question their reliability

 ", that there is a general vagueness in the definition of the selection criteria and that the evaluation method is neither transparent nor reproducible: “ 

We have the impression of having a two-speed system, as if we wanted to promote industry studies

 ", declares its president François Veillerette," 

which would tend to show that EFSA agrees in advance with what the manufacturers have produced

 ".

A new homologation in perspective

The NGO Générations Futures will report its remarks and conclusions within the institutional framework of the only possible dialogue, namely the public consultation which is underway, which lasts two months and will end on November 22.

Then the renewal report can be amended.

Then ECHA - the European Chemicals Agency - will intervene for the classification of the product, and finally EFSA - the European Food Safety Authority - will make its final report before the end of 2022.

And finally, Member States will vote on whether or not to register glyphosate.

Newsletter

Receive all international news directly in your mailbox

I subscribe

Follow all the international news by downloading the RFI application

google-play-badge_FR

  • European Union

  • Pollution

  • Agriculture and Fishing

  • our selection