Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe and its members ClientEarth, Générations Futures, GLOBAL 2000, Pesticide Action Network Germany and Pesticide Action Network Netherlands have challenged the European Union’s approval of glyphosate before the European Court of Justice.
The organizations have presented a robust scientific and legal analysis to the European Court of Justice, highlighting serious shortcomings in the assessment of glyphosate in Europe, including that the Commission and EU’s scientific agencies either systematically excluded critical scientific studies reporting adverse effects caused by glyphosate, using scientifically unsound arguments, or downplayed these effects by applying, for example, less sensitive and inappropriate statistical methodologies.
According to the NGOs, in doing so, the EC and EFSA violated their own guidelines and international protocols and their conclusion that glyphosate is safe is scientifically unfounded and results from a risk assessment that does not comply with key legal requirements. Therefore, the NGOs are requesting for the Court’s intervention.
The widely used herbicide has been linked to serious health and environmental risks, including cancer, reproductive disorders and neurological diseases. Being re-approved for 10 years, it will continue to be used extensively across Europe. European citizens, including children, remain widely exposed to this substance.
In January 2024, the NGOs requested the Commission to review its decision to re-approve glyphosate until 2033, as it fails to comply with the provisions of the EU law and particularly Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. The legislation gives priority to the protection of human health and the environment over placing pesticides products on the market, as it was previously highlighted by the EU court.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Our Your Long-Term Exposure
In response, the Commission formally rejected the request for review in September 2024. Now the NGOs are officially filing a challenge in Court.
“The EU scientific agencies are bending the rules to conclude that glyphosate is safe. Numerous scientific studies, including from the industry itself, clearly link it to serious adverse effects, such as cancer and potentially neurological diseases,” says Angeliki Lysimachou, head of science and policy at PAN Europe.
“By intentionally using less sensitive statistical methods, dismissing critical scientific evidence, and overlooking groundbreaking cancer research, the EU is failing in its duty to protect public health. We cannot stay silent on this issue -it is a matter of safeguarding the health of current and future generations.”
The NGOs focused on what they identified as the most significant failings in the EU’s risk assessment of glyphosate. Their analysis reveals an incomplete evaluation of the representative formulation used in European fields, lacking long-term toxicity, carcinogenicity, and cumulative effects. They also explain the dismissal of peer-reviewed evidence in favor of industry-funded studies downplaying evidence on genotoxicity, neurotoxicity and environmental impacts. Furthermore, the NGOs show how the EU assessment is disregarding glyphosate’s impacts on biodiversity and the microbiome and the related health implications. These findings together demonstrate the clear violation of the precautionary principle by approving glyphosate despite significant uncertainties and knowledge gaps.
Antoine Bailleux, the NGOs coalition’s lawyer, comments: “It is legitimate for the Commission to enjoy some leeway when managing risks related to the approval of active substances used in pesticides. However, there are limits to such a discretionary power. It is well-established case-law that the risk assessment must, for instance, comply with the principles of excellence, transparency and independence. We believe that the evaluation of glyphosate has not lived up to these quality standards. This is why we are going to Court.”
Within their analysis of the EU risk assessment of glyphosate, the organizations bring to the Court the following important findings:
- Concerns raised by neurotoxicity experts have been ignored. Letters obtained by PAN Europe through an access-to-documents request reveal that scientists had warned the European Commission, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of glyphosate’s potential links to Parkinson’s disease [Letter 1] and developmental neurotoxicity – relevant for autism, and cognitive deficiencies in children [Letter 2]. The letters criticise EU authorities for failing to disprove these risks.
- The Commission and the European Chemicals Agency in their reply, rely heavily on the cancer analysis by Kenny Crump, a private consultant with a history of defending industries linked to lead, asbestos, and benzene. Crump dismisses all glyphosate-induced tumors as “false positives,” trying to undermine the credibility of the assessment by other scientists including those from the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
- Statistical ‘manipulation’: It is often said that the devil is in the details. This could not be more true in the case of glyphosate. EU risk assessors employed statistical tests in glyphosate cancer studies designed to examine potential therapeutic effects, lowering the power of the test. Professor of Environmental Biology Geert de Snoo (Leiden University, research director at the Royal Dutch Academy of Science and former member of the Dutch pesticide authority Ctgb) recently called this “bad science” and “poor statistics”. EU risk assessors also chose an approach that is not designed to examine dose-response increases in tumours in glyphosate-exposed animals, further skewing results in favour of glyphosate.
- IARC, in its recommendations for priorities for 2025–2029, revised the recent scientific literature on glyphosate and cancer and concluded that the “existing evidence does not appear to support a change in classification”. As a result, the classification as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ remains, while the ECHA refused this classification, building its decision on what can be described as “manipulated” data.
Background:
Glyphosate has been a source of controversy since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified it as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015. Under EU law, pesticides with this hazard classification should be banned from use. However, the EU’s 2017 and 2023 risk assessments concluded that glyphosate poses no significant health risks, allowing it to remain one of the most widely used herbicides in Europe and worldwide.
This discrepancy drove several experts and scientists to investigate the toxicity of glyphosate and the assessment carried by the EU agencies and IARC. The shortcomings of the assessment have been exposed on several occasions.
This legal challenge follows growing public and scientific criticism of the EU’s risk assessment process. In 2023, the Commission renewed glyphosate’s approval for 10 years despite widespread concerns and a failure to meet the high standards required by EU law on pesticides. After receiving an unsatisfactory response to their internal review request in September 2024, the coalition of six NGOs decided to escalate their fight to the European Court of Justice.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
