A new scientific analysis concludes that the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) claim that glyphosate is not genotoxic cannot be justified on the basis of manufacturers’ studies. Of the fifty three industry-funded studies used for the EU’s current authorization of glyphosate, thirty four were identified as “not reliable”, seventeen as “partly reliable” and only two studies as “reliable” from a methodological point of view.
Several civil society organizations from the successful European Citizen Initiative (ECI) “Stop Glyphosate” are calling on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to take into account these new findings in the new authorization procedure of glyphosate, which are very worrying from an environmental and health point of view.
Genotoxicity studies indicate the risk of cancer and reproductive damage posed by a chemical. Public authorities that were involved in the previous European authorization procedure – namely the German Health Authority BfR and EFSA – wrongfully accepted these industry studies as key evidence of the absence of glyphosate genotoxicity. EFSA used this flawed science as a basis to contradict the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s 2015 conclusion that glyphosate does in fact “probably cause cancer”.
The current approval of glyphosate on the EU market is expiring on 15 December 2022. A first screening of industry’s 2020 new glyphosate application dossier shows that 38 of the 53 genotoxicity studies (on both pure glyphosate and glyphosate-based products) used in the previous assessment have been submitted once more to the EU authorities by Bayer Agriculture BV, on behalf of the Glyphosate Renewal Group. .
Angeliki Lyssimachou, Environmental Scientist at the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) said: “This new scientific analysis shows yet again that the European Union’s claim to having the most rigorous pesticide authorization procedure in the world has to be taken with a heavy grain of salt. The authorization procedure in place is evidently not rigorous enough to detect errors in the execution of the regulatory studies that are blindly considered the gold standard. Yet these were at the heart of the 2017 EU-market approval of glyphosate, and they have now been submitted again in an effort to water down scientific evidence that glyphosate may cause cancer and is a danger to human health.”
Helmut Burtscher, Biochemist at GLOBAL 2000 said: “If you subtract from the 53 genotoxicity studies, those studies that are not reliable and those studies that are of minor importance for the assessment of genotoxicity in humans, then nothing remains. Nothing, except the question on what basis the EU authorities have claimed that glyphosate is ‘not genotoxic’. Did they have a crystal ball?”
Peter Clausing, Toxicologist at Pesticide Action Network Germany (PAN Germany) said: “A rigorous authorization procedure is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition to protect the health of the people and the environment. In 2017 the authorities of the European Union violated their own rules to ensure an outcome that pleased the chemical industry. Not much is achieved, if rules and recommendations are on paper, but not applied.”
Nina Holland, Researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory said: “The last re-approval process of glyphosate caused huge controversies, as Monsanto was shown to be undermining the science regarding the harmful effects of glyphosate. This new scientific review puts once more a finger on a sore spot: that national regulators and EU authorities alike do not seem to pay close scrutiny when looking at the quality of industry’s own studies. This is shocking as it is their job to protect people’s health and the environment, not serve the interests of the pesticide industry.”
Eoin Dubsky, Campaigner at SumOfUs said: “People are sick of glyphosate, and we’re sick of being lied to. That’s why SumOfUs members funded this important analysis, and why we’ll keep campaigning until this herbicide is banned. How could EFSA give glyphosate a thumbs-up based on such shoddy scientific studies, when IARC warned that it’s genotoxic, and probably cancer-causing too?”
(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
Glyphosate and other agribusiness chemicals have caused me health problems in my old age. But my concern is for our children and grandchildren … and for every living thing on the planet. A toad hopping through grass wet with glyphosate is doomed. What on earth do people think this stuff is doing to us??? None of it’s good. Its use must stop!
There is evidence supporting the fact Roundup and glyphosate disrupt the gut microbiome by inhibiting the Shikimate pathway. Small doses takes years to notice until a person develops allergies, fatty liver even cancer. This product is meant to make Monsanto wealthy not humans healthy!
Yes? totally agree Olive. It like “we walked around blindfold on Beachy head for ten minutes and we are still here – except that such an exercise couldn’t have any unknown future consequences. It’s lunacy for greed.
A strapping young neighbour of mine – -until a year or two ago – time flies ! ( a Thatcher ) took about 5 or six years to die from “Non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma”. Fleshly sore swellings all over the Skin. I read that glyphosate will cause this.
As for birth defects, who knows. Agent Orange is still causing horror in Vietnam.
Chemical farming is idiotic, and purely a money grabbing/ control/addictive operation by the appropriately named AGRO. industry.
The European whatever should be putting resources into learning from “Organic” growers !
No one is going to escape the pollutionof the earth.You can get paid all the money in the world is not going to save you.you all that gets paid off WILL go down with the ship
Ministers lie, cheat and steal no matter where on earth they live. There is no trust in regulation is there? Everyone knows if you wave enough cash, you can do what you like, how you like, to who or what you like, and no one will help when it impacts individuals so long as the envelopes of cash keep coming.
That said, its not for us to wait for corruption to help us is it? We buy this stuff, ultimately we approve it and so can disapprove it too by no longer participating.
A few years ago, Cherwell District Council bosses told the youngster that was spraying this toxin around the town we once lived in “Roundup is 8 times safer than coffee!” Of course this is utter nonsense and for sure the bosses of the Council wouldn’t replace the morning joe with a shot of glyphosate and so as ever, leaders are do as a say types happy to risk the lives of everyone but themselves. the kid didnt even have any safety kit on because the leaders of Cherwell Council could not give a hoot about public or staff safety
We are locked in our houses, forced to wear masks for our own safety, and now the same people that approve Glyphosate are also approving experimental drugs which continue to degrade the Shikimate pathway. It is honestly no wonder people think there is a move to depopulate earth.
This only stops when we decide its enough and I guess most people would still rather get and spread cancer than do any real work. Where we are now in Europe its used by everyone. People that have inherited land and resent the work they have to do to manage it. The silly church and miss understanding conservatives in the pueblo force people to strip the land bare, “cleanliness is next to godliness after all right?
We are an island surrounded by toxic property. Those applying gylphosate are causing the oxidation of soil systems and critical minerals are being lost causing the increased incidence of Xyella Fastidiosa but no one here is doing anything to prevent that. A simple application of Manganese is typically enough to reduce the risk, but why spread this news when you can sell more poison and degrade peoples capacity for sovereignty by cutting down their trees.
the negative implications of roundup are vast!
Most people on the and can no longer grow a plant without resorting to toxic inputs