Like hamsters on a roulette wheel, European countries continue to go around and around authorizing the use of glyphosate, the active ingredient of the most used group of herbicides in the world. The environmental and health effects of this substance continue to be the subject of disagreement.
The technical committee on plants, animals, food and seeds of the European Commission today debates a proposal in which it is proposed to extend its commercialization for ten years. However, it cannot be ruled out that the matter will not be put to a vote so as not to deepen internal divisions, with which the roulette wheel may continue to spin in new meetings.
In any case, the decision must be imminent, since the current authorization ends on December 15; and if there are no conditions for a majority to approve the new regulation (55% of the countries that make up 65% of the population), the authorization could be extended for one year (as happened in 2022).
Glyphosate has been classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), dependent on the World Health Organization (WHO). However, this decision does not entail any prohibition on its use, as it is a matter that corresponds to the state and community authorities.
The Commission intends to extend the authorization of this controversial product until 2033 with the endorsement of the European Food Health Agency (EFSA), which sees no evidence of toxicity. Likewise, a report from the Ministry of Health – which marks the Spanish position – indicates that, within the scope of its powers, “there are no critical areas of concern”, which is why it “supports the renewal” of the authorization of glyphosate by ten years.
Despite the existence of uncertainties, it does not believe that there is a risk of potential genotoxicity. A common position of the 27 (those 10-year extension) could occur if countries are left free to impose their own restrictions at the national level or if new evidence emerges that forces us to reevaluate the substance in this decade.
The position of France, the main agricultural power in the EU and the first beneficiary of the common agricultural policy, will be decisive. “We have one goal: to get rid of glyphosate” and “we want it to be effective and operational as long as there is an alternative to glyphosate,” French government spokesman Olivier Véran said on Wednesday, although he did not specify what his vote will be.
France opposed the renewal of the permit given in 2017, and President Emmanuel Macron himself even announced the total ban by the end of 2020. But later, he admitted “the mistake” of having believed that France would be able to do without this herbicide for Yes, alone. His proposal for a ban was qualified and would only apply in specific cases.
In the EU, for several years now, several countries have authorized restrictions on individuals and their use in gardening, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany.
This herbicide destroys a wide variety of plants, and its effectiveness and low cost have made it a successful product. Eliminates all weeds that compete with the crop, making harvests easier. Since 1996, Monsanto has marketed seeds genetically modified (GMO) to be resistant to glyphosate: farmers can thus spray it without fear of damaging their future crops. Roundup seeds (mainly soybeans and corn) have been criticized, especially in Europe, because they reinforce dependence on intensive crops with a model that fosters the risk of the spread of GMO organisms and whose long-term impacts are unknown.
