Glyphosate, a herbicide molecule used in many commercial formulations aimed at eliminating weeds, does not present a “critical area of concern” in humans, animals and the environment preventing the renewal of its authorization in the European Union. This is the conclusion made by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which nevertheless points out that it has found “a high long-term risk in mammals” for half of the proposed uses of glyphosate. The authority, which says it bases itself on 2,400 scientific studies, 180,000 pages and 90 experts from member states, has so far only issued a press release. If a report was submitted to the European Commission on Thursday July 6, its content is not yet known. The details of the conclusions should be published at the end of July and the report itself between August and October.
The molecule therefore seems to be getting a new reprieve. Something to comfort President Emmanuel Macron, who had promised to ban it in 2020, before changing his mind. But the debate between the “for” and the “against”, which opposes farmers, industrialists, associations, environmental NGOs and even the media, should not stop for all that. Each invoking economic, practical, political, environmental or health arguments. In the midst of this slump, a few researchers are trying to make themselves heard by recalling the eminently complex facts and scientific data. This is the case of Xavier Coumoul, toxicologist and co-authors of a broad expertise from Inserm, published in 2021, which remains one of the most complete on the subject, since it involved a dozen multidisciplinary researchers who have analyzed, for more than three years, more than 5,300 reports and scientific studies.
L’Express: What do you think of EFSA’s announcement?
Xavier Coumoul: As the report is not public, it is impossible to comment on its content. Given the tension surrounding this subject, it is difficult to understand that only a press release was published. It would have been more appropriate to release the data at the same time.
In addition to this astonishing communication, one of the criticisms leveled against the EFSA is its evaluation process, which eliminates a large number of yet solid scientific expertise in the field of health, in favor of the work of industrialists. You and other co-authors of the Inserm report – including epidemiologist Luc Multigner and toxicologist Bernard Salles – have already highlighted this problem, while pointing out that there are good studies written by manufacturers or bad studies of independent researchers. Can we trust the opinions of the EFSA?
Indeed, the EFSA is based on many industrial studies and some of this work is relevant. However, setting aside some scientific research is problematic. Especially since today, the perception of many researchers – who are not activists and of which I am one – is that if we have been able to discover problems linked to molecules 20 years after their introduction, it is because there are holes in the racket of the regulatory assessment process.
The concern is that by saying this people may conclude that agencies like EFSA are doing a poor job. This is not the case. But the ratings are probably insufficient. And that’s understandable, because there are more than 100,000 molecules (pesticides, plasticizers, etc.) on the market. There are 500 that we know well, but 70,000 for which the toxicity remains poorly characterized. There is an investment problem in this area.
Scientific studies have clearly shown that drinking glyphosate or using it without protection (gloves, masks, coveralls) is dangerous for your health. But the work on the risk of eating food that grew in a field where glyphosate was used is less clear-cut. This complexity feeds endless debates between “pro” and “anti” who dig at leisure in the studies that suit them. Can you explain the difference?
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It is normal that this agitates consciences. Especially since this molecule was sold with the strong argument that it was completely safe for humans, while studies then showed that it was dangerous, as you recall.
To understand the difference between risk and danger, I like to take the analogy of the lion. It is a dangerous animal. If you are locked in a room with him, you are at great risk. But if he is locked in a cage, the risk of dying is low. For glyphosate, the risk assessment consists of carrying out experiments which aim to find out at what dose the molecule exhibits toxicity (such as killing cells or slowing down their growth). It is then necessary to measure the level of exposure of people to this molecule. Based on studies of this type, health agencies such as the EFSA have apparently concluded that the risks, including the health risk, are low for the consumer.
The debate does not seem to be settled…
The problem is that we have not characterized all the risks and dangers. For example, researchers have published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, a study suggesting that exposure to glyphosate can deregulate the intestinal microbiota of laboratory animals, even at exposure levels considered to be without effect by regulatory authorities. This confirms hypotheses related to the mode of action of glyphosate whose target (the production of amino acids, to sum up) is expressed by plants but also certain bacteria or fungi. However, what is true for animals can be true for humans. But this study does not prove that this process is irreversible and does not specify whether it can be stopped when exposure to the molecule ceases. The health risk is therefore not certain, but it cannot be ruled out either. Further research – some of which is ongoing – will be required to find out.
On the other hand, when researchers or manufacturers make hazard and risk assessments of glyphosate, they rarely evaluate the different formulations available on the market. Herbicide formulations contain other molecules which may, for example, promote the penetration of the product into plants, or may contain impurities. All of this can impact their effects, and therefore their dangerousness. Mixtures are complex to evaluate, because the different molecules can interact with each other. It is therefore difficult to know how they can influence the product and its risk related to exposure. Studies that compare glyphosate alone to Roundup [NDLR : la formule de Bayer] show for example that the latter can be more dangerous than the molecule alone.
How to decide, then, between pros and cons?
We must invest in research to obtain more data and better inform. When I accept interviews, it is mainly to explain why the conclusions of EFSA and IARC [NDLR : le Centre international de recherche sur le cancer, rattaché à l’OMS, qui a classé le glyphosate dans la catégorie “cancérigène probable”] are different and why this is normal: the two institutes do not use the same methods and do not answer the same questions.
It is unfortunate that people are “for” or “against” on principle. I would like citizens and decision-makers to be better informed, to have the knowledge to understand the dangers and risks as well as the limits of the assessments of the various institutes and to be able to say: “I have understood and my personal opinion is that it is better to go in this or that direction”. Only then can we sit around a table to make the right decisions. But the debate is so divisive today that it is sometimes difficult to discuss further.
If you could sit at such a table, what would you say?
I would remind you that this is a planetary health problem, because this herbicide is used all over the world. I would also like us not to focus solely on the economic argument of preserving jobs and to consider long-term solutions, to find out whether we can reduce our dependence on glyphosate and, if we invest in alternatives, to take the time to put them in place. Take the example of neonicotinoids. They were banned very abruptly, because it was a political decision. But the authorities have given exemptions for beet plantations for lack of other options. We must push for a global reflection in order to maintain both a coherent economic and environmental system while involving the different actors.