Posted 2 days ago,
Reading 2 mins.
Return of glyphosate to center stage: the controversial herbicide is not carcinogenic, according to the European Chemicals Agency (Echa). Outcry from associations fighting against synthetic pesticides who denounce a “denial of science”.
Two discordant positions
Will we ever finish with this product? Be that as it may, there is a new twist in the glyphosate saga, following the opinion issued at the end of May by the European Chemicals Agency (Echa) which affirms that the herbicide is not carcinogenic. In a press release, the agency’s risk committee concluded once again “that the classification of glyphosate as a carcinogen is not justified”. Echa maintains its position taken in 2017.
However, glyphosate remains classified as toxic to aquatic organisms and as being capable of causing serious damage to the eyes.
This new expertise sparked an outcry within environmental defense associations, including Générations Futures and Pesticides Action Network. For the record, glyphosate was classified as a probable human carcinogen in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (ICRC), an organization that depends on the World Health Organization (WHO). And for more than five years, say the associations, the scientific evidence of the genotoxicity and carcinogenic potential of the herbicide has been further strengthened.
An evaluation system to review
Question: how to explain such a divergence? “Regulatory agencies, including Echa, are trapped and locked into an evaluation system based solely on studies carried out according to OECD standards. Anything that is not OECD is considered unreliable. As a result, only industry studies are taken into account, explains Pauline Cervan, scientific and regulatory officer at Générations Futures. By remaining locked in this dogma, we are necessarily in the denial of science.
Echa would thus miss many toxic effects which are not or poorly covered by the OECD standards.
For Pauline Cervan, “the overall evaluation system needs to be reviewed. Regulatory science shows here its limits and its distance from science.”
A bad sign?
Can this expertise of Echa open the door to a possible renewal of the authorization of glyphosate within the European Union? The current authorization was extended in 2017 for a further five years. It expires on December 15, if the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has given its opinion by this date. If this is not the case, the authorization will be automatically extended until the end of the evaluation process.
For Pauline Cervan, the renewal of the authorization is not necessarily guaranteed, despite the position taken by Echa. “EFSA has still not given its opinion and is obviously taking the issue more seriously. Indeed, it plans one more year to submit its report. The EFSA can therefore still issue a negative opinion by judging that there are too many uncertainties, taking into account the fact, for example, that populations are widely exposed to glyphosate. But of course, this expertise is a bad signal”.