| Welcome to Review 555, which has the latest global news on glyphosate, as a key date approaches when the EU Member States will vote on whether to re-authorise the weedkilling chemical. There's also news on toxic neonicotinoids and pesticides in general. EU REAUTHORISATION OF GLYPHOSATE A research director from INRAE France who is a pesticide specialist and toxicologist said she is outraged by the EU Commission’s decision to recommend glyphosate’s re-approval for a further 10 years. This proposal follows a report by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) which said that the level of risk did not justify a ban on this controversial herbicide. Laurence Huc said, “When 90% of the scientific literature showing that glyphosate has toxic effects on human health and biodiversity is ignored, yes, this does not meet any scientific criteria. The health authority cannot claim that there is no effect on health.” As a researcher, she says she is left “speechless”. The pesticide specialist blamed “extremely strong and powerful lobbying”. She said the proposal to re-authorise glyphosate “is not based on health data, but on economic and political decisions”. Other leading scientists have also expressed strong concerns about re-authorisation. Violette Geissen, PhD, WUR Professor of Soil Physics and Land Management, has questioned the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA's) July 2023 risk assessment of glyphosate, which concluded the chemical did not pose a threat to the health of the environment or humans. Dr Geissen, who coordinates the transdisciplinary European SPRINT research project studying the dispersion and effects of pesticides, points to studies that indicate glyphosate’s possible effects on human behaviour and intestinal microbiome. She states that exposure through the environment matches the exposure resulting from ingestion. Dr Geissen explained that EFSA failed to include the precautionary principle in its risk assessment. Key exposure routes and risks, such as the environmental dispersion of glyphosate and its most stable degradation product, AMPA, were not considered. Two EU agencies wrongly dismissed the cancer risk of glyphosate despite the findings of the independent scientific literature, according to the action group, Pesticide Action Network (PAN). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), according to PAN, “wrongfully relied on ECHA’s (European Chemicals Agency) classification of glyphosate as ‘non-carcinogenic’. Not only did it disregard the observed tumour incidences in cancer studies as irrelevant but it also dismissed evidence from independent literature that glyphosate causes oxidative stress, a recognised mechanism that can lead to cancer.” The EU Commission has proposed to renew the authorisation for the herbicide glyphosate for 10 years, so if a qualified majority of Member States agree, glyphosate use in the EU would be allowed until 2033. This would be in stark contrast to the will of Europeans. Five years ago, one million citizens formally asked for a ban and a recent IPSOS opinion poll in six EU countries shows that only a mere 14% of citizens agree with prolonged use. Meanwhile, there are serious concerns about the safety assessments by ECHA and EFSA. Top scientists explained serious flaws and shortcomings in the assessment in a hearing in the EU Parliament, for glyphosate as well as the formulation product MON 52276 and its ingredients. PAN Europe says a series of EFSA findings make glyphosate re-approval opposed to EU law. The EU Member States will vote on the Commission’s proposal on 12 October. A motion opposing the European Commission’s move to re-authorise glyphosate has received majority support in the Dutch parliament, with MPs urging Agriculture Minister Piet Adema to vote against the measure. “Glyphosate is a substance that is harmful to our biodiversity, to our drinking water, it has high risks for neurological diseases... and the WHO says it is probably also carcinogenic,” lawmaker Leonie Vestering stated during a parliamentary debate, adding that the motion presents “a very good opportunity to put an end... to glyphosate”. A conference on the risks that glyphosate poses to health and the environment was held in the European Parliament on 18 September. Hosted by Green and Socialist MEPs and Pesticide Action Network Europe, the conference featured a stellar lineup of scientist speakers, including Prof Chris Portier, Dr Peter Clausing, Prof Michael Antoniou, Dr Daniele Mandrioli, and Dr Johann G. Zaller. The slide presentations are available at the link above. What’s wrong with glyphosate? Professor Michael Antoniou from King’s College London tells us why EU countries should NOT vote for its reapproval. GLYPHOSATE: LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS In a submission to the Vienna Public Prosecutor's Office, GLOBAL 2000 and other member organisations of Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe revealed that the consortium led by Bayer – like Monsanto before it – failed to submit unfavourable studies and/or data on the carcinogenic and neurotoxic effects of glyphosate in the application for re-approval of glyphosate. The complainants argue that this may have influenced the risk assessment conducted by authorities that concluded in favour of reauthorisation. They are calling on EU Member States to reject the reauthorisation of glyphosate in the upcoming vote on 12 October. The EU pesticide regulation requires pesticide manufacturers to report all studies on harmful effects of glyphosate in their authorisation applications, including studies commissioned by them and those from the scientific literature. However, Bayer’s current authorisation application lacked the majority of publications that indicate harmful effects on the nervous system (neurotoxicity) from glyphosate, including an epidemiological study that found an increased risk of autism spectrum disorders in children when their mothers were exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy or in their first year of life. Of particular concern is the point raised by two Swedish scientists and confirmed by EFSA, that a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) study commissioned by a member of the consortium (Syngenta) was withheld from EU authorities. This showed behavioural impairment in young rats when their mothers were exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy. An Advocate General – a legal advisor to the Court of Justice of the European Union – has said in a case involving the Dutch pesticide authority that under European law, the most recent guidelines need to be consulted, together with all relevant recent scientific and technical knowledge. Martin Dermine, executive director at PAN Europe, says this has great relevance to glyphosate. “In the evaluation of glyphosate, EFSA consistently neglected this principle, dismissing scientific evidence regarding biodiversity, gut microbiota, neurotoxicity, and a plethora of scientific publications on glyphosate’s harm to citizens and the environment. EFSA’s reliance on decade-old industry studies, instead of prioritising current science, demonstrates its non-compliance with EU law and its failure to adequately protect citizens and the environment.” A landmark class action lawsuit against Monsanto involving more than 800 Australians with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, who allege their cancer is linked to their exposure to the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, could be a big problem for Bayer, which now owns Monsanto, if the judge decides glyphosate is carcinogenic. That issue is the focus of the first part of the case, which began on 4 September and will run for several weeks in the federal court in Melbourne before Justice Michael Lee. As well as allowing the class action to move on to the question of whether Monsanto was negligent, it could have could have significant regulatory implications in Australia. HEALTH IMPACTS OF GLYPHOSATE Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a protein that is released into the bloodstream following nerve damage and has emerged as a reliable biomarker for various neurological disorders. In newly published research, scientists report a link between urinary glyphosate levels and NfL levels in blood serum, indicating that higher levels of glyphosate exposure may be linked to higher levels of nerve damage. Furthermore, the scientists observed a significant trend of increasing NfL concentrations with increasing glyphosate exposure. The association was more pronounced in certain subgroups, including those aged over 40, non-Hispanic whites, and those with a body mass index between 25 and 30 (overweight). This is the first research to suggest an association between glyphosate exposure and biomarkers indicative of neurological damage in US adults. Regarding the re-authorisation of glyphosate in the EU, France is probably going to follow the opinion of the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), which considers that “there is no area of critical concern, either for the environment or for human health”, and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). This means it will likely vote in favour of renewing the authorisation at the next meetings of the European committee responsible for ruling on this issue, the SCoPAFF, arguing that it is following the opinion of “the scientists”. However, in 2021, the French medical research agency Inserm published a report in which it presented a very different analysis from that of EFSA and ECHA on several points concerning the toxicity of glyphosate. In particular, Inserm’s analysis suggests that glyphosate “appears to have” endocrine disrupting properties, which runs counter to EFSA’s conclusions. Glyphosate has been found in samples taken from all but one of a group of Irish volunteers tested for the controversial weedkiller. The exercise has deepened fears that the chemical is more widespread than ever and becoming increasingly difficult to avoid. It comes as EU ministers prepare for discussions on whether to renew the chemical's licence for use. Simon Kenny, a farmer from Naas, Co Kildare, has not used any weedkiller for the last six years, but still tested positive. Retired community health doctor, Liz Cullen, also tested positive despite getting all her vegetables from her organic grower brother. “It’s disappointing. It shows how pervasive glyphosate is,” she said. Sinn Féin senator Lynn Boylan was previously tested when she was an MEP in 2016 and had a reading of 0.8ng/ml. Her fresh test result was 0.93ng/ml. “I would have thought it would have decreased because I’m living at home now so I’ve more control over what I eat and I eat organically as much as possible,” she said. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF GLYPHOSATE Indigenous First Nation elder Ray Owl speaks in a video clip from the documentary film, Into the Weeds, about the impacts of glyphosate spraying on Canada’s forests: “You don't hear no birds singing. You don't see no eagles, no crows flying around, any insect, nothing. It’s sterile.” Thousands of hectares of forest are sprayed every year by helicopters with large quantities of glyphosate. The sole purpose is the killing off of grasses, shrubs, and deciduous trees considered competitors to commercially desirable conifers, which are naturally glyphosate-tolerant. The resulting tree-farm monoculture is not only less hospitable to wild animals, insects, fungi, and fish than a mixed-wood forest, but damages waterways, reduces carbon sequestration, and produces a highly flammable landscape. That’s because conifers have a large amount of sap in their branches, which burns very quickly and supports fast-moving wildfires. At the behest of an industry group, the government of the Canadian province of Nova Scotia de-published maps identifying glyphosate spraying locations after protesters successfully blocked aerial spraying. According to EU pesticide legislation, the use of pesticides should not have any adverse impacts on human and animal health or the environment. But new water sampling and testing by Pesticide Action Network Europe shows glyphosate doesn’t meet that criterion. Glyphosate and/or its metabolite AMPA were detected in 17 out of 23 samples (74%), in 11 out of the 12 countries in the study. Considering that the drinking water safety limit for pesticide active substances and their relevant metabolites is 0.1 μg/L, five out of 23 water samples (22%), collected in Austria, Spain, Poland, and Portugal, contained glyphosate at levels not suitable for human consumption. A Portuguese sample contained 3 μg/L glyphosate, which is 30 times higher than the safety limit for human consumption. A report by Ecologistas en Acción – a confederation of 300 Spanish ecological groups – analysing official data on glyphosate and its main derivative AMPA in Spanish waters, shows that in 2022, 34.6% of Spanish surface waters were contaminated by glyphosate in a concentration that does not comply with the environmental quality standard. The Guadiana River has the worst pollution data: 308.10 micrograms of glyphosate per litre, 3,000 times higher than the law allows. BANS AND RESTRICTIONS ON GLYPHOSATE A ban on the use of a controversial weedkiller in Edinburgh’s parks and greenspaces is set to be introduced next year. The council said the move was part of a gradual, three-year phasing-out of herbicides containing glyphosate, which threatens bee colonies and has been linked to cases of cancer. Other methods of controlling weeds include using vinegar, hot foam, pressurised hot water and mechanical sweeping – and the council is expected to use a combination of these as it moves away from chemical-based treatments. NEONICS Bee-killing pesticides have been found at dangerous levels in English rivers, as the government considers allowing the use of one that is banned in the EU. Environmental groups and farmers are waiting to hear whether a toxic neonicotinoid, thiamethoxam, will be approved by the government for English sugarbeet farms for a fourth consecutive year. Wildlife campaigners say it is “unacceptable” that ministers have “ignored the science” and allowed the use of these dangerous chemicals. While the pesticide has been banned in the EU for years, it was allowed for emergency use until this year, when it was banned entirely. Now the UK has left the EU it is able to make its own rules on pesticides. Recent research found that 36 pesticides banned by the EU are not ruled out for use in the UK. The pesticides are toxic for bees but are also, at certain levels, toxic to aquatic life, and build up in river systems. PESTICIDES IN GENERAL Those driving the climate crisis are receiving 20 times more financing than the solutions, a report from the development charity ActionAid reveals. And the largest recipient of financing for industrial agriculture in the Global South is Bayer – to the tune of about $20.6 billion since 2016. Bayer, which took over Monsanto, is the world’s second largest producer of agrochemicals. And the fertilisers, pesticides, and deforestation associated with its products are major contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. “It’s communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America who suffer the impacts of [bank] decisions… By financing fossil fuel and industrial agriculture in the Global South, banks are condemning communities to the cruel combination of landlessness, deforestation, water pollution and climate change,” says ActionAid’s report. ActionAid wants financial institutions to stop bankrolling the climate crisis and to fund solutions instead – like agroecology, which “works with nature, avoids emissions, is resilient to climate change and sustainable, and offers various other environmental, social and cultural benefits such as addressing food and water scarcity, and poverty”. Check out ActionAid’s inspiring Fund Our Future campaign launch video. EU citizens are highly concerned about the use of pesticides and its effect on health and the environment. This is shown in a survey in six member states of the European Union – Denmark, France, Germany, Poland, Romania and Spain. The survey was conducted by the European Public Affairs team of the market research agency Ipsos and published by the Pesticides Action Network (PAN) Europe. The impact of pesticides on respondents’ and their families’ health worries 75.9% of respondents. Respondents in Poland and Romania expressed the highest level of concern about the health impact of pesticides (80.4% and 84.1% respectively), while those in Denmark and Germany showed a somewhat lower level of concern (62% and 69.8% respectively). .................................................................. We hope you’ve enjoyed this newsletter, which is made possible by readers’ donations. Please support our work with a one-off or regular donation. Thank you! |
