EU authorises glyphosate for another 10 years
The EU Commission has decided to endorse the assessment of the European Food Safety Authority, which found no critical problem areas regarding the effects of glyphosate on the environment and human and animal health. The EU Commission's science-based decision to extend the authorisation for a further 10 years is also a rejection of the scare campaigns by Greenpeace and Co.
Monday, November 20, 2023
The EU Commission's latest decision on glyphosate cannot please Greenpeace and its allied NGOs. After all, they have been criticising this pesticide for years: it is hazardous to health, even carcinogenic for humans; bad for biodiversity; a real insect killer - the list of accusations levelled at the pesticide is long and often shrill. The pesticide has been chosen by these circles to symbolise everything that they believe is bad about productive agriculture.
The EU Commission has now decided that this glyphosate can be used in the EU for another 10 years. Opponents of the Commission's decision will not only be hurt by the fact that the great efforts to ban the product in Brussels have not worked. The fact that the EU Commission's decision is based on sober scientific facts will weigh almost more heavily. As the NZZ writes in its report, the Commission was guided by the advice of the EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority. And this EFSA analysed a wide range of studies in July of this year and was "unable to identify any critical problem areas with regard to the effects of glyphosate on the environment and also on human and animal health". Anyone who is interested in evidence-based policy must be pleased with this sober justification for the continued authorisation of glyphosate.
Nevertheless, a stale aftertaste remains: the fact that the EU Commission was given the decision to extend the authorisation at all was due to the fact that the EU member states were unable to agree on a common line after years of negotiations. Neither the necessary qualified majority for a ban on glyphosate nor for a "possible extension of the authorisation" was achieved, as the NZZ writes. And so it was up to the EU Commission to decide. This shows that the shrill, unscientific campaign of glyphosate opponents is unfortunately making its way into the highest government circles in too many EU member states.
In Switzerland, the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (FSVO) had already determined in 2020 that the so-called maximum residue levels of glyphosate in and on food are safe for consumers. They are about as carcinogenic as red meat, baking powder or hot drinks. This is a realisation that will hopefully prevail throughout Europe in the coming years - and not just in the EU Commission. Because glyphosate has many advantages. It is primarily used on agricultural land, i.e. on fields that do not serve as a primary habitat and food source for insects. Where wheat or maize is grown, a flowering meadow cannot provide food for insects at the same time (but around the field it can). It is used as a herbicide to specifically prevent troublesome plants in the field from growing. Weeds compete with the actual crop for light, nutrients and water and inhibit or prevent their growth. It therefore secures harvests. However, weeds can also directly jeopardise our health, especially in forms of cultivation where herbicides are not permitted. One example is toxic alkaloid-containing weeds in organic farming. However, glyphosate also plays an important role in no-till farming. The Federal Council also concludes: "Glyphosate application is more favourable than most alternative solutions in terms of its impact on the climate, soil protection and non-renewable resources."
Unnecessary fear of insidious poisoning
Glyphosate is certainly the most prominent victim of the campaign by Greenpeace and co - but not the only one. Fears of insidious poisoning are being fuelled time and again. In a remarkable interview with the Berliner Tagesspiegel, German microbiologist Andreas Hensel shows how misguided people's perception of the risks associated with pesticides is. Hensel has been the first president of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment in Berlin, which analyses the safety of chemicals, since 2003. A particular focus is on consumer protection.
Sources
Kindly note:
We, a non-native editorial team value clear and faultless communication. At times we have to prioritize speed over perfection, utilizing tools, that are still learning.
We are deepL sorry for any observed stylistic or spelling errors.
Related articles
Unwanted Invaders: Why Pesticides Are Essential in the Fight Against Invasive Species
They are small, highly mobile and extremely persistent: invasive species are spreading increasingly across Switzerland. Whether it is the Japanese beetle, the Asian hornet or newly discovered ant species, these unwelcome guests threaten not only native ecosystems, but also agriculture and residential areas. There is an urgent need for pesticides – including biocides and plant protection products – to combat these pests effectively.
Gene Drive Against Malaria: Blessing or Ecological Gamble?
Diseases such as malaria claim hundreds of thousands of lives every year. With so-called gene drive technology, scientists now have a tool that could theoretically eradicate the mosquitoes that spread these diseases. Yet the approach raises profound ethical and ecological questions.
The bottleneck of hunger: How the crisis in the Gulf is shaking global markets
While heating oil prices in Switzerland are on a rollercoaster, a far greater catastrophe is looming elsewhere. The blockage of the Strait of Hormuz is not only cutting off oil supplies, but also disrupting the global lifeline for fertilizers – with devastating consequences for global food security.
New genomic techniques in plants: what gene editing can do – and what it (still) cannot do
With CRISPR/Cas technology, genetic material can now be modified more precisely and efficiently than ever before. In plant breeding in particular, these “gene scissors” raise high hopes: crops that are resistant to diseases and pests, can withstand drought, and at the same time deliver higher yields. But how realistic are these expectations? What can genome editing actually achieve today – and what progress can we expect in the near future?