This is from an article on the EU regulation of certain pesticides, in the latest issue of the Economist:
MORE herbicides contain glyphosate, a weedkilling chemical, than any other agent. Monsanto, an agricultural giant, first sold Roundup, a product containing the stuff, to farmers in the 1970s. Since then use of glyphosate-based concoctions has increased about 100-fold; gardeners as well as farmers have taken to it for killing weeds and keeping paths clear. The firm’s last patent on it expired in 2000, and farmers from Brazil to Russia spray it as never before. But as larger quantities are used, concerns grow over the harm some say it may cause. On March 7th a European Union (EU) committee will vote on whether to renew approval of glyphosate for the next 15 years.
...
The hottest debate surrounds glyphosate and human health. Last July the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) found that the herbicide is “probably” carcinogenic. But six months later the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which oversees the assessment of active chemical substances within the EU, cleared glyphosate of causing cancer.
The two bodies traded furious letters throughout January and February; the spat is unprecedented. IARC argues that the research on which EFSA based its decision, completed by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, ignored an association between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and glyphosate seen in certain research and relied on studies not publicly available, while it denigrated peer-reviewed ones. The furore led France’s Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES) to step in. It concluded that glyphosate “arguably could be classified” as a substance “suspected of being carcinogenic to humans”.
EFSA plays an active role in the EU’s pesticide-approval process; IARC does not. But the European Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, found that process flawed after a long inquiry that ended on February 22nd. She criticised the European Commission for approving chemicals before there was “sufficient information to say that they were completely safe”. The authority now has until 2018 to ensure that those keen to clear a substance provide more data to show that it is harmless.
And here's what happened today, as reported by the Guardian:
A mutiny by several EU states has forced the postponement of a vote in Brussels on relicensing a widely used weedkiller that the World Health Organisation has found is probably carcinogenic.
Italy joined France, Sweden and the Netherlands in opposing a new 15-year licence for glyphosate at a meeting which had been expected to rubber stamp its reapproval on Tuesday.
The European commission may now bring forward a new proposal to cut the licence’s length, or create a list of “co-formulants” whose use can be limited or banned. These surfactants increase a plant’s uptake of glyphosate, and can be more dangerous than the herbicide alone.
But the Netherlands is calling for the relicensing to be put on hold until after a separate evaluation of glyphosate’s toxicity next year.
Greenpeace EU’s food policy director, Franziska Achterberg, said: “Rushing to grant a new licence now, without waiting for an evaluation by Europe’s chemical agency, would be like skydiving without checking your equipment first. As long as there is conflicting scientific advice, glyphosate should not be approved for use in the EU.”
Industry groups were shocked by the delay to the vote however, which they blamed on political interference by environmentalists.
With international trade and investment law obligations in mind, let me ask this question: In practice, is it really possible for regulation on this issue to satisfy a legal standard requiring that it be science-based and non-arbitrary?
