EU institutions have responded to an open letter by an activist scientist claiming that they did not include relevant studies when drafting the European risk assessment on the herbicide glyphosate.
The scientist, Professor Christopher Portier, sent an open letter to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.
Portier’s letter claimed that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) “failed to identify all statistically significant cancer findings in the chronic rodent carcinogenicity studies with glyphosate.”
In November 2015, the EFSA concluded that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.”
Portier suggested that he had found eight instances of carcinogenic indicators that were not included in EFSA and ECHA’s findings and accused the agencies of failing to properly analyze available data.
He also stated that the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) Monograph 112, which found glyphosate to be a carcinogen, should be considered the authoritative work on glyphosate.
Anti-glyphosate campaign
The EFSA and the ECHA's response to Prof Portier's letter, who is a well-known anti-glyphosate scientist, is among many others in a long-running anti-glyphosate campaign.
The response read: “EFSA and ECHA clearly state that the claim that findings were overlooked is false based on the transparent assessment procedure of European hazard and risk assessment as well as the available scientific facts.
“All the original studies mentioned have been taken into account in the evaluations of the European authorities in accordance with their reliability and relevance, and have been assessed on the basis of agreed scientific principles.”
The letter goes on to explain that “all assessment authorities worldwide who had access to these original data have reached the conclusion that glyphosate should not be classified as carcinogenic.
“These authorities include the EFSA, he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA, the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA), the Japanese Food Safety Commission, the EPA in New Zealand, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) and the ECHA.”
Glyphosate is one of the most widely used active substances in pesticides to prevent unwanted plant growth around planted crops or to kill plants or parts of plants
'Ghost-writing' research.
Among those who have criticised glyphosate is the Green Party. They have backed calls for the EU to ban glyphosate, and accuses Monsanto of ‘ghost-writing’ research.
A Green MEP, Molly Scott Cato, has thrown her weight behind a European Citizen’s Initiative (ECI) calling for a ban on glyphosate.
Dr Scott Cato has called for EU regulatory approval of pesticides and herbicides to be based on studies commissioned by public authorities rather than the pesticide industry.
Molly Scott Cato said: “The Monsanto papers highlight the undue influence agri-chemical corporations have on assessments of toxic chemicals like glyphosate. It also shows the urgent need for assessments of harmful substances to be based on fully independent and public studies so that they are fully impartial, transparent and open to proper scrutiny.”
