Quantcast
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 8028

Glyphosate - IARC got it right, EFSA got it from Monsanto

Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.

Home › Contributors › Jennifer Sass › Glyphosate - IARC got it right, EFSA got it from Monsanto The European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) recently released its reassessment of glyphosate, the main ingredient of Monsanto's weed-killer, Roundup. EFSA found that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic or genotoxic (damaging to DNA) - a conclusion loudly applauded by Monsanto. The EFSA report is in direct conflict with recent findings by another body, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which reviewed glyphosate cancer risks and released its findings earlier this year. The two bodies came to almost opposite conclusions on the cancer risk. IARC found that glyphosate "probably" causes cancer in humans (Group 2A). The dramatic inconsistency between the EFSA and IARC cancer reports spurred 96 prominent scientists from 25 countries to voice strong opposition to the EFSA report. Their letter to the European Commission states that the IARC decision is "by far the more credible," and urges the European Commission to "disregard the flawed EFSA finding on glyphosate." How can EFSA and IARC experts both look at the same scientific studies and come to completely opposite conclusions? And, why should we care? The EFSA report is based on findings of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment - the BfR - which received a first draft of the science directly from the Glyphosate Task Force (GTF), whose members include Monsanto and Syngenta and other agrochemical corporations. EFSA describes its process as standard procedure to have the agrochemical company supply the scientific information to the Member state (Germany and Croatia in this case), whose report then goes to EFSA to make a final evaluation. The Guardian reported on how compromised the process was: "BfR officials explained that due to the quantity of evidence they did not have the time to report the original studies in detail, but instead based their evaluation on descriptions provided by the agrochemical industry. But those descriptions also contained the industry's assessment of the reliability and interpretation of each study, which involves exactly the kinds of choice-laden decisions described earlier... this falls well short of what most people would understand as an independent review." So, we know that Monsanto and other companies provided their own assessment of the scientific evidence, much of it industry-sponsored unpublished studies, and then handed that pig off to Germany for some lipstick. In contrast to the industry-dominated job relied upon by EFSA, IARC conducted an independent and extensive review of all the publicly available evidence linking glyphosate to cancer. IARC is specifically qualified to conduct such a review. IARC has been conducting such reviews for forty years, and has evaluated hundreds of chemicals. IARC is considered an authoritative body by governments around the world, and non-industry experts testify as to its integrity and scientific credibility, often in the face of harsh criticism from the industries whose products are being reviewed. EUROPE SET TO EXPAND GLYPHOSATE USE, BASED ON MONSANTO SCIENCE EFSA's report not only recommends re-approval of glyphosate, but also raising the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for people's everyday exposure to glyphosate (from 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg-day), including through residues on food. The report recommended that an acute Reference Dose (aRfD) for glyphosate be established, but set it at the same level as the ADI, thereby supporting higher exposure limits and weaker health protections for both acute and chronic exposures. EFSA's report will now feed into a process in Europe that will decide whether or not glyphosate will remain approved (re-authorized) after 2015 for another 10 years. The next step is a vote by The European Commission on Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee on whether or not to accept EFSA's report. The Committee will meet on December 1, 2015 to consider whether to accept or reject the EFSA evaluation. What should Europe do? According the European pesticide regulations, "evidence of genotoxicity essentially precludes approval of a pesticide, although exceptions are possible (see Annex II of Regulation [EC] No 1107/2009)" (Clausing, 2015). This means that regulatory action based on the IARC report should lead to a ban or limit on glyphosate use, to prevent cancers and other adverse health effects. On the other hand, if EFSA and Monsanto win the day, then glyphosate on food crops will continue and likely expand. Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says it is in the process of conducting its own review of glyphosate but it is behind schedule. According to EPA's timeline in its Glyphosate Final Work Plan (2009), the agency had planned to have its Preliminary Risk Assessment out for public comments in early 2014 and its registration review for glyphosate was scheduled for completion in 2015. So far, none of this has happened. Despite the fact that EPA has not completed its risk assessment, in the last year the Agency approved a new product by Dow AgroSciences called 'Enlist Duo' that contains a mix of the herbicides glyphosate and 2,4-D. EPA approved it without re-evaluating the accumulating evidence of human health and environmental risks, including cancer (see blogs by NRDC experts, Drs. Kristi Pullen and Sylvia Fallon). NRDC brought a lawsuit challenging EPA's approval of Enlist Duo last year (October 2014). NRDC subsequently joined other public interest groups in sending a letter to EPA urging the Agency to consider the cancer risks of glyphosate (based on the IARC report), and again asking EPA not to approve Enlist Duo (Letter, March, 2015). Now, in a sudden and welcome about-face, EPA has asked the court to nullify its approval of Enlist Duo based on information in the patent application that the two herbicides in combination are more toxic to weeds than each one alone (synergistic effects). EPA says it overlooked this information initially, but now believes that current approved uses may not protect non-target plants including endangered plants (details here). While it is great news that Enlist Duo is almost certainly coming off the market, EPA still allows both active ingredients to be widely used in agriculture: about 40 million pounds/year of 2,4-D is used, mainly on pasture and hay, wheat, corn and soybean crops; about 300 million pounds/year of glyphosate is used, mainly on corn and soybean crops.

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 8028

Trending Articles