Share:
Glyphosate EU agency speaks cancer-free weed killer debt free
The European Food Safety Authority EFSA has given the go-ahead for re-approval of the plant's glyphosate toxin. Thus, the world's best-selling weedkiller is unlikely to be carcinogenic. A far-reaching decision, because half a year ago, the International Agency for Research on Cancer IARC had classified the herbicide the opposite way and thus caused a great scandal. Environmentalists are shocked by the EFSA communication and continue to call for a ban on the controversial remedy.
WHO body classifies glyphosate as "likely to cause cancer"
Glyphosate is one of the most widely used pesticides in the world and has been sold in this country for more than 40 years. The herbicide is mainly used in agriculture on a large scale, but also used privately under the product name "Roundup" by many homeowners and allotment gardeners as anti-weed agent. But studies have been providing evidence of a harmful effect over the years.
EU approves controversial weed agent. In the spring, the International Cancer Research Agency (IARC) caused a great deal of excitement when they considered the drug "likely to be carcinogenic". As the organization, which was part of the World Health Organization (WHO), reported at the time, human and animal evidence shows that glyphosate produced cancer.
Critics call for immediate prohibition of the remedy
Environmentalists and various politicians demanded at that time immediately a ban on the herbicide - apparently without success. For now, the re-evaluation of the herbicide by the European Food Authority EFSA has led to a different classification. According to an expert group of EFSA scientists and representatives of risk assessment bodies in the EU Member States, "glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. DNA damaging) or pose a carcinogenic threat to humans," according to a recent EFSA communication.
It is therefore not recommended to classify "Glyphosate as a carcinogen according to the EU Regulation on the classification, labeling and packaging of chemicals", EFSA informs. In particular, the experts from the Member States agreed with one exception "that neither the epidemiological data nor the findings from animal studies showed a causal link between glyphosate exposure and carcinogenesis in humans".
One of the reasons for the different conclusions is that the re-evaluation would have included a number of studies that had not been evaluated by the IARC, according to EFSA's statement.
EFSA proposes to increase daily intake
But that's not all, because the experts also suggest an increase in the daily accepted intake to 0.5 mg per kilogram of body weight - previously this was 0.3 grams. Environmentalists are shocked by the new classification, as an extension of EU approval for the herbicide now seems safe. Although this must finally be granted by the EU Commission in Brussels, experts assume that the assessment of its own authority is being followed.
The current EFSA report is "a testament to the incredible ignorance" of the authority with regard to the health risks of the active substance, informs the Federation for Environmental and Nature Conservation Germany (BUND). Accordingly, the planned increase in the daily accepted dose for admission is "particularly objectionable".
"Despite the classification of glyphosate by cancer researchers of the World Health Organization as likely to be carcinogenic, EFSA has taken unfortunately trivial evaluations of the drug by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) without criticism," said the BUND Chairman Hubert Weiger. As a result, it is now clear that important information from the BfR assessment with regard to the risk of cancer by glyphosate was not taken into account in the revaluation.
Substance verification is like a tragedy
The MEP and organic farmer Martin Häusling judged EFSA's result to be "polished from the start". He criticized that the EU authority trusted more confident industrial data than the published data of the World Health Organization. In his view, the EU Commission is well advised not to make its recommendations on a possible readmission on the basis of risk assessments that are accused of being industry friendly and lacking in transparency. "The EU drug testing of glyphosate is like a tragedy in several acts," said Häusling. (No)