Farmers wait: On pesticide decision

THOUGH THE EU Commission has announced that it will be attempting to secure an 18 month relicensing approval for glyphosate – the world’s most widely used herbicide which is currently mired in controversy over its possible health impacts – member state ministers who rejected previous licensing proposals from the Commission have stuck to their guns ahead of a planned vote.

Responding to the Commission’s proposed temporary relicensing – pending the findings of a report the EU executive has commissioned from the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) – French environment minister Segolene Royal said France will not change its mind on glyphosate and will not vote in support of the Commission’s proposal.

Germany’s environment ministry has also confirmed on Twitter that it won’t alter its stance next week. Due to the different positions on glyphosate held by Germany’s environment and agriculture departments (controlled by two different political parties making up the country’s coalition government), officials have said Germany will abstain in any glyphosate vote.

COMMISSION’S PROPOSALS ‘UNACCEPTABLE’

Ministers from Sweden, Italy Portugal and Austria have all expressed opposition to the Commission’s past proposals, backing the published opinion of the World Health Organisation’s cancer research arm IARC on glyphosate; last year, IARC classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, though a subsequent review by EU health watchdog EFSA reached the opposite conclusion, sparking a spat between high ranking scientists from the two agencies.

On Wednesday, Green MEPs in the European Parliament reacted to EFSA’s proposal to make scientific papers which influenced its decision on glyphosate – but were not available to IARC, which operates to strict transparency guidelines – available in a private reading room, which was set up to use for viewing sensitive documents relating to TTIP (the trade deal being brokered between the EU and United States) and tax.

EFSA’s suggestion was made in response to a freedom of information request submitted by four MEPs. The Greens’ spokesperson on the issue, MEP Heidi Hautala, commented: “this culture of radically limited transparency, whereby MEPs can only access a secret room without their phones, laptops and sometimes even pens or paper, should only be applied in extreme cases, and should not be used in response to public access to documents requests”.

The current approval period for glyphosate is set to expire at the end of June. In April, the European Parliament voted to approve a shorter relicensing of glyphosate, but with heavy restrictions on its use – including bans on use in public parks, restricting sales to professionals only and preventing pre-harvest use of glyphosate as a desiccant.

In its latest, temporary proposal the Commission recommends minimising these practices, but does not commit to an outright ban.

NO BACKING DOWN

Commenting on the temporary renewal plan on Wednesday, EU Greens’ environment and food safety spokesperson Bart Staes stated: “This proposal for a ‘technical extension’ has to be seen as the Commission backing down, after its failure to bulldoze through the re-approval of glyphosate following heavy industry lobbying.

“While it means an eleventh hour reprieve for glyphosate, this is hopefully only temporary and this should be the beginning of the end for this toxic product.”

The NFU has revealed that its vice president Guy Smith has met with EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, who tabled the Commission proposal on Wednesday.

Speaking after a second vote on glyphosate was delayed last month, Mr Smith said: “I am nothing short of exasperated as to why this key herbicide cannot simply and quickly be given the reauthorisation that has been recommended by EFSA – the appropriate EU scientific body.

“Some member states in the committee are prevaricating and wasting time when they could be taking decisions based on scientific evidence. Glyphosate is a pesticide which allows farmers to combat weeds while supporting cultivation methods that can preserve good soil structure. There is no sense behind this delay.”

SHOULD HAVE BEEN BANNED ALREADY

Green MEP Bart Staes added, “The EU will now have to finalise its assessment of the health risks with glyphosate, both as regards it being a carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor. However, glyphosate’s devastating impact on biodiversity should have already led to its ban.

“The significant public mobilisation and political opposition to reapproving glyphosate has been taken seriously by key EU governments and the Commission has been sent back with its tail between its legs.”

He continued: “The whole controversy surrounding the re-approval of glyphosate has revitalised the debate about Europe’s agricultural model and the dependence on toxic substances in the current system.

“This is already starting to filter through the policy-making process, with the Dutch EU presidency having flagged up the debate this week. This opportunity now needs to be seized [in] fundamentally reorienting the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy towards a more sustainable agricultural model.”

FARMERS ASKED TO DO THE IMPOSSIBLE

In an open letter to EU policymakers and officials on June 3, the NFU wrote: ‘The removal of such a tool carries the very real risk of yet another pressure on our incomes at a time when economic returns are already severely squeezed.

The arable sector will likely be hardest hit through any restrictions, with direct impacts on yields.

‘Loss of availability in the livestock and dairy sectors would result in an inability to tackle invasive and poisonous species in grassland and plant pests and diseases across all farm types.

These effects would directly hit farmers’ margins too. Europe would therefore be at a further disadvantage to other nations, who face no such restrictions, but who we are increasingly trading with.

‘Farmers are being asked the impossible. On one hand farmers are encouraged to improve and compete, yet we have tools that allow us to do so directly threatened with no like-for-like alternatives in place.’