Not only are agriculture ministers from several countries opposing it, but the European Parliament also has concerns and doubts for various reasons. There is already talk that the European Commission will have to come up with an amended proposal.
After years of studies and investigations, Brussels recently proposed to allow glyphosate for another period of ten years, with two subordinate EU-wide restrictions. In addition, countries would themselves be allowed to impose additional national restrictions, as France has recently done.
According to European Commissioner Stella Kyriakides (Food Safety & Health), countries can impose their own restrictions, for example for certain areas or provinces, or for certain crops. That is, for flowers and plants but not for food.
This individual approach is supported by most EU countries, but not by Germany and Austria (which want a total ban), and presumably not by France and the Netherlands either.
In that case, next week there will be no qualified majority in the SCoPAFF committee to support the proposal, not even for an EU-wide ban on glyphosate. This also happened last year, after which the European Commission had to decide on its own to grant a temporary extension to allow for additional research.
At the request of the Party for the Animals, the European Parliament discussed the proposal on Wednesday and already issued some warnings to Commissioner Kyriakides. As expected, the left-wing and green parties were against the proposal and demanded a ban applicable to the entire EU. Some even threaten legal action against the Commission.
MEP Anja Hazekamp (Party for the Animals) pointed to scientific links between glyphosate use and the development of cancer and Parkinson’s disease, the rapidly rising costs of purifying drinking water, and the erosion of biodiversity.
The liberal Renew Europe group noted that this pesticide apparently is not dangerous enough to be removed from the market, unlike asbestos, which was removed at the time.
But even EU politicians from agriculture-friendly groups such as the EPP/CDA and ECR/SGP, who are in favor of a 'limited' extension, say that glyphosate ultimately must be 'phased out.' They also warn about the risks that could arise if each country starts introducing its own criteria, potentially creating competition between farmers from different EU member states within the common agricultural policy.
Commissioner Kyriakides emphasized that the ten-year license can be shortened or withdrawn if new scientific evidence about the harmfulness of glyphosate emerges in the meantime. However, if the ministers within the EU are not on the same page, and if the Parliament is very divided, the chance that these two bodies will later agree together is very small.
At the end of last week, two usually reliable sources in Brussels reported that the European Commission is already working on a possible compromise. This would involve a license valid for at most five years, with a few additional European restrictions imposed. In that case, such a compromise could come to a vote in the second half of October or the first half of November.