Any possible EU ban or reduction in the use of glyphosate in agriculture must be preceded by an impact assessment. This assessment should not only evaluate ecological consequences but also the income effects on farmers. This was the main message of many Members of the European Parliament during a recent debate organized by EURACTIV.
“There is a real need for an impact assessment for every legislative proposal,” said German Christian Democrat Norbert Lins, chair of the European Parliament's Agriculture Committee. During the reauthorization of glyphosate, the consequences for food availability, biodiversity, and farmers' income must also be considered, said Bernhard Url, director of the EFSA assessment committee, in an interview with Euractiv.com.
Glyphosate is one of the most widely used active substances in European agriculture. It is currently approved in the EU, but this approval expires on December 15, 2022. An increasing number of MEPs are advocating for stricter usage rules—following the earlier ban on RoundUp.
According to new regulations, when approving or renewing a pesticide, all information from the applicant must be made public. This followed a ruling by the EU Court in March 2019 requiring the EFSA assessment committee to provide access to all safety studies on glyphosate.
The glyphosate reauthorization process will therefore be closely monitored by many in Brussels and within the industry. Both the decision on glyphosate and the direction of European pesticide policy will largely depend on whether the European assessment process is transparent enough.
Furthermore, the Green Deal has announced new policies for food safety, biodiversity, rural development, and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Within that framework, a goal has been set to halve the use of chemical agents in agriculture and horticulture within ten years. It is thus already clear that the glyphosate debate will not only take place within the Agriculture Committee (AGRI) but also among the Environment (ENVI), Food Safety (EFSA), Regional Development (REGI), and Budget (BUDG) committees.
The idea of a prior impact assessment is not greeted positively by all parties—especially environmental activists who oppose the renewed authorization of glyphosate. Hans Muilerman, chemicals coordinator at the Pesticide Action Network EU, said: “Delaying and further investigating is the well-known stalling tactic and the traditional response of those who object to something.”
Géraldine Kutas, Director General of the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), supported the assessment and said impact assessments are important to understand the consequences of a glyphosate ban on food production, crop yields, and farmers' incomes.
In the European Union, glyphosate remains authorized until at least January 1, 2023. Nevertheless, its use is already being (phased) restricted in several countries. Dutch Agriculture Minister Carola Schouten recently stated in a parliamentary letter that she sees no reason for such a ban in the Netherlands. She was responding to parliamentary questions from Tjeerd de Groot (D66). According to Schouten, who follows the advice of the Dutch assessment committee Ctgb, there are currently no new scientific insights that justify a ban on glyphosate-containing products.