GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Donations
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE EDITING MYTHS AND REALITY

A guide through the smokescreen

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

ON-TARGET EFFECTS OF GENE EDITING

Damaged DNA

CITIZENS’ GUIDE TO GM

GMO Myths and Truths front cover

LATEST VIDEOS

  • Herbicide-tolerant/Bt cotton chaos in Indian fields
  • Seed keepers and truth tellers: From the frontlines of GM agriculture
  • Myths and Truths of Gene-Edited Foods

KEVIN FOLTA: A rogue’s gallery

Roundup, dollars and Kevin Folta

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

EU approval of glyphosate: The scandal continues

Details
Published: 16 June 2021
Twitter

No new cancer study, yet EU authorities want to extend approval

Six years after glyphosate was classified as carcinogenic by the WHO's cancer research agency IARC, the EU authorities want to extend the approval of glyphosate again. This is despite the fact that the glyphosate manufacturers have not submitted a new (and exonerating) cancer study for the new approval procedure. The authorities are therefore stating, on the basis of the scientifically highly controversial old manufacturer studies from the previous approval procedure, that the existing regulatory classification of glyphosate as non-carcinogenic should be maintained. This is according to a communication from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and a review of the Glyphosate Renewal Group's application for approval.

"This is incredibly irresponsible and negligent," explains Helmut Burtscher-Schaden, environmental chemist at GLOBAL 2000: "The law requires that pesticide manufacturers demonstrate that their pesticide meets the requirements for approval based on studies conducted on the current state of science. Yet despite the unresolved controversy surrounding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, the glyphosate manufacturers have not submitted a single new cancer study. Therefore the authorities are now once again declaring that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, based on the same old manufacturer studies that according to IARC provide "sufficient evidence" of glyphosate's carcinogenicity in animal experiments. This is so absurd and will not boost Europeans' confidence in their authorities."

Background

The WHO classification of glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" is based in large part on studies conducted by glyphosate manufacturers Monsanto and Cheminova in 1983 and 1993, respectively, in which significant increases in tumour incidence with increasing doses of glyphosate had been found (as well as in three other cancer studies with mice and six with rats). Yet the same studies had previously been used by the EU authorities as evidence for the safety of glyphosate. They subsequently tried to dismiss the increasing tumour incidence as artefacts and incidental findings. The authorities argued that too high glyphosate doses, diseases of test animals, or simply statistical fluctuations were responsible for the cancer findings in the manufacturer's studies. As we now know, according to a peer-reviewed evaluation by former IARC consultant Chris Portier, a total of 37 significant tumour findings can be identified in the 13 valid cancer studies with rodents submitted by the applicants so far (the most recent dates from 2009). According to the current EU Pesticides Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, pesticide active substances may only be authorised if the applicant demonstrates, on the basis of reliable state-of-the-art scientific studies, that its pesticide active substance does not cause cancer in animal experiments.

"Although the concrete arguments used by the EU authorities to justify their renewed green bill of health for glyphosate will not be available until the beginning of September, when EFSA publishes the interim report of the glyphosate assessment as part of a public consultation," explains Burtscher-Schaden, "we can already look forward to the reactions from the independent scientific community.

EFSA plans to make a final recommendation on whether to renew the authorisation of glyphosate in the summer of 2022.

Source of comment: GLOBAL 2000

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

Non-GM Successes

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2022 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design