GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Latest News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • 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
      • Cornell 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
    • Links
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • Archive
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
    • Daily Digest
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell 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
  • Contact
  • About
  • Links
  • Donations

LATEST NEWS

  • Argentina: Devastating consequences of GMO-based intensive ag on native amphibians

  • Glyphosate and Roundup proven to disrupt gut microbiome by inhibiting shikimate pathway

  • Dicamba fatigue

  • Austrian leader blocks ban on weedkiller glyphosate, citing technicality

  • South Africa: 2,4-D-tolerant GM maize varieties approved

GENE-EDITED CROPS & FOODS

Help stop the new threat

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

LATEST VIDEOS

  • GMO crops: A farmer’s experience
  • Summary of GMO studies by 25-year expert researcher
  • Why are we being fed by a poison expert?

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

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!

MEPs want to see more glyphosate data

Details
Published: 11 January 2017
Twitter

EFSA continues "to withhold sections of the studies that, in our view, are crucial for an independent assessment”, say MEPs

The four Green MEPs who requested access to unpublished industry studies on glyphosate have put in a second request to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) asking for more information.

In their letter to Dirk Detken, the head of legal and regulatory affairs at EFSA, MEPs Heidi Hautala, Benedek Jávor, Michèle Rivasi and Bart Staes say that they welcome the fact that EFSA sent them the unpublished raw data on the genotoxicity and carcinogenicity of glyphosate, and EFSA’s recognition that their motivation was to allow independent scrutiny of the data.

But the MEPs say that EFSA is continuing "to withhold sections of the studies that, in our view, are crucial for an independent assessment". They are asking EFSA to send them the sections on "material, conditions and methods" as well as "results and discussion".

This documentation, they point out, is necessary in order to:
1. Know the chemical purity of the substance
2. Assess whether the statistical method most appropriate for the analysis of the results was established before commencing the study (thus, presumably, ensuring that industry cannot cherry-pick the statistical analytical methods that give the desired result)
3. Ascertain the origin of the animals used, as this relates to the controversial issue of historical control data (which is often used by industry and regulators to dismiss findings of harm within individual experiments)
4. To verify "potentially speculative claims with regard to viral infections" in the pathology reports, and
5. To check whether the evaluation of observed tumour incidences was done correctly.

The MEPs also say that those parts of the studies bearing regulatory certification by dedicated laboratories and including the statement on Good Laboratory Practice must be made available. Industry studies are supposed to conform to Good Laboratory Practice rules.

The EU access-to-documents legislation permits some exceptions to disclosure but the MEPs cite examples of case law to argue that EFSA cannot refuse their request.

The letter says that EFSA would have to prove that an interest would be undermined by disclosure. In other words EFSA has to examine each document and prove that a serious risk is "reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical".

The MEPs also demand that EFSA disclose the names and declarations of interest of all the member state representatives involved in the glyphosate assessment – something the Authority has not done, though a few experts have made voluntarily declarations.

The MEPs’ letter cites the legal case, ClientEarth v EFSA (615/13P), in which the European Court of Justice concluded that identifying the experts who comment on EFSA draft guidance is necessary "so that the impartiality of each of those experts in carrying out their tasks as scientists in the service of EFSA could be specifically ascertained".

The MEPs also argue that there is “a clear overriding public interest in disclosure of the information on material, experimental conditions and methods, as well as results and discussion“, something which EFSA has denied.

The case will set an important precedent for other regulatory evaluations of pesticides and other chemicals, which are similarly based on unpublished industry studies.

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2019 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design