On 11 December 2024, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Europe and its subsidiaries in Germany and the Netherlands, as well as its members ClientEarth, Générations Futures, GLOBAL 2000, challenged the renewal of the authorisation of glyphosate at the Court of Justice of the EU. (1)
1) Glyphosate, the disputed renewal of the authorization in the EU
The last renewal of the authorization for the use of glyphosate in the European Union – like the previous one (2) – has been the object of lively protests by civil society, as we have seen. (3) Not because of ideological prejudice, mind you, but because of well-founded concerns about the impact of this toxic chemical substance on the health of human beings, who are subjected to environmental and dietary exposure as well as occupational exposure.
In fact, numerous scientific studies have in fact revealed serious risks – genotoxicity and carcinogenesis, neurotoxicity, endocrine disruption, premature mortality (4) – which have in some cases been hidden by the industries involved and often underestimated by EFSA. (5) The six non-profit organizations have therefore requested a review of the renewal of the authorization of glyphosate and, following an unsatisfactory response from the European Commission, have turned to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
2) PAN Europe, the appeal to the EU Court of Justice
PAN (Pesticides Action Network) Europe and its members have submitted to the Court of Justice of the EU a robust scientific and legal analysis highlighting unacceptable shortcomings in the assessment of glyphosate in Europe. The Commission and the EU scientific agencies, (6) according to the appellants:
– ‘have systematically excluded critical scientific studies reporting adverse effects caused by glyphosate, using scientifically invalid arguments, or
– have minimized such effects by applying, for example, less sensitive and inappropriate statistical methodologies. In doing so,
– have violated their own international guidelines and protocols. Their conclusion that glyphosate is safe is scientifically unfounded and stems from a risk assessment that does not meet basic legal requirements.‘.
3) Main reasons for the appeal
Organizations of civil society – with the participation of EKO, Bündnis für eine Enkeltaugliche Landwirtschaft eV, FoodWatch International, FoodWatch Netherlands, ISDE Italia, Nature & Progrès, Umweltinstitut München eV, WeMove – focused on the violation of scientific standards by the authorities who have (under)assessed the risks associated with the use of glyphosate:
– neurotoxicity. PAN Europe, through a request for access to documents, demonstrated that several scientists had alerted the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to possible links between exposure to glyphosate, Parkinson’s disease and developmental neurotoxicity, relevant to autism and cognitive impairment in children; (7)
– carcinogenesis. The European Commission and ECHA have based their assessments of the cancer risk associated with glyphosate on the theories of a private consultant, Kenny Crump, known to the press for defending lead, asbestos and benzene in the interests of big business. Crump dismisses all cancers induced by glyphosate as ‘false positives’, in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer, WHO) assessment;
– ‘manipulation’ of statistical data. EU risk assessors, in studies of glyphosate-cancer links, have used statistical methods designed to weigh the pros and cons of drugs, rather than those needed to examine dose-response increases in cancer. Professor of environmental biology Geert de Snoo (Leiden University, Director of Research at the Royal Dutch Academy of Science) has called this approach ‘bad science’, in line with other leading scientific publications (8,9).
4) Glyphosate, other critical issues in risk assessment
The appeal The Court of Justice also points out other critical issues in the assessment of the risks associated with the use of glyphosate:
– incomplete risk assessment. The authorities failed to assess the long-term toxicity, carcinogenicity and cumulative effects of the ‘representative’ formulation of glyphosate used in European fields, in contradiction with the Blaise ruling of CJEU (case C-616/17);
– underestimation of independent studies. Evidence linking glyphosate to cancer, genotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and endocrine disruption from peer-reviewed scientific literature has been ignored or downplayed in favor of industry-funded studies;
– failure to assess impacts on biodiversity and microbiome. The assessment finally neglected the impacts of glyphosate on biodiversity, as well as on the microbiome, arguing that no guidance document exists. Two recent CJEU rulings (cases C-308/22; C-309/22 and C310/22) have instead clarified that the absence of guidance does not justify the omission of the necessary assessments.
5) Provisional conclusions
The scientific review of the literature on the relationship between glyphosate and cancer, by IARC, has recently confirmed that ‘existing evidence does not appear to support a change in classification’ of such substance as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans‘. (10).
THROW, on the contrary, has rejected this classification, omitting however to consider the scientific frauds that have emerged in the ‘Monsanto papers’. (11) And the scientific frauds that have accumulated have been overlooked by the authorities responsible for risk assessment. (12)
The Court of Justice will now have to assess whether the latest renewal of the authorisation of glyphosate complies with Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 and the precautionary principle. The Court itself has also clarified that such legislation should give priority to the protection of human health and the environment over the placing on the market of pesticides and other ‘plant protection products’. (13)
Dario Dongo
Note
(1) Next step: glyphosate approval is brought to the European Court of Justice
PAN (Pesticides Action Network) Europe. 11.12.24 https://tinyurl.com/yw3rw79c
(2) Dario Dongo. Glyphosate, the Berlin zoo. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade).
(3) Dario Dongo. No to reducing pesticides, yes to glyphosate. ToxicEurope. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade).
(4) Dario Dongo. Glyphosate, Brain Inflammation and Alzheimer’s. FT (Food Times). December 7, 2024
(5) Dario Dongo. Glyphosate and neurotoxicity, doubts and questions from a toxicologist. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade).
(6) The risk assessment process was entrusted to the ‘Assessment Group on Glyphosate’ (composed of the national agencies of France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary), ECHA (European Chemicals Agency) and EFSA (European Food Safety Authority)
(7) Dario Dongo. Pesticides, herbicides and Parkinson’s disease. FT (Food Times). March 10, 2024
(8) Ton van der Ham, Vincent Harmsen. Kankerrisico door pesticiden decadesalang ‘verkeerd’ ingeschat. Zembla. 16.9.24 https://tinyurl.com/4f55n33e
(9) Clausing P, Robinson C, Burtscher-Schaden H. Pesticides and public health: an analysis of the regulatory approach to assessing the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in the European Union. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2018 Aug;72(8):668-672. doi: 10.1136/jech-2017-209776
(10) Advisory Group recommendations on priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2025–2029. IARC. 4.11.24 https://tinyurl.com/47sc4wfn
(11) Dario Dongo. Glyphosate, the report from Echa, the European Chemical Agency, overlooks the falsity of the data produced by Monsanto. The Corporation is now on trial in the US. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade).
(12) Dario Dongo. Glyphosate, civil society denounces fraud in view of the ten-year renewal in the EU. GIFT (Great Italian Food Trade).
(13) CJEU, case C-162/21, PAN Europe v. Belgium et al., ruling 19.1.23 https://tinyurl.com/4wspxxrv See recital 48
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
 Europe and its subsidiaries in Germany and the Netherlands){kind=link}