Friday, December 8, 2017
Thursday, December 7, 2017
CALL to NULLIFY "Unlawful" EU Glyphosate Renewal
Cross-party Pressure Builds For EU Decision on Glyphosate to be Annulled December 7, 2017
Former UN Special Rapporteur says the EU Commission's Implementing Regulation is unlawful
The Greens/EFA group will try to build a majority in the European Parliament to refer the EU’s decision to renew the licence for glyphosate to the European Court of Justice. The Greens and MEPs from the S&D political group are calling for the decision to be annulled.
The calls follow a new report from Professor Olivier De Schutter, a Belgian international human rights lawyer who now sits on the UN's Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and who formerly served as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. In his report, Prof De Schutter outlined the reasons why the EU Commission's Implementing Regulation, which lays out the terms on which glyphosate's approval will be renewed, is unlawful and should be annulled.
His view is shared by the MEPs Eric Andrieu and Marc Tarabella from the S&D political group. They stated, "The re-authorization of this potentially carcinogenic substance for 500 million European citizens violates the existing European regulations on pesticides and several provisions of EU treaties."
The MEPs added that Prof De Schutter's report confirms that the EU vote to renew glyphosate for another five years "does not respect the precautionary principle".
The calls follow a new report from Professor Olivier De Schutter, a Belgian international human rights lawyer who now sits on the UN's Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and who formerly served as the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. In his report, Prof De Schutter outlined the reasons why the EU Commission's Implementing Regulation, which lays out the terms on which glyphosate's approval will be renewed, is unlawful and should be annulled.
His view is shared by the MEPs Eric Andrieu and Marc Tarabella from the S&D political group. They stated, "The re-authorization of this potentially carcinogenic substance for 500 million European citizens violates the existing European regulations on pesticides and several provisions of EU treaties."
The MEPs added that Prof De Schutter's report confirms that the EU vote to renew glyphosate for another five years "does not respect the precautionary principle".
Pesticides must not harm human health
In his report, Prof De Schutter stated that the renewal contravenes the EU pesticide regulation, which seeks to ensure that no pesticides shall be authorized unless they have no harmful effects on human health and no unacceptable effects on the environment. He wrote that by renewing the approval of an active substance with harmful effects that are amply demonstrated and acknowledged, the Commission broke the law.
Prof De Schutter added that the Commission's Implementing Regulation laying down conditions for glyphosate's renewal breaks the EU pesticide regulation's requirement that the approval and marketing of pesticides should enhance the functioning of the internal market.
He explained that the Implementing Regulation leaves it up to EU member states to protect groundwater, applicators, non-professional users, and non-target animals and plants from potential harm caused by glyphosate. Thus, wrote Prof De Schutter, "The Regulation opens the door to the adoption of a variety of national (or even subnational) regulatory regimes that would defeat its harmonisation purpose. Therefore, it appears that the Implementing Regulation breaches [the EU's pesticide regulation] insofar as it does not enhance the good functioning of the internal market."
Prof De Schutter added that the Commission's Implementing Regulation laying down conditions for glyphosate's renewal breaks the EU pesticide regulation's requirement that the approval and marketing of pesticides should enhance the functioning of the internal market.
He explained that the Implementing Regulation leaves it up to EU member states to protect groundwater, applicators, non-professional users, and non-target animals and plants from potential harm caused by glyphosate. Thus, wrote Prof De Schutter, "The Regulation opens the door to the adoption of a variety of national (or even subnational) regulatory regimes that would defeat its harmonisation purpose. Therefore, it appears that the Implementing Regulation breaches [the EU's pesticide regulation] insofar as it does not enhance the good functioning of the internal market."
Attempt to reverse a harmful decision
Philippe Lamberts, co-president of the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament, said: “We will now try build a majority in the European Parliament to take this to the European Court of Justice and will appeal to the Member States that rightly objected to the Commission’s proposals to join us. We must attempt to reverse what is set to be a deeply harmful decision. It will be clear to anyone that reads Prof De Schutter’s meticulous report that the Commission has been led by business interests. They disregarded not only the European Citizens’ Initiative and the view of the European Parliament, but also serious scientific warnings. Despite the large scale concern, they pressed ahead without even allowing a pause for further investigation. The German government in particular has questions to answer. It seems they are more interested in ensuring the proposed Bayer-Monsanto merger goes ahead than protecting the health of their own citizens."
Prof De Schutter commented: “The Commission has transformed into an institutional crisis what was, initially, a public health issue. It has dismissed the views of the International Agency of Research of Cancer (IARC) of the WHO, according to which glyphosate represents a ‘probable risk of provoking cancer in humans’. It did so despite the fact that the IARC’s findings are far more respected by the scientific community than those of the European agencies — the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — which have adopted their views based primarily, it now appears, on the documents provided by Monsanto. This is unacceptable. The Court of Justice shall have no choice but to annul the Implementing Regulation, for violation of the requirement to ensure a high level of protection of human health and of the environment, and for violation of the right of citizens to file a ECI — and to contribute thereby to the democratic life of the Union.”
Prof De Schutter commented: “The Commission has transformed into an institutional crisis what was, initially, a public health issue. It has dismissed the views of the International Agency of Research of Cancer (IARC) of the WHO, according to which glyphosate represents a ‘probable risk of provoking cancer in humans’. It did so despite the fact that the IARC’s findings are far more respected by the scientific community than those of the European agencies — the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) — which have adopted their views based primarily, it now appears, on the documents provided by Monsanto. This is unacceptable. The Court of Justice shall have no choice but to annul the Implementing Regulation, for violation of the requirement to ensure a high level of protection of human health and of the environment, and for violation of the right of citizens to file a ECI — and to contribute thereby to the democratic life of the Union.”
Background
The European Commission is due to adopt the Implementing Regulation on 12 December. There is then a two-month period in which any Member State or the European Parliament can file an action for annulment of the implementing regulation.
For Prof De Schutter's full report, see: http://extranet.greens-efa-service.eu/public/media/file/1/5422
Sources:
The Greens/EFA in the EU Parliament
https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/greens-efa-group-calls-for-commission-decision-to-be-annulled/
Eric Andrieu, S&D MEP: http://www.eric-andrieu.eu/glyphosate-on-annule-tout/
For Prof De Schutter's full report, see: http://extranet.greens-efa-service.eu/public/media/file/1/5422
Sources:
The Greens/EFA in the EU Parliament
https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/press/greens-efa-group-calls-for-commission-decision-to-be-annulled/
Eric Andrieu, S&D MEP: http://www.eric-andrieu.eu/glyphosate-on-annule-tout/
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
EUROPE STRIVES TO BAN GLYPHOSATE AFTER RENEWAL
A controversial weedkiller has won a new five-year lease in Europe, but citizens are fighting back
Academic rigor, journalistic flair
The controversial pesticide Glyphosate – which is the key ingredient in one of the world’s bestselling weedkillers – has recently had its license renewed by the EU for another five years. This means it will continue to be used by both farmers and homeowners, and will be available for sale across Europe. This is despite ongoing debates about how safe the pesticide actually is.
The decision came just weeks before the current license was due to expire in December and broke a months long impasse between member states who had previously rejected renewals for 15 and ten years.
Despite Brexit, the UK is still affected by the EU’s decision, because it is part of the EU’s agriculture, environment and food safety regimes until March 2019. After that date, a separate process, and a longer license for glyphosate, may beckon.
Why the controversy?
Glyphosate is so controversial because it has previously been linked to cancer. In 2015, The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer stated that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic to humans”. But since then, two EU agencies – the European Food Safety Agency and the European Chemicals Agency – have concluded that it is safe.
In the run up to the re-licensing decision, around four million European citizens signed various petitions calling for a ban on the pesticide. Behind the scenes, the organisation WeMove.EU – which describes itself as a citizens’ movement campaigning for a better Europe – has been coordinating much of the effort.
How have they campaigned so far?
Cmpaigners have used a range of strategies – days of action, petitions, protests – but most prominently, earlier this year WeMove.EU launched a European Citizens’ Initiative, which has given the campaign a way into the formal EU decision making process.
The European Citizens’ Initiative is the EU’s flagship (but still not widely known) effort to establish participatory democracy in the EU. It was introduced by the Lisbon treaty and has since become a major instrument in addressing democratic change.
A citizens’ initiative has to be backed by at least one million EU citizens, coming from at least seven out of the 28 member states. These citizens can then call upon the Commission to make a legislative proposal on an issue where it is perceived that EU action is required
Has this ever happened before?
Since the initiative was launched in April 2012, only four campaigns (including Ban Glyphosate) have succeeded in gaining one million signatures out of 47 that have been proposed. A further 21 have been rejected outright on the grounds that they fell outside the treaties. Over zealousness by the Commission in implementing the European Citizens’ Initiative, excessive requirements on organisers, and a lack of follow-up have been blamed for the low legislative impact.
So it’s not hard to see why by 2016 – just four years after coming into operation – the initiative was almost on the point of collapse. But reforms to the regulation which governs the initiative have been proposed, and the Glyphosate campaign – as well as Brexit which has prompted four additional campaigns – has breathed new life into it.
So has the campaign made a difference?
Ban Glyphosate is the fastest growing campaign in the history of the European Citizens’ Initiative. And by the beginning of July 2017, the campaign had met both the thresholds in terms of signature count and countries involved.
WeMove managed this through a combination of their network of partner organisations – including Greenpeace, Corporate Europe Observatory, Campact and over 90 other organisations. They also used a sophisticated online signature collection system, and an active social media strategy formed around the slogan: “We could get toxic Glyphosate banned, but only if we act together”.
In the UK, the campaign also received an early boost when the link was retweeted by the celebrity naturalist Chris Packham. Support from citizens in the UK was considerable and with over 94,000 signatures, it is the only one of the four successful European Citizens’ Initiatives to meet the threshold in the UK.
What’s next?
Despite the re-licensing of glyphosate, the organisers say that banning a single pesticide was only one part of the campaign. It is claimed that highlighting the strength and depth of citizen opposition to widespread pesticide use and to the existing approval system were the ultimate goals. And efforts will no doubt continue in the EU up to Brexit, and well beyond.
That said, the UK was one of the 18 member states that voted to renew the license. And ultimately, in light of this decision, the main aim of the campaign – an outright ban on the sale and use of glyphosate – looks to have so far been unsuccessful.
But despite this, the pesticide remains a source of controversy. Germany’s support for its re-licensing turned out to be the the result of a decision made by the agriculture minister, Christian Schmidt, against the views of other ministers and without consulting Angela Merkel. While in France, Emmanuel Macron vowed to press ahead with a phasing out of the chemical within three years regardless of the re-licensing. And given that the Commission is obliged to give a response to the European Citizens’ Initiative by early next year, it may still be a case of watch this space.
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Now It's Criminal - Question of Homicide? EU Faces New Charges
Criminal complaint filed against EU authorities after glyphosate approval
Published: 05 December 2017
Approval was gained via covert industry influence and copy-pasting of manufacturers’ documents instead of independent evaluation, NGOs say
An alliance of environmental NGOs on Monday launched criminal proceedings in Austria, Germany, Italy, and France against the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment, BfR, over the EU approval of glyphosate.
Citing their own investigations, US court documents (the so-called "Monsanto Papers"), and a report on plagiarism, the NGOs state that BfR and EFSA have not conducted an independent, objective and transparent assessment of the health risks of glyphosate, as required by the EU Pesticide Regulation 1107/2009. As a result, glyphosate has once again been approved in Europe, when it would otherwise have failed to meet the legal requirements for authorization. The NGOs are concerned that serious damage to health will occur as a result of what they term official misconduct.
Citing their own investigations, US court documents (the so-called "Monsanto Papers"), and a report on plagiarism, the NGOs state that BfR and EFSA have not conducted an independent, objective and transparent assessment of the health risks of glyphosate, as required by the EU Pesticide Regulation 1107/2009. As a result, glyphosate has once again been approved in Europe, when it would otherwise have failed to meet the legal requirements for authorization. The NGOs are concerned that serious damage to health will occur as a result of what they term official misconduct.
Allegation of plagiarism with deliberate concealment of the author
Substances with carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic properties are not allowed to be authorized for use as pesticides, according to the EU Pesticide Regulation. The NGOs say that BfR did not even evaluate those published studies that deal with these potential effects of glyphosate, but instead uncritically adopted the assessments from the manufacturers’ application for authorization. In the process they deliberately obscured the industry origin of the assessments, as the report of the plagiarism expert, Dr Stefan Weber, notes.
As an example, Dr Helmut Burtscher-Schaden of GLOBAL 2000, who commissioned the plagiarism report from Dr Weber for the Austrian environmental organization GLOBAL 2000, showed a graphic that reveals that 94% of BfR’s chapter on genotoxicity came from the industry dossier written by the former Monsanto employee (and later consultant to the company) Larry Kier. But among the small percentage omitted is the information that would enable someone to identify that the Monsanto man was the source!
Dr Weber said of BfR’s report, “All in all, the writers of the report must be accused of significant scientific misconduct and of fulfilling all the definitional criteria of text plagiarism in the sense of conscious deception about the true authorship.”
The authorities reject these accusations. EFSA director Bernhard Url even said they were part of "an orchestrated campaign to discredit the scientific process behind the EU assessment of glyphosate”, while EFSA’s Jose Tarazona told the EU Parliament that the accusations of plagiarism and copy-paste come from “people that do not understand the process”. He showed examples of passages that had been copy-pasted from industry but then contradicted by the authorities, with their own comments written in italics.
But Dr Burtscher-Schaden said that Tarazona took these passages from part of the assessment report that did not deal with independent studies and which are not subject to allegations of plagiarism. He therefore believes that Tarazona misled the Parliament.
Given this disagreement between the authorities and the NGOs, Dr Burtscher-Schaden said he wanted to obtain “an independent and objective test” of the NGOs’ case from a court of law.
Lawyer Dr Josef Unterweger commented: "If plagiarism serves to produce false evidence, then that is not just a matter of copyright. If a [pesticide] authorization authority produces an incorrect report, then it is liable for it. This is called official liability or state liability. If a pesticide is in circulation, which may have been out of circulation for years without a false report from the authority, then the authority that produced the false report is liable for any damage that has since occurred."
If such damage included causing serious illnesses like cancer, then it might even be a question of homicide, Dr Unterweger added.
As an example, Dr Helmut Burtscher-Schaden of GLOBAL 2000, who commissioned the plagiarism report from Dr Weber for the Austrian environmental organization GLOBAL 2000, showed a graphic that reveals that 94% of BfR’s chapter on genotoxicity came from the industry dossier written by the former Monsanto employee (and later consultant to the company) Larry Kier. But among the small percentage omitted is the information that would enable someone to identify that the Monsanto man was the source!
Dr Weber said of BfR’s report, “All in all, the writers of the report must be accused of significant scientific misconduct and of fulfilling all the definitional criteria of text plagiarism in the sense of conscious deception about the true authorship.”
The authorities reject these accusations. EFSA director Bernhard Url even said they were part of "an orchestrated campaign to discredit the scientific process behind the EU assessment of glyphosate”, while EFSA’s Jose Tarazona told the EU Parliament that the accusations of plagiarism and copy-paste come from “people that do not understand the process”. He showed examples of passages that had been copy-pasted from industry but then contradicted by the authorities, with their own comments written in italics.
But Dr Burtscher-Schaden said that Tarazona took these passages from part of the assessment report that did not deal with independent studies and which are not subject to allegations of plagiarism. He therefore believes that Tarazona misled the Parliament.
Given this disagreement between the authorities and the NGOs, Dr Burtscher-Schaden said he wanted to obtain “an independent and objective test” of the NGOs’ case from a court of law.
Lawyer Dr Josef Unterweger commented: "If plagiarism serves to produce false evidence, then that is not just a matter of copyright. If a [pesticide] authorization authority produces an incorrect report, then it is liable for it. This is called official liability or state liability. If a pesticide is in circulation, which may have been out of circulation for years without a false report from the authority, then the authority that produced the false report is liable for any damage that has since occurred."
If such damage included causing serious illnesses like cancer, then it might even be a question of homicide, Dr Unterweger added.
No unbiased examination of scientific facts
GLOBAL 2000 cited recently published US court records, also known as the "Monsanto papers”, as evidence that EFSA and BfR never intended to carry out a proper assessment of the link between glyphosate and cancer. The NGO refers to an email released as part of the Monsanto Papers, in which an EPA employee states that EFSA was minded to reject IARC’s “probable carcinogen” verdict on glyphosate. This email was sent before IARC’s monograph had even been published or EFSA had begun its review of the evidence that IARC drew upon. GLOBAL 2000 believes that this shows that an independent and objective evaluation was ruled out from the start.
Suspicion of (indirect) influence by Monsanto
According to court records released in the US, the contact person for EFSA at the US EPA was Jess Rowland, the same senior EPA toxicologist who was dubbed Monsanto's "mole" at the EPA. He is suspected of having conspired with Monsanto and is alleged to have successfully prevented an independent cancer assessment of glyphosate by another US agency. It also appears that he influenced EFSA to give glyphosate a clean bill of health in a teleconference with EU member states, GLOBAL 2000 stated.
PAN Germany's toxicologist and board member, Dr Peter Clausing, revealed in May 2017 that at this teleconference, a remark by Jess Rowland led EFSA to exclude a pivotal cancer study from its assessment. GLOBAL 2000 said, “A satisfactory scientific justification could not be provided by EFSA.”
For all the above reasons, the environmental organizations GLOBAL 2000, PAN Europe, PAN Germany, PAN Italia and Generations Futures are filing criminal charges against BfR and EFSA. The NGOs are also concerned that if the regulatory authorities failed to conduct themselves properly in the case of glyphosate, they may have done the same with many other pesticides.
GLOBAL 2000 commented: “The shortcomings in the approval process of glyphosate have shaken the confidence of Europeans in the authorities and the authorization process. Comprehensive reform and education is required. This can be done by judicial investigations, but also by parliamentary investigations. Only when this happens and the necessary consequences are drawn can the confidence of Europeans in their institutions be restored in the long term.”
GLOBAL 2000 said the case could not be taken straight to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and that the groups instead aimed to escalate it to the ECJ via a domestic court. But the ECJ told Reuters it was not possible to take pan-European EFSA to a national court. However, as BfR is a domestic agency within Germany, it seems that it would not be protected in this way. As for the case against EFSA, Dr Burtscher-Schaden told GMWatch that the NGOs were considering various ways forward.
Helmut Burtscher-Schaden’s book, The Glyphosate Files: Smoke and mirrors in the pesticide approvals process, is available here:
https://www.amazon.com/Glyphosate-Files-Mirrors-Pesticide-Approvals-ebook/dp/B076VRF8PP
Video released by GLOBAL 2000 to accompany the press conference announcing the court actions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl_IStchz7c&feature=youtu.be
Article in German by GLOBAL 2000: https://www.global2000.at/en/node/5345
PAN Germany's toxicologist and board member, Dr Peter Clausing, revealed in May 2017 that at this teleconference, a remark by Jess Rowland led EFSA to exclude a pivotal cancer study from its assessment. GLOBAL 2000 said, “A satisfactory scientific justification could not be provided by EFSA.”
For all the above reasons, the environmental organizations GLOBAL 2000, PAN Europe, PAN Germany, PAN Italia and Generations Futures are filing criminal charges against BfR and EFSA. The NGOs are also concerned that if the regulatory authorities failed to conduct themselves properly in the case of glyphosate, they may have done the same with many other pesticides.
GLOBAL 2000 commented: “The shortcomings in the approval process of glyphosate have shaken the confidence of Europeans in the authorities and the authorization process. Comprehensive reform and education is required. This can be done by judicial investigations, but also by parliamentary investigations. Only when this happens and the necessary consequences are drawn can the confidence of Europeans in their institutions be restored in the long term.”
GLOBAL 2000 said the case could not be taken straight to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and that the groups instead aimed to escalate it to the ECJ via a domestic court. But the ECJ told Reuters it was not possible to take pan-European EFSA to a national court. However, as BfR is a domestic agency within Germany, it seems that it would not be protected in this way. As for the case against EFSA, Dr Burtscher-Schaden told GMWatch that the NGOs were considering various ways forward.
Helmut Burtscher-Schaden’s book, The Glyphosate Files: Smoke and mirrors in the pesticide approvals process, is available here:
https://www.amazon.com/Glyphosate-Files-Mirrors-Pesticide-Approvals-ebook/dp/B076VRF8PP
Video released by GLOBAL 2000 to accompany the press conference announcing the court actions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl_IStchz7c&feature=youtu.be
Article in German by GLOBAL 2000: https://www.global2000.at/en/node/5345