Can you imagine? The vast majority of environmental minded NGOs, watermelon politicians (green outside – red inside), even an entire government (France), all  advocating against pesticides are being mocked by a bunch of European experts in chemical hazards.

Early last year, employees of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had determined that N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine was « probably carcinogenic in humans » and deserved to be classified up from category 2B (possibly) to 2A (probably). Based on that finding, the whole anti-all World mobilized from Paris to Kolkata to demand a ban of all products made-out of that molecule, the herbicide glyphosate. No consideration was given to the fact that such classification doesn’t include risk evaluations but simply –or rather simplistically– attributes cancer-only hazard to stuff like single molecules (glyphosate), or entire systems, as for example the fumes from burning wood or the consumption of red meat (also in category 2A).

Despite of this, last year, the risk assessment of glyphosate made by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that “glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans”. This assessment led the European Commission to continue the approval of this substance, albeit, and in view of the uproar from all those who know better, this extension was limited to eighteen months instead of the customary fifteen years. This was really a fantastically responsible attitude of totally lost policymakers in front of well-organized populist demands. In addition, the Commission has registered a European Citizens Initiative (ECI) asking a ban on glyphosate [1]. Starting on January 25, 2017, this petition must obtain one million valid signatures from citizens of at least seven EU Member States to oblige the Commission to decide whether or not it would act, and explain the reasons for that choice. We shall note that the period of eighteen months will have expired when such process will get to its end.

Halting this ascientific [2] drama, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) just issued a press release explaining that its Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) “concluded that the available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction.” This conclusion was reached unanimously. Again, it will be now the task of the EFSA to recommend the full approval to the Commission, as it did last year. What the Commission will do will depend on what a qualified majority of Member States representatives will vote. The drama will continue as Member states decide on the approval of various formulations (products in their packaging) to be applied in various crops; here too, politics may try to supersede sober science-based hazard and risk analysis.

If a product is not classified in a given hazard category, it will be quite difficult, even for prejudiced policymakers, to ask for any risk mitigation, or for any ban.

So, in all logic. However, in today’s world of hysterical magic, I shall keep quiet and wait on what will be invented to twist this issue and to rule on what action to take or inaction to unmake, or their contrary.

[1]     And “to reform the pesticide approval procedure, and to set EU-wide mandatory reduction targets for pesticide use.”
When on such path, demanding more may deliver something, isn’t it?

[2]     The prefix “a” is no typo. It means that the whole public discussion does not involve science any more.