The European Union has widened the area where glyphosate, a pesticide, is used. The chemical, widely available in Spain, has drawn concern from environmental experts and activists who warn about potential risks to health and ecosystems.
PAN Europe has urged the European Commission to reopen discussions about the renewal decision, citing gaps in the evaluation studies used to extend glyphosate’s permit. The group argues that essential information was missing during the review process and calls for a re-examination to ensure all safety standards are met.
Representatives from PAN Europe, the British firm ClientEarth, the French organization Générations Futures, the Austrian Global 2000, and PAN Germany and PAN Netherlands have described the issue as presenting high cancer risks, alarming insect mortality, and notable effects on brain function and genetics .
Under current rules, a request for an internal review is the first formal step for these organizations to challenge EU decisions they believe breach environmental laws. The Commission has up to 22 weeks to respond to the review. If the response is considered unsatisfactory, the groups may pursue a case at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) .
Renewal of glyphosate authorization
There was an agreement to renew glyphosate in November of the previous year, as reported by Efe, which noted discussions about a ten-year renewal after a lack of consensus on a ban among EU member states. The NGOs involved point to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) as the primary evaluators. They claim these agencies dismissed independent studies for not meeting regulatory guidelines, though they acknowledge alignment with newer evidence as well.
PAN Europe’s director Martin Dermine criticized EFSA and ECHA for maintaining positions that discount independent research, arguing that high-level professionals should give independent studies greater weight .
The groups contend that a large portion of toxicity studies and ecotoxicology reports were overlooked in the Commission’s assessment, estimating that about 95 percent and 93 percent, respectively, were not considered .
New scientific findings: it is carcinogenic
NGOs present new scientific findings in their appeal, asserting that glyphosate is carcinogenic and highly genotoxic. They cite non-industry, independent studies that allege risks that the EU review did not fully incorporate .
They also argue that neurotoxicity research used by public bodies focuses on acute or short-term adult exposure and does not adequately address risks in scenarios such as maternal exposure during pregnancy .
The petition details that glyphosate affects microbiomes in humans, birds, bees, and other species, and notes that no long-term mammalian toxicity studies were included in the extension assessment .
The legal team behind ClientEarth emphasized that the aim extends beyond court victories. They hope the Commission will rethink the authorization process and consider broader evidence even if an outright withdrawal does not occur .
……….
The environmental department invites further inquiries via a designated contact channel for official communications .