News Crop protection
Battle in glyphosate dossier not yet over
Anyone who thought that extending the use of glyphosate would stop the discussion was wrong. Many opponents were ready to give their views on why they believe reregistration for ten years is wrong. European member states that abstained from voting also have an opinion ready. So the discussion continues to this day.
On Thursday, November 16, the European Commission decided that the registration of the active substance glyphosate will be extended by ten years extended in the European Union. The decision follows an earlier voting round, about a month ago. It is striking that France, Germany and Italy did not answer yes or no, nor did the Netherlands, which left the decision in the hands of the Commission.
Özdemir does a 'Breathe'
On the same day, Germany's green agriculture minister, Cem Özdemir, presented his organic agricultural strategy for the country. That ambition is obvious, with a tripling of the area in just seven years. The re-registration of glyphosate is a thorn in Özdemir's side. He would prefer to vote against an extension, but his coalition partners SPD and FDP, who govern together with the Greens in the Bundestag, did not agree. That's how the outspoken minister finally took a 'breathing'.
The attitude of neighboring country France is also special in the file. French Agriculture Minister Marc Fresneau also decided not to vote for or against. His aim was to authorize the drug for a maximum of seven years, but the Commission found that too impractical. In the past, French President Emmanuel Macron has spoken out against the use of the herbicide in his country. Soon after that statement, this turned out to be an untenable attitude. The ambition continued to be discussed, but the reality turned out differently.
Banning is not easy
The Commission says that Member States are ultimately responsible for the authorization of glyphosate. The only Member State that has so far decided to no longer authorize the drug is Luxembourg. Its use has been banned there since 2021. This spring it was announced that this ruling was contrary to European rules, after Bayer took the Luxembourg state to court.
If countries want to actively discourage use, they must do so through all kinds of regulations. For example, by banning it in water extraction areas or vulnerable places, as is already happening. A Member State must provide cogent arguments as to why it is in favor of a total ban.
Fire letter
Before the vote, but also shortly afterwards, many nature and health organizations took advantage of the moment to make their position and disappointment about the extension clear. In the run-up to the vote, an urgent letter was sent on behalf of 159 Dutch scientists sent to the outgoing cabinet. According to them, there are gaps in the EFSA research into the harmful impact of glyphosate on people, nature and the environment. In this way, the discussion around the drug continues to be sparked. This will also be the case in the next ten years. The Commission has also mentioned that as soon as studies show that there are indeed unacceptable health risks, the license of the active substance will be withdrawn in the EU.
Niels van der Boom
© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.
