You could prove the laws of chemistry wrong by experimenting with dirty test tubes. Kenneth Binmore

Glyphosat: the Commission, a mere sekretariat!

In the European Commission, they like having the power but not the responsibility. They like pressure even less. As NGOs and certain journalists go after glyphosate, the Commission is muddling through and passing the buck to the Member States without any hesitation.

It is worth recalling that before the Lisbon Treaty, Member States formally possessed the power of implementation (i.e. comitology), but delegated it in practice to the Commission. When the Commission did not have the support of the comitology committee (negative opinion or no opinion, depending on the case), the Council would take back the file and come to a decision by itself. This was the ‘call-back right’.

Under Article 291 of the Lisbon Treaty, Regulation 182/2011 gives the final responsibility to the Commission. Whenever the Appeal Committee fails to give a qualified majority for or against, it is up to the EU executive to take a decision. Or to be more precise: the Commission “may” decide. Thus, it can choose not to take a decision; but basically, the spirit of the text puts the Commission in the driving seat.

In the case of the glyphosate, it is the opposite, as the Commission protects itself using a two-fold strategy: first, amend Regulation 182/2011 to shift responsibility onto Member States, as President Juncker desires. But with the 182/2011 proposal not moving forward, Health Commissioner Andriukaitis has taken out a big umbrella, announcing that the Commission will not be authorising glyphosate without a qualified majority of Member States in favour. The Commission is just taking instructions from the European Council, as if it were a mere secretariat!

But what is the point of EFSA?

Like other health agencies around the world, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has concluded that glyphosate is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans”. The Commission’s draft proposal to re-authorise glyphosate for 10 years does not contest this view (even though the usual period is 15 years), but it does not fully follow the logic of the opinion. By effectively leaving the final decision to Member States, the Commission is in practice undermining the scientific expertise of one of its main agencies.

EFSA has been criticised a lot in the past, although Ms Geslain-Lanéelle has restored credibility, with a budget of €80 million and a staff of 500 civil servants (not to mention external experts). If the Commission and Member States do not fully follow EFSA opinions without good reasons explained publicly, they cause unnecessary disorder and bad governance while wasting public money.

It’s the dose that makes the poison

On 15 September, the French newspaper Libération published a 4-page article with the title on the front page: “Glyphosate – The enemy of breakfast”. The sub-title, also on page one, says that “Traces of the herbicide, classed as carcinogenic, have been detected notably in cornflakes.” Around the same time, other parts of the media – some considered to be ‘objective’ – accuse EFSA experts of being biased in favour of Monsanto, even though the glyphosate substance has been in the public domain since 2000! There is so much bad faith, so much fake news being spread by zealous minorities who always forget that the dose makes the poison. With glyphosate, the dose is a thousand times below the threshold for toxicity.

Faced with these destabilising manoeuvres to influence opinion, nobody is responding: not the Commission, not EFSA, not the farmers affected by the issue, and not a pesticide industry more worried about the US and China than the European Union. Frankly, there are days when I have doubts not only about Europe but about my own profession. Industrial lobbying is coming more under attack, becoming more defensive; the exact opposite it how it should be.

For more information on this subject, please joint us at the free conference “Maize and Innovation: for better or for worse?” on 27 September 2017 (2-5pm) at the Berlaymont Hotel.

Read more in this debate: Bill McGuire, Massimiliano Vasile, Marc Lipsitch.


comments powered by Disqus

Related Content: Europa-politik, Chemie, Lobbyismus


State of the union: Jean-Claude junckers address


We only have two choices

Jean-Claude Juncker has given his final state-of-the-union-address to the EU-parliament. He said: “Either come together around a positive European agenda or each retreat into our own corners. Faced with this choice, I argued for... read more

by Jean-Claude Juncker


The UK referendum and the state of the EU


No facts, no trust, no absolute truths

There have been fundamental changes that have occurred since Great Britain had its first referendum on European membership. In the 70s there were no cafes serving ten different types of coffee to a clientele almost exclusively glued to laptop... read more

by John Malcolm Watts


Suspension of voting rights


Poland needs a clear signal from the EU

The EU will have to take measures with respect to the new Polish government if it does not want to jeopardise the credibility of the European values. To send a clear signal to the new Polish government, it has to be willing to exploit the entire... read more

by Oliver Schmidt
Most Read