The european Parliament increases pressure

Photo AFP

AFP

Tuesday, 24 October, 2017 07:24

UPDATE
Tuesday, 24 October, 2017 09:10

Look at this article

STRASBOURG | The european Parliament, demanding the progressive elimination of glyphosate in the european Union by 5 years, highlighted Tuesday the pressure on the Commission and the member States on the eve of a vote in Brussels on the herbicide controversial.

• READ ALSO : A herbicide that is in your orange juice

Gathered in plenary session in Strasbourg, meps voted in favour of a resolution by 355 votes in favour and 204 against (and 111 abstentions), while simple opinion without binding force, but to honor the “precautionary principle”.

The resolution also echoes the signature by 1.3 million citizens to a petition addressed to the european Commission to request the prohibition of the substance.

“We send a strong signal to national governments “, have responded to the meps of the socialist Eric Andrieu (France) and Marc Tarabella (Belgium). For their liberal colleague Frédérique Ries, “the ball is clearly in the camp” of the member States.

A vote is expected Wednesday in the committee of experts in charge of the dossier, composed of representatives of the member States : the Commission proposes to renew the license for glyphosate in the next 10 years. “Irresponsible “, according to the mep of the Greens Michèle Rivasi.

Several member countries, France, Italy and Austria have announced that they oppose it. Paris has already expressed its preference for a shorter period of time.

It is necessary a qualified majority — 55% of member States and 65% of the population — to accept or to reject the proposal of the Commission.

The saga of the renewal of the license of glyphosate, which expires in December, lasts for more than two years in the EU, in the absence of a clear decision.

“Given the calls for a ban of glyphosate, it is encouraging to see that Parliament has voted once more for its reauthorization,” has immediately reacted Graeme Taylor, of the european Association of producers of pesticides (ECPA).

Before engaging in a load severe against the opponents of glyphosate : “It is a shame to see that meps are influenced by the NGOS who claim to represent public opinion, but represent in fact the hostility against the industry, and more worrying, against the science,” added Mr. Taylor.

Scientific controversy

The meps also voted to ban any use of non-professional the substance at the end of the year.

They also urge them to provide necessary support to the farmers in order to ensure the transition to a farming without glyphosate, the herbicide most used in Europe. They also demand to ban its use just before harvest.

The resolution is based on the scientific controversy that surrounds the glyphosate.

She referred in particular to the study of the international agency for research on cancer, an arm of the who, which has been classified as a “probable carcinogen” in 2015, unlike european agencies, Efsa (food safety) and Echa (chemicals).

The green light from these two agencies has led the european Commission has proposed the renewal of the authorization.

The eu executive has said on several occasions that other regulatory authorities are going in the same direction as the agencies scientific of the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and also within a joint committee of FAO (United Nations Organization for Food and Agriculture) and the WHO.

The parliamentary evoke for them the judicial developments in the United States, where hundreds of people with cancer or their relatives have lodged a complaint against the giant agrochemical Monsanto, a major producer of both glyphosate and owner of the pesticide Round-up.

The e-mails and internal documents of the american giant of the agrochemical disclosed in the context of these proceedings cast “doubt” on the “credibility” of scientific studies published or sponsored by Monsanto, say the meps.

“It is obviously necessary to get out of the dependence on glyphosate, but not to no matter what the conditions. (…) We risk plunging the users of the substance in a dead-end technique, because no viable alternative exists, ” warned the mep of the EPP (right) Angélique Delahaye.