Arguments against the European Commission’s recent decision to re-approve glyphosate

2. Cancer risk ignored: Despite new studies confirming glyphosate’s carcinogenic potential, such as a study by the Ramazzini Institute showing blood cancers in rats after long-term exposure, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) failed to classify glyphosate accordingly, missing an opportunity to potentially ban it.

3. Genotoxicity concerns: ECHA’s 2021 assessment did not convincingly demonstrate that glyphosate is not genotoxic. Independent studies point to its genotoxic potential, but no new studies were requested by the authorities and too much reliance was placed on industry studies that were considered less sensitive.

4. Overlooking neurotoxicity: Glyphosate’s effects on the nervous system and brain, including possible links to Parkinson’s disease, have not been thoroughly assessed. Critical studies, including those on developmental neurotoxicity, were not considered.

5. Impact on the microbiome: Glyphosate, also known as an antibiotic, adversely affects the microbiome of humans and other species, which could explain the reported neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity. However, the EU risk assessment neglected evidence on glyphosate’s effects on the microbiome due to a lack of standardised regulatory guidance.

6. Wildlife toxicity under-reported: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) failed to disclose information on glyphosate’s toxicity to insects, birds and amphibians, ignoring key studies showing harm and compromising regulatory decisions.

7. Lack of comprehensive testing: Despite legal requirements, no long-term study of glyphosate-based herbicides has been submitted to assess their impact on health and the environment. EFSA’s inability to assess all co-formulants in a representative formulation is contrary to pesticide legislation.