EFSA’s scientific opinion contrasts with the findings of an earlier assessment by the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). In March, IARC classified glyphosate as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’ which caused an outcry from the pesticide industry.
 
Though EFSA scientists, who worked with member states’ research agencies, reached the conclusion that glyphosate is unlikely to be carcinogenic, they still pushed for new measures to reduce residues in food (a maximum safe daily dose).

EFSA’s conclusion will be used to advise the EU Commission, as the EU executive reaches a decision on whether to extend the EU approval period for glyphosate at the end of the year.

Reacting to EFSA’s conclusion, Nick von Westenholz, CEO of the Crop Protection Association which represents agchem companies, said, “We are pleased to see that EFSA concurs with the numerous health assessments conducted by public authorities on glyphosate over the past 40 years which have all concluded that, when used correctly, it poses no meaningful risk to human health.”

However, Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, commented, “The EFSA decision is absolutely no surprise.  Given that this review of glyphosate relies almost entirely on industry funded, unpublished studies, it would be unthinkable for the EFSA to come to any conclusion other than that glyphosate is safe to use.”

Melchett criticised EFSA’s method of assessment. He continued, “The reason that other eminent international scientists advising the WHO have already come to different conclusions is, as the EFSA themselves admit, purely because the other scientists are considering a much wider range of evidence than just industry studies, and they are looking at the impacts of glyphosate as it is actually used.”

The Soil Association policy advisor said, “The next serious scientific review of glyphosate will be carried out by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The ECHA will be consulting on their findings at the end of this month,” he added that ECHA’s conclusions may differ from those of EFSA.