NFU president Meurig Raymond is traveling to Strasbourg, home of the European Parliament, ahead of a vote on the future of broad leaf herbicide glyphosate, which is at the centre of debates about carcinogenicity and how science should guide policy in Europe.

Members of the European Parliament are set to vote on the future of glyphosate this Wednesday, after the Parliament’s Environment Committee voted against EU Commission plans to renew glyphosate’s license for 15 years last month.

In March last year, the World Health Organisation’s cancer research arm IARC classified glyphosate as being ‘probably carcinogens to humans’, though a later assessment by the EU’s food safety watchdog EFSA reached the opposite conclusion, sparking a spat between prominent scientists from the two organisations. The scope of the two conflicting assessments has also been called into question. IARC looked at products containing glyphosate as they are found on the market, whereas EFSA only looked at glyphosate in isolation.

In March, a proposed vote in the European Council was abandoned after several member states rebelled against the Commission’s plans. The member state ministers, who up until the last minute postponement had been expected to wave through the reapproval plans, said they would vote against a license renewal unless the Commission postponed the vote and efforts were made to publish a number of papers made available to EFSA by the Glyphosate Task Force (made up of manufacturers of the off-patent herbicide) but not to IARC.

The Parliament Environment Committee’s vote in March saw MEPs urge the Commission not to renew the glyphosate license and instead to launch a transparent review looking into the health and safety risks of Europe’s most commonly used herbicide.

The NFU, alongside other European farm groups, is lobbying MEPs to vote against the Environment Committee’s resolution on Wednesday.  NFU’s Meurig Raymond said on Monday, “This is a massive issue for all our members which is why we have been contacting MEPs in huge numbers – the possibility of not re-authorising glyphosate presents all farmers with huge problems. I am frustrated with the way the European Parliament is handling this issue. This is not about political point scoring; we need to put science ahead of politics.

“We cannot make progress if policy in Europe is determined in this political fashion. We must be led by science.”

However, the Environment Committee’s stance is science-based; MEPs are urging the Commission to apply the precautionary principle, which is enshrined in EU law. The principle places the onus on the company or group wanting to profit from an action or product to prove that it definitely won’t cause harm to people or the environment, rather than making civil society’s representatives prove that the action or product (in this case glyphosate) definitely will. The principle states that where there is a lack of conclusive evidence, policy makers should err on the side of caution.

Looking ahead to Wednesday’s vote, the European Greens said, “Given the serious health concerns and conflicting scientific advice, the Commission should be respecting its duty to apply the precautionary principle and not steamrolling through approval of this highly controversial substance. As long as the manufacturers fail to demonstrate an absence of harm, glyphosate should not be approved for use in the EU.”

On Monday, a Yougov poll of 7,000 people in Europe’s five largest states revealed two-thirds would support a ban on glyphosate, though support for such a ban varied widely between countries. Whilst 75% of Italians would support a ban, as would 70% percent of Germans, only 56% of Britons would like to see Glyphosate restricted.  

Ahead of the vote on Wednesday, up to 150 MEPs are expected to give urine samples as part of a symbolic test, after previous studies have found glyphosate residues in the urine of Europeans, as well as in bread and beer on sale in the EU.