Member state representatives will today vote on the European Commission’s controversial proposal for a ‘temporary’ reapproval of glyphosate - the world’s most widely used herbicide, which has become a hot topic in Europe over evidence it may cause cancer.

The current licensing period for glyphosate expires at the end of the month. Having been forced to abandon two votes on relicensing the herbicide, first for a further 15 years in March, then for nine years last month, the Commission called a vote on an 18-month temporary relicensing deal last week, which would extend the herbicide’s approval pending the results of a study by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) on glyphosate’s health impacts, requested by the Commission.

On Monday, the UK’s farming unions sent an open letter to EU policy makers urging them to back the temporary authorisation and claiming there is “No well-reasoned argument holding back a full re-authorisation of glyphosate in line with the regulatory process,” given that the EU’s food safety regulator EFSA has issued a favourable opinion.

However, last year, before EFSA’s review was published, the World Health Organisation’s cancer research arm IARC classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, which has led to a spat between high level scientists from the two agencies. IARC is committed to transparency and avoiding conflicts of interests in its assessments, and the review looked at glyphosate products as they appear on the market, whereas EFSA’s looked at the glyphosate compound in isolation. Since the review, the Commission has made some concessions, including promising to look at active ingredients in more realistic settings and restricting certain co-formulants used in products.  

Ahead of planned votes on the future of glyphosate earlier this year member state governments expressed their support for IARC’s assessment and refused to back the Commission’s position. In an agreement voted on by the European Parliament in April, MEPs urged the Commission to abide by the precautionary principle.

However, at the time, MEP Julie Girling, spokesperson for the European Conservatives, said, “The precautionary principle in EU law is to take care of cases where there is not any scientific advice. There is a plethora of scientific advice here. We have to choose between our own EFA advice and IARC, and I see no reason to move away from EFA. We believe the focus should instead be on risks posed by co-formulants and Conservative MEPs will push the Commission to come forward with a separate act this summer listing substances to be excluded from use in products containing glyphosate.”

In their letter, the heads of Britain’s largest farming unions said member state experts and EU legislators should “respect the [regulatory] process” and claimed that the widely-used herbicide has become the “subject of political bargaining.” They also said that the loss of glyphosate would give rise to more harmful chemicals and make EU producers less competitive, given that farmers elsewhere would still have access to the product.  

When the Commission announced its proposal last week, EU Greens spokesperson and Belgian MEP Bart Staes stated, “Only last month, the European Parliament voted to highlight its concerns with glyphosate and adopted a resolution opposing approval of glyphosate for most of its uses. MEPs voted to oppose the approval of glyphosate in agriculture where there are alternative methods for weed control, in the pre-harvest stage, in public parks and playgrounds and for hobby gardeners. The Commission has very belatedly taken some of these recommended restrictions on board today but it is too little, too late. In the interim, EU governments should now act at national level, where member states can introduce their own bans or restrictions, as France has already indicated it will do.

"The whole controversy surrounding the re-approval of glyphosate has revitalised the debate about Europe's agricultural model and the dependence on toxic substances in the current system. This is already starting to filter through the policy-making process, with the Dutch EU presidency having flagged up the debate this week. This opportunity now needs to be seized both as regards phasing out glyphosate and other toxic herbicides and pesticides, as well as fundamentally reorienting the EU's Common Agricultural Policy towards a more sustainable agricultural model."

If there is no agreement at Monday’s meeting, the glyphosate proposal will go before an appeal committee, though the Commission will be able to make the final decision, regardless of the committee outcome.