A new legal challenge was launched by a group of nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) against the European Commission.
The challenge concerns the Commission’s re-approval of the legal use of glyphosate, a decision that the group of NGOs claims is at odds with scientific evidence.
The NGOs include PAN Europe, ClientEarth (EU), Générations Futures (France), Global 2000 (Austria), PAN Germany, and PAN Netherlands. Pesticide Action Network (PAN) is a network of NGOs that aim to “reduce the use of hazardous pesticides and have them replaced with ecologically sound alternatives.”
Glyphosate is used as a weedkiller but is subject to widespread allegations of being carcinogenic. Recent studies found that it has “serious effects on human health”.
The NGOs claim that re-approving the use of glyphosate for another ten years constitutes a breach of the obligation “to protect European citizens and the environment” on the part of the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
The group has reviewed the European Commission’s approval process and has identified “several critical shortcomings”. Among these shortcomings is that the European Commission relied on industry-provided evidence, which contained gaps. The European Commission did not rely on independent, academic studies, despite these being readily available.
Materials presented to the European Commission by ECHA fail to show that glyphosate is carcinogenic, genotoxic, and potentially neurotoxic, nor does it show the chemical’s effects on the microbiome and other organisms.
As such, the NGOs have submitted their request for internal review, which is brought under the Aarhus Convention. Actions under this regulation can force the European Commission to review its actions that are contrary to environmental law.
Senior ClientEarth lawyer, Juliette Delarue, said: “Glyphosate is a dangerous substance – by re-approving it, the Commission has made a manifest error in the face of the law and of independent and reliable science. Beyond that, the EU treaties require the Commission to act with caution to prevent harm to humans and nature. Our challenge asks the Commission to finally pay heed to the science and withdraw its approval”.
Comments