0
Home
News
Directory
E-newsletter
Magazine
Events
Data
AgReport
Subscribe
EFSA: Glyphosate ban debate ‘legitimate’ but not about science
Jan. 16, 2017
The debate on the toxicity of pesticides and the role of big multinationals in agriculture is a legitimate one to have, says Bernhard Url, the head of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). But it goes beyond the realm of science, he told EurActiv in an interview, calling on politicians to assume their responsibilities and make their own decisions.
Debates on food safety have taken huge proportions in Europe, where public opposition to pesticides and GMOs is widespread.
Glyphosate, the active substance in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup, is a case in point where the initial debate on the substance’s carcinogenic properties and risk for humans has moved beyond the scientific realm to become a societal discussion with wider ramifications, Url said.
“With glyphosate we have seen so many different aspects of the discussion come together,” Url told EurActiv in an interview, saying some people have used the debate to raise fundamental objections against intensive agriculture in Europe.
“That is legitimate, but it is nothing to do with safety. It is about the way we produce agricultural goods,” Url added. “It is a highly political decision that can only be taken by risk managers.”
When science meets economics, ethics and religion
The Austrian official, who heads the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, says there are “many value statements related to glyphosate which are legitimate” – for example how agriculture should be done in Europe, the quantities of pesticides that should be used, and how to protect biodiversity.
But add US multinational Monsanto and GMOs to the mix and you suddenly get an explosive mixture.
“All of these elements came together at once,” which gave the scientific debate about toxicity almost philosophical proportions, he said. “And this is an area where policy-makers have to make the decisions,” Url said.
“When science meets values, ethics, beliefs, religion, even economic interests – this is where it really gets complicated. And there, from my point of view, food becomes a proxy for a much broader discussion on globalisation, big business, multi-national companies, maybe even inequality.”
This is also where gross misunderstandings about the role of science often occur. When the general public expected EFSA to take a position on whether to ban glyphosate, the Parma-based agency limited its role to drawing scientific conclusions and left the decision to elected politicians, who have the democratic legitimacy to do so.
“This was the big argument: people saw that it was a possible or probable carcinogen and immediately thought that such a substance should not be authorised. But the thing is that the carcinogenicity, if it exists at all, is seen at such levels that you would have to eat the food of 20,000 people every day in order to reach it. And this is unlikely to happen,” Url said.
“So to use the safety argument to say glyphosate is a carcinogen that needs to be banned is not relevant”.
Read more at EurActiv.com
Source: EurActiv.com
More from AgroNews
Change
Hot TopicSubscribe
| Subscribe Email: | * | |
| Name: | ||
| Mobile Number: | ||
Comment
0/1200
NEWSLETTER