Glyphosate Herbicide Not Carcinogenic Rules European Food Safety Authority

Activists decry failure to adhere to technology-killing precautionary principle



Earlier this year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared that the popular weed killer glyphosate (Roundup is one brand name) is a "probable" human carcinogen. Bioluddites rejoiced because the herbicide is generally paired with modern biotech crops that are engineered to resist its effects, enabling farmers to keep their fields weed free. In the wake of the IARC report, the French Minister of Ecology asked garden centers in France to stop selling the product. 

"France must be on the offensive with regards to the banning of pesticides," said ecology minister Ségolène Royal. 

The California EPA made moves toward having the product listed on that state's capacious list of carcinogens as required by its infamous Proposition 65.

Perhaps the regulators in France and California should reconsider. The highly cautious European Food Safety Authority issued its evaluation last week and determined that "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential." The EFSA took the IARC's ruling into account when it made its finding.

Naturally, the bioluddites are unhappy. Spokes-alarmist for the European branch of the Pesticide Action Network Hans Muilerman declared:

"EFSA's opinion violates the precautionary principle; BfR[German Agency] and EFSA only conclude to adverse effects in case of overwhelming evidence; in case of doubt they give the advantage of the doubt to industry instead of giving priority to the protection of human health and the environment."

Glyphosate is undergoing registration review at the U.S. EPA, a program that re-evaluates all pesticides on a 15-year cycle. Let's hope that American bureaucrats turn out to be as reasonable as those in Europe.

NEXT: Ditch the Fake Lovefest and Learn the Real Story of the First Thanksgiving

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sorry, OT:

    Here’s some deep bullshit being spread about by James Woolsey:…..33558.html

    If you want to know why we are on an inexorable path toward serfdom listen to this little pole-slurping “interview” by the CNN bimbo Brooke Baldwin.

    From the article:

    His comments came after CNN host Brooke Baldwin said that the Paris killers allegedly used encrypted apps to hide their messages as they were planning the massacre. She suggested the attackers knew to protect their communications because Snowden had revealed the extent of government monitoring, then asked Woolsey for his thoughts, the Hill reported.

    Did you notice her lobbing the softball, complete with the pre-loaded falsehoods that a) the killers used encrypted apps and b) the only reason they knew to do that was because of Snowden.

    This country is fucked, and there is no hope even for a reacharound. If anyone thinks that these spooks are going to release their hold on our necks, think again.

    Seriously, find some backwater out-of-the-way 3rd-world shithole, pay the locals for protection, and watch as this country descends into complete tyranny.

    1. You know who else just wanted to watch as this country descended into complete tyranny?

      1. Everyone at the NSA besides Snowden?

      2. On the positive side, it’s like 50-1 pro Snowden in the comments, many of whom would like to see Woolsey’s neck stretched out a bit.

  2. “EFSA’s opinion violates the precautionary principle; BfR[German Agency] and EFSA only conclude to adverse effects in case of overwhelming evidence; in case of doubt they give the advantage of the doubt to industry instead of giving priority to the protection of human health and the environment.”

    In other words, it should be banned until someone figures out how to prove a negative.

      1. He is a magnificent bastard, after all…

  3. I’m gonna wait for Glyphosphate 720 to come out.

    1. It’ll be twice as scary!

  4. Friends of the Paleolithic spokesman Huh Moogmoog today decried the approval of fire by the Elder Shamans, saying it violates the Precautionary Principle. “Fire should not be approved until it is proven safe. It might cause the Earth Mother to burn up like the Sun Father and fall into the deep at night.

  5. Interestingly enough, The Precautionary Principle doesn’t pass its own standard.
    Adopting it requires rejecting it.
    We need to reject it until it is proven safe and proper for use.
    Manifestly, it is not and should be rejected on those grounds.

    1. (Applause)

    2. Sounds like semantic nit-picking.

  6. “Spokes-alarmist”


  7. EFSA’s opinion violates the precautionary principle

    True fact, luddite.

    Good thing that principle isn’t important or binding or relevant.

    1. Of course, the precautionary principle is self-negating. You can’t adopt it, without violating it.

      if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action

      So, you can’t adopt the precautionary principle without first achieving a consensus that it is not harmful, etc. Which can’t be done. Its trivially easy to show that the precautionary principle is harmful.

    2. Yeah. caution is certainly not needed. It’s only a chemical that everyone in the world is going to eat, and that will be sprayed on millions of square miles. No need for caution. Just do it. It makes money so just do it. Right.


  9. Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.

    1. Ture dat.

  10. You must look up the 1991 EPA memo in which there is data from unpublished 1980s Monsanto animal studies that show correlation of pancreatic adenomas as well as other tumors, which they explained away with a non-explanation, saying that the data did not show the expected linear trend that would be typical of genotixicity-caused cancer. However, there are other modes of action that can cause cancer to develop, and they ignored this despite statistically significant evidence. It’s interesting that three of the EPA staff refused to sign, and wrote “DO NOT CONCUR”. This was 1991, when they — Monsanto, i mean — were gearing up for the Roundup product combination to come out and this inconvenient finding was going to get in the way, so they apparently pulled some strings and got the EPA to assert that the data did not show a correlation to cancer. CFSAF and the group also distort public perception by hiring “white hat” (supposedly independent) scientists to lobby government, and to make public presentations. I didn’t even mention the PCBs with which Monsanto destroyed Anniston Alabama, and the Housatonic and Hudson rivers. Ecocide and homicide by willful negligence, when you consider the knowledge that we can see from the Anniston proceedings, internal memos and such that show that concern for their profits far exceeded their concern for the people and the planet. This is simple stuff, and it’s not wrong. It’s the real history.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.