Europe’s battle over glyphosate ‘was never about science’

| | August 30, 2016
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

André Heitz is an agronomist and a former international civil servant for the United Nations. . . .

[T]he European Commission decided on 29 June 2016 to extend the . . . authorisation of glyphosate. . . until the end of 2017 . . . .

The limited extension . . . does not put an end to the glyphosate saga. . . . With the European Union bullied by national politicking as member states try to shift the onus to the Commission, similar debates will most likely restart after the extension lapses.

. . . .

[Agency findings of glyphosate’s safety] were either ignored or casually dismissed by activists with a standard answer: these bodies are . . . are in the pocket of ‘Big Agri’. . . .

Related article:  Monsanto defends glyphosate: Rigorous independent studies underscore safe use

[T]he controversy has been gravely polluted by the “conflict of interests” argument deployed by . . . entities depicting themselves as “NGOs” and propagated by the media. The sad truth is that the debate over glyphosate has never truly been about science, but has been a war waged by activists, . . . where scientific arguments are accepted only if they are liked. But that won’t change the scientific fact that glyphosate is safe.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: Glyphosate: Understanding the controversy

Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend