Glyphosate Facts

Transparency on safety aspects and use of glyphosate-containing herbicides in Europe


GTF points to the need to de-politicise debate on glyphosate

The Glyphosate Task Force acknowledges the debate at the European Parliament where some MEPs expressed concern and that the Parliament agreed on a non-binding resolution asking for a reduction of the length of the approval to only seven years from the customary 15 year approval period for re-registered substances.

The Glyphosate Task Force considers that constructive dialogue about issues related to glyphosate is welcomed when done in a context that is based on facts and an acceptance of the procedures and process required by the legislation. Recent scare-mongering and promotion of misinformation and unsubstantiated claims has hampered the ability to have an informed debate, which has led to a loss of perspective by some groups, including why farmers use these products. Weeds, like insects and fungi, are pests that farmers must control. Glyphosate is a key tool for the control of weeds and the protection of crop yields. "The unintended consequence of a politicised debate on glyphosate is a loss of perspective,” said Richard Garnett, chairman of the GTF.

The Commission supports EFSA’s conclusion that glyphosate represents no unreasonable risk to humans, animals or the environment and “is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” Moreover, all European institutions that have been involved in the assessment of glyphosate consider that the discrepancy between IARC and EFSA can be explained, just as it has been in all previous cases of discrepancies between the two institutions.  The IARC classification not only differs from the conclusions of EFSA but also from the consistent findings of regulatory agencies around the world that have reviewed all of the relevant data on glyphosate over the last 40 years.

Last update: 14 April 2016