EU authorities broke their own rules and brushed aside evidence of cancer to keep glyphosate on the market
July 16th 2017
Written By: GMWatch Reporter
Originally published on gmwatch.org.
A new report by the toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing shows that the EU authorities violated their own rules and disregarded evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic to reach a conclusion that the chemical does not cause cancer
The EU authorities reached the conclusion that glyphosate is
not carcinogenic by disregarding and brushing aside evidence of cancers in
experimental animals and by violating directives and guidelines that are
supposed to guide their work, according to a new report [1] by the German
toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing.
The report shows for the first time that glyphosate
should have been classified as a carcinogen according to the current EU
standards. This would mean an automatic ban under EU pesticides legislation.
However, the EU authorities disregarded and breached these standards, enabling
them to reach a conclusion that the chemical is not carcinogenic.
Commenting on his findings, Dr Clausing said, “What surprised me most was how
obviously and widely the authorities violated their own rules. Seeing this made
me angry. The authorities should be made accountable for their failure.”
Dr Clausing added, “The evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic is so
overwhelming that it should
be banned.”
The authorities in the firing line are the German Federal Institute for Risk
Assessment (BfR) (Germany being the rapporteur member state for glyphosate in
the EU), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the European Chemicals
Agency (ECHA).
The three agencies’ conclusion that glyphosate is not carcinogenic contrasted
with that of the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC), which in 2015 classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic
to humans” based on “sufficient” evidence in animals and “limited” evidence in
humans. IARC is recognised for its strict independence policy and high quality
research.
The new report shows that BfR, EFSA, and ECHA failed to apply relevant guidance
from the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sets
international standards for chemicals testing) and ECHA itself, and indicates
that they manipulated facts and data to reach the conclusion that glyphosate is
not carcinogenic.
Dr Clausing says he is concerned that the authorities’ actions could put public
health at risk. He said, “In Europe cancer incidences have doubled and
tripled in recent decades, depending on the tumour type. I am worried that the
skyrocketing use of glyphosate has contributed to that and will continue to do
so if no action is taken.”
Commenting on demands for more transparency in the pesticide approvals process,
he added, “Transparency is necessary, but not sufficient. Transparency without
consequences if things go wrong is useless.”
Dr Clausing used to work as a senior toxicologist in the pharmaceutical industry
but is now a board member of Pesticide Action Network Germany.
The new report is published by GLOBAL 2000 (Friends of the Earth Austria).
According to the report’s editor Claire Robinson of GMWatch, a UK-based NGO that
has drawn attention to the risks of glyphosate, “Dr Clausing has written a
comprehensive and incisive challenge to the EU authorities’ assessments of
glyphosate. On 19–20 of July, EU member state representatives are invited to
discuss the re-approval of glyphosate at the meeting of the Standing Committee
on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (ScoPAFF).
“The author and editors of the new report invite the representatives and the
European Commission to read it and respond before this discussion takes place.
Following the science appears to leave them with only one possible course of
action: to refuse to renew of glyphosate’s authorisation.”
Main findings of the report
• According to the EU pesticides regulation, a substance is to be
considered carcinogenic if two independently conducted animal studies show an
increased tumour incidence in exposed animals.
• In the case of glyphosate, at least seven out of twelve such long-term
studies found an increased tumour incidence.
• Initially, BfR failed to recognise numerous significant tumour incidences,
due to its failure to apply the appropriate statistical tests stipulated by the
OECD and ECHA. BfR had instead relied on statistical tests applied by industry,
which had only indicated a significant carcinogenic effect of glyphosate for a
single type of tumour in a single study.
• Due to the IARC monograph on glyphosate, published in 2015, the BfR
re-assessed its own evaluation and acknowledged the above-mentioned significant
incidences in seven out of twelve studies.
• Nevertheless, the BfR – and EFSA and ECHA, which relied on the BfR’s
groundwork – failed to notice a further eight significant tumour effects, which
were recently identified by
Prof Christopher Portier, former associate director of the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in the US.
• BfR, EFSA and ECHA made a biased selection of studies in their glyphosate
assessments. They took into full consideration two studies that did not find
that glyphosate caused malignant lymphoma – but which contain such obvious
deficiencies that they should have been excluded from the evaluation. In
contrast, they downplayed a study that found that glyphosate did cause malignant
lymphoma by citing an alleged viral infection in the animals – for which there
is no evidence, as admitted by ECHA. The sole source for this alleged infection
is Jess Rowland, a former US EPA official, who made the claim in a
teleconference with EFSA. An investigation has confirmed that
EFSA had no evidence for the alleged infection beyond Rowland’s remark. Monsanto
internal emails disclosed in a US lawsuit suggest that Rowland was an eager
helper of the chemical company who boasted that
he should “get a medal” if he succeeded in killing another agency’s
investigation into glyphosate’s health effects.
• BfR, EFSA and ECHA played off one type of statistical test against another,
arguing that glyphosate was not carcinogenic because significance in cancer
incidence was only achieved in one type of test and not in another. This
violates OECD guidance, which states that significance in either test is
sufficient to reject the notion that the cancers occurred by chance.
• BfR, EFSA and ECHA violated restrictions on the use of historical control
data (the compiled data from untreated control animals in previous studies) set
by the OECD, to dismiss the carcinogenic effects of glyphosate.
• BfR, EFSA and ECHA avoided mentioning dose-response relationships that
strengthened the evidence that tumour effects were caused by glyphosate and not
by random chance. This suggests that the authorities tried to cover up evidence
for the carcinogenic effects of glyphosate.
Notes
1. Peter Clausing (2017). Glyphosate and cancer: Authorities systematically breach regulations. Published by GLOBAL 2000 (Friends of the Earth Austria). http://www.gmwatch.org/files/GLO_02_Glyphosat_EN.pdf
Download the report
Download the new report: GLO 02 Glyphosat EN.pdf
The full report in English and the Summary in several different languages, including English, are available here: https://we.tl/0z7wOISv9m
GMWatch is an independent organisation that seeks to counter the
enormous corporate political power and propaganda of the biotech industry and
its supporters. We do this through our website, our lists, our Powerbase portal,
LobbyWatch, the BanGMFood campaign, social media, and other outreach and
campaigning activities.
GMWatch was founded in 1998 by Jonathan Matthews and its managing editors are
Jonathan Matthews and Claire Robinson.
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
Internal Site Commenting is limited to members.