{"id":397488,"date":"2019-02-27T23:28:23","date_gmt":"2019-02-27T22:28:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=397488"},"modified":"2019-02-28T10:08:30","modified_gmt":"2019-02-28T09:08:30","slug":"poisoning-the-public-toxic-agrochemicals-and-regulators-collusion-with-industry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/editorials\/poisoning-the-public-toxic-agrochemicals-and-regulators-collusion-with-industry\/","title":{"rendered":"Poisoning the Public: Toxic Agrochemicals and Regulators’ Collusion with Industry"},"content":{"rendered":"

In January 2019, campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason lodged a complaint with the European Ombudsman accusing European regulatory agencies of collusion with the agrochemicals industry. This was in the wake of an important\u00a0paper by Charles Benbrook<\/a>\u00a0on the genotoxicity of glyphosate-based herbicides that appeared in the journal \u2018Environmental Sciences Europe\u2019.<\/p>\n

In an unusual step, the editor-in-chief of that journal, Prof Henner Hollert, and his co-author, Prof Thomas Backhaus, issued a strong statement in support of the acceptance of Dr Benbrook\u2019s article for publication. In a commentary published in the same issue of the journal, they write:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are convinced that the article provides new insights on why different conclusions regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and GBHs [glyphosate-based herbicides] were reached by the US EPA and IARC. It is an important contribution to the discussion on the genotoxicity of GBHs.\u201d<\/p>\n

The IARC\u2019s (International Agency for Research on Cancer) evaluation relied heavily on studies capable of shedding light on the distribution of real-world exposures and genotoxicity risk in exposed human populations, while the EPA\u2019s (Environmental Protection Agency) evaluation placed little or no weight on such evidence.<\/p>\n

Up to that point, Dr Mason had been writing to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the EU Commission for an 18-month period, challenging them about ECHA\u2019s positive assessment of glyphosate. Many people around the world had struggled to understand how and why the\u00a0US EPA and the EFSA concluded that glyphosate is not genotoxic (damaging to DNA) or carcinogenic, whereas the World Health Organisation\u2019s cancer agency, the IARC, came to the opposite conclusion.<\/p>\n

The IARC stated that the evidence for glyphosate\u2019s genotoxic potential is \u201cstrong<\/a>\u201d and that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.\u00a0While IARC referenced only peer-reviewed studies and reports available in the public literature, the EPA relied heavily on unpublished regulatory studies commissioned by pesticide manufacturers.<\/p>\n

In fact, 95 of the 151 genotoxicity assays cited in the EPA\u2019s evaluation were from industry studies (63%), while IARC cited 100% public literature sources. Another important difference is that the EPA focused its analysis on glyphosate in its pure chemical form, or \u2018glyphosate technical\u2019. The problem with that is that almost no one is exposed to glyphosate alone. Applicators and the public are exposed to complete herbicide formulations consisting of glyphosate plus added ingredients (adjuvants). The formulations have repeatedly been shown to be more toxic than glyphosate in isolation.<\/p>\n

Rejection of Dr Mason\u2019s complaint<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Ombudsman has now rejected Rosemary Mason\u2019s complaint who has in turn written a 25-page response documenting the wide-ranging impacts of glyphosate-based Roundup and other agrochemicals on human health and the environment. She also outlines the various levels of duplicity that have allowed many of these chemicals to remain on the commercial market.<\/p>\n

Mason is led to conclude that, due to the rejection of her complaint (as with others lodged by her to the Ombudsman), the European Ombudsman Office is also part of the problem and is essentially colluding with European pesticide regulatory authorities. Mason has addressed this concern directly to\u00a0Emily O\u2019Reilly, who currently holds the post of European Ombudsman:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn your rejection of all my complaints over the last few years, it is clear that\u00a0The Ombudsman’s Office\u00a0is protecting the European pesticides regulatory authorities, who are in turn being controlled by the European Glyphosate Task Force\u2026. You have turned a blind eye to the authorisation of many of the toxic pesticides that are on the market today because industry is being allowed to self-regulate.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some of the key points, claims and issues raised in Mason\u2019s new report \u2018The European Ombudsman is colluding with the European Pesticide Regulatory Authorities\u2019 include:<\/p>\n