A number of ecologists criticize the EU Commission’s proposal for renewed approval of the controversial herbicide. The protection of biodiversity is neglected in many EU member states.
Glyphosate remains a bone of contention for now. The EU Commission is shifting responsibility to the EU member states and is wasting the opportunity to introduce harmonized rules for the protection of biodiversity. “The proposal contains several legally non-binding restrictions for the member states,” criticizes the Viennese researcher Johann Zaller from the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Austria. “The proposal simply transfers many responsibilities to the member states. Given the deplorable state of biodiversity in the Member States and the importance they attach to nature conservation, this does not bode well,” criticizes Zaller.
Researcher Maria Finckh from the University of Kassel, head of the Department of Organic Plant Protection, considers the proposed restrictions to be an improvement across the EU. Specifically, she specifically mentions the ban on siccation and the at least five meter edge strips on the fields, as well as the reference to the risks of admixtures. However, she restricts that “the latter reference is very imprecise and therefore easy to undermine”. For Germany, the restrictions represent almost no change to the status quo, says Finckh.
How to get the Table.Media newsletter
This article lies IPPEN.MEDIA as part of a cooperation with the Agrifood.Table Professional Briefing before – first published it Agrifood.Table on September 26, 2023.
Receive 30 days free access for further exclusive information from the Table.Media Professional Briefings – the crucial thing for those making decisions in business, science, politics, administration and NGOs.
According to the EU Commission’s proposal, the renewed approval of the controversial active ingredient should be linked to the following restrictions:
- Maximum values for five toxicologically relevant impurities in glyphosate after production are proposed.
- Member States must place a particular focus on undesirable effects of plant protection product admixtures.
- They need to clarify how high the burden on consumers could be from glyphosate residues, which could also be found in subsequent crops.
- Attention should also be paid to protecting groundwater and small herbivorous mammals.
- The protection of land and aquatic plants that could come into contact with glyphosate through the so-called spray drift when spreading it should be guaranteed.
- Indirect effects on biodiversity through interactions in the food web should be taken into account and, if necessary, avoided through local regulations.
- The so-called siccation – the treatment immediately before the harvest to ensure faster ripening, which is already only permitted in exceptional cases in Germany – should be completely banned. Furthermore, an unsprayed buffer strip that is at least five to ten meters wide should be left at the edge of the field.
According to the assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the EU Commission could have made a different decision. In July, the authority based in Parma, Italy, gave a positive risk assessment for the renewed approval of glyphosate. However, it is clear from its conclusions that although, according to EFSA, there are no critical problem areas that justify a ban on the controversial herbicide, the authority claims some data gaps, especially with regard to biodiversity.
Biodiversity in soils and waters is not taken into account
“The EU Commission’s proposal reveals a systematic denial of the dramatic decline in biodiversity and the scientific knowledge that glyphosate contributes to it,” criticizes the Austrian scientist Zaller. He accuses the Brussels authority of “making a mockery of ecological science” and points to the study situation on the effects of the controversial active ingredient on terrestrial ecosystems.
The proposal does not take into account any effects on the microbiome or on insects, especially bees, adds researcher Finckh. “Only indirect effects on biodiversity via the food web are mentioned,” says Finckh. From the scientist’s point of view, the antibiotic effect of glyphosate is the most valid reason why the active ingredient is problematic: when added to the soil, it damages bacteria and fungi that live there or leads to resistant germs, which also include human pathogens, which can cause diseases in the human organism . “The result is often dysbiosis: microbiomes that are out of balance, for example in the intestinal flora, but also elsewhere,” says Finckh. With this proposal, the EU Commission is undermining its own efforts to promote permanent land cover and greening in order to increase overall carbon storage in the soil, Finckh continues.
Scientist suggests capping the amount
“I think the proposal is appropriate,” says Christoph Schäfer from the Fraunhofer Institute for Molecular Biology and Applied Ecology. “The main problem with glyphosate is its use on an extremely large scale. If this is restricted with the help of the new regulation, a lot has already been achieved. What’s better is: no herbicides at all.” This requires a change in spatial and temporal crop sequences and under-sowing, mechanical methods in conjunction with smart farming, as well as higher producer prices and consumer solidarity.
“Glyphosate is lightweight in terms of risks, but it is a big driver of the quantities applied,” says Horst-Henning Steinmann from the Georg-August University of Göttingen. “Perhaps we should think about whether a system of capping quantities is feasible.” Then it could be ensured that glyphosate is only used where it has the greatest benefit and where there is no practical alternative, says Steinmann.
(By Henrike Schirmacher)
#Ecologists #warn #planning #glyphosate #approval