EFSA has replied to criticism of the EU assessment of glyphosate that was overseen by the Authority last year. Christopher Portier sent a letter to Vytenis Andriukaitis, the EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, in which he raised a number of objections to the process and the conclusions of EFSA’s assessment. Prof. Portier is a scientist who contributed to a report on glyphosate by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Bernhard Url, EFSA’s Executive Director, has sent a detailed reply to Prof. Portier that addresses the points raised in his letter.
Letter from Professor Portier to Commissioner Andriukaitis (27 November 2015)
Reply from EFSA to Professor Portier (13 January 2016)
Letter from Dr. Wild to Bernhard Url (5 February 2016)
Reply from Bernhard Url to Dr. Wild (9 February 2016)
Letter from Dr. Wild to Bernhard Url (12 February 2016)
Infographic: Who assesses pesticides in the EU?
Interactive infographic: How Europe ensures pesticides are safe
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/interactive_pages/pesticides_authorisation/Pe…
Source: EFSA, 13 Jan 2016
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/160113
- Log in to post comments
The clever use of historical control data on tumor incidences
The applicant (Monsanto in the case of glyphosate) frequently uses so-called historical control data to deny a relationship to treatment of an increased incidence of tumors in long-term animal studies. Historical control data are a compilation of tumor data obtained in control animals in long-term studies over the years. If a certain tumor has been shown to occur in up to 5 of 50 control animals in long-term studies, the historical control range is said to range from 0 to 10%. Now, any incidence of that particular tumor below 10% of will then be automatically regarded as not related to treatment, even if the tumor was not detected in a concurrent control group. This appears to have happened with the animal carcinogenicity studies with glyphosate. IARC pointed out that there was limited epidemiological evidence of human carcinogenicity for glyohosate as well, but this reasoning was not endorsed by EFSA. They had probably adopted the clever strategy of the applicant and were apparently not willing to revise their position. So, now the likelihood is that the Commission will endorse re-registration of a potentially carcinogenic herbicide. This is a case where the precautionary principle could have and in my view should have been adopted.