What happens when EU states approve glyphosate again

Interview with Heike Moldenhauer

The European parliament submitted a compromise proposal for extending the authorisation of the controversial herbicide glyphosate and voted with a big majority for certain conditions and an extension of only seven instead of fifteen years. This proposal is, however, not legally binding. 

This compromise proposal of the EU Parliament is not binding because ultimately the EU Commission and member states will decide in the middle of May on the basis of what authorities recommend. This decision was postponed at the beginning of March because there was no majority. Germany is still abstaining because the ministries in charge of agriculture and the environment have differing opinions.

The fact that the decision was postponed was a morale-booster for many people who oppose pesticides. Our author Leo Frühschütz spoke with Heike Moldenhauer, the expert in genetic engineering at the German Organisation for Environment and Nature Protection ( Bund für Umwelt- und Naturschutz Deutschland BUND), about the chances of still being able to prevent a renewal of the authorisation of glyphosate.

Mrs Moldenhauer, were you expecting this postponement?

No, postponing the decision took me completely by surprise - and delighted me because it shows what’s possible when civil society gets involved and creates political pressure. Before Easter, the environment committee of the European parliament, with a big majority, called on the Commission not to extend the authorisation. I hope the whole parliament will unequivocally support the decision of the environment committee.

What will happen in the weeks ahead?

The member states had until 18 March to formulate their position in respect of the Commission’s authorisation proposal. The Commission will now look at what they have said and submit a new proposal which they assume will get a qualified majority. The most likely date for this is the next committee meeting on 18 and 19 May.

Are we going to see a change of course by the countries criticising glyphosate?

That’s speculation. I don’t think we will because France and Italy are similarly worried by the carcinogenic effects of glyphosate and the Netherlands are bound by a decision of their parliament. The crucial issue will be therefore that Germany sticks to abstaining. The federal government must not vote yes.

Who does that depend on?

The federal Minister for the Environment, Barbara Hendricks, and the Federal Environment Agency have made it clear that the use of glyphosate on 40 % of German agricultural land has dramatic consequences for biodiversity. Whole food chains are disrupted by sprays that kill weeds so that we’re seeing a continual decline in insects and birds. The minister must remain resolute and must not allow herself to be fobbed off with a few nicely formulated compromises. Only one thing will help to prevent species extinction on agricultural land: giving up the use of glyphosate altogether.

What can people do who want to get rid of glyphosate?

BUND is launching a campaigne to prevent authorisation. Other organisations are mobilising again as well. We want to show the Minister for the Environment how much we support her and make it clear to the federal Minister for Agriculture that with his glyphosate-friendly attitude he is ignoring the will of consumers. Get involved! Sign your name and protest when and wherever you can.

If the EU-states do vote for authorisation with certain provisos would that be a good thing?

That depends on the conditions imposed. It is not enough to ban the private or public use of glyphosate. 98 % is used in agriculture and that’s where the input has to be drastically reduced. The Julius-Kühn Institute investigated the consequences of not using glyphosate at all in Germany. The investigation revealed that two-thirds of glyphosate is sprayed on stubble fields after harvesting. According to the study, this input could be replaced cost-neutral by ploughing and grubbing

What would happen after authorisation at EU-level?

The EU permits only the general use of the active ingredient. The national authorities then have to authorize individual ready-for-use pesticides, together with application instructions. Naturally, this is where we’ll get involved. It’s my hope that the debate around industrial farming and its consequences will continue and will soon be as widespread as the discussion about factory farming.