Sense prevails as minority interests fail to call shots on glyphosate

SENSE has prevailed – glyphosate is to be re-registered in the EU. However the re-registration is only for five years rather than the 15 years that its safety data and agrochemical role justifies.

The impasse over the renewal of glyphosate registration highlighted two of the major weaknesses of democracy.

The approval process — which requires the goahead of more than 50pc of member states representing at least 65pc of the EU population — appears to be the perfect example of democracy.

But it does not address the issue of a member state (Germany) relying on the support of minority groupings. When national government is contingent on such groups or individual parliamentarians, concessions to them impinge on the wishes of the majority.

The future of conventional commercial crop production in Europe was dependent on glyphosate registration being renewed.

Those opposed to pesticides’ use have the option of buying ‘organic’ produce or sowing crops to organic standards.

Organic produce costs more to purchase as crop yields are lower.

Generally, higher standards must be supported by higher prices. Taking away the most effective means of grass and broadleaf weed control from conventional farmers would result in increased costs.

Tillage farming in Europe is currently a break-even business. Any action which increases costs without an increase in prices will force more tillage farmers out of production.

Will the same people who are not prepared to pay the price premium for organic produce be prepared to pay extra for produce grown without use of glyphosate or other pesticides?

Democracy enables everyone to be involved in the decision-making process.

But the data sets required for registration of a product are complex and require specialised knowledge to form a conclusion.

To that end the European Commission, whose function it is to get technical details right by consulting experts and the public, utilised the European Food Safety Authority to provide an assessment on glyphosate.

Its conclusion states that “glyphosate is not classified or proposed to be classified as carcinogenic or toxic”.

Farmers, consultants or anyone involved in the agri-food business, have no desire to expose food to risk. Producers take pride in what they produce. To that end they must abide by strict standards of pesticide approval and registration.

Those standards are rigorously enforced in all European countries.

If grain growers are forced out of production due to products that are widely used by countries we import from being banned in Europe, the lost produce will be replaced by imports from countries with considerably less regulation and enforcement.

We will end up importing produce which has been treated with products that we have banned.

It is critical for the future of arable farming in Europe that decisions are made based on scientific information and that special interest groupings are not allowed to exert undue inf luence.

It is important that the general public are properly informed and that our public representatives ensure that our interests are conveyed to Europe.

We have glyphosate for use for the next five years, but we need to do a better job on informing the public on what a good job we do in producing food.