Pesticide report ‘was misrepresented’
We write as chief scientific advisors to the European commission, authors of the scientific opinion on EU authorisation processes of plant protection products referred to in your article (Science institute that advised EU and UN ‘actually industry lobby group’”, 3 June). We are a completely independent expert group basing our reports on a wide range of sources and evidence, including academia, practitioners, NGOs and industry, but quite separate from them.
The statement in your article that our report recommends “a slew of industry positions” on pesticides is incorrect. What was recommended in our report was that the European commission “facilitates a broader discussion throughout society to establish an EU-wide, shared vision for food production, including the role of plant protection products therein”. Likewise, it is incorrect to say that we recommend replacing current rules outlawing any products that could harm human health with a US-style concept of “acceptable risk”. What our report says is that the European commission should “re-examine the treatment of hazards, risks, costs and benefits – to provide reassurance that the system is fit for purpose ”. Professor Rolf-Dieter Heuer (Chair), Sir Paul Nurse and Professor Janusz Bujnic ki European commission group of chief scientific advisors
• Join the debate – emailguardian.letters@theguardian.co m
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visitgu.com/ letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click hereto upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition