A Case of ‘Muddling Through’? The Politics of Renewing Glyphosate Authorization in the European Union

Abstract

Between 2012 and 2017, the European Commission struggled to achieve the renewal of glyphosate, an active ingredient of some broad-spectrum herbicides. As indicated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the chemical kills or suppresses all plant types; when applied at lower rates, it is a plant-growth regulator and desiccant. Glyphosate is used worldwide for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes. Once uncontroversial, new scientific evidence concerning the potential hazards of the substance has sparked a considerable debate in public and political spheres. In light of this sustained controversy, it came as a surprise when a qualified majority of European Union member states voted in favor of the Commission’s proposal to renew the approval of glyphosate for another five years. How was this outcome reached after many ‘no opinion’ votes? How are the member states dealing with the authorization’s renewal? Relying on document analyses and process tracing, we show in this study that the aforementioned renewal was attained due to a change in position on the part of German delegates, who voted in favor of the proposal instead of abstaining. By examining how the member states are addressing the renewal of the authorization, we found that both the countries that opposed renewal and those that supported it are now taking steps to reduce the use—or preparing the phaseout—of glyphosate. Due to domestic political considerations, however, the realization of these steps has so far proven to be difficult.

Human Biomonitoring of Glyphosate Exposures: State-of-the-Art and Future Research Challenges

“…In recent years, there has been an increasing amount of literature focusing on the evaluation procedures for regulatory risk assessment of pesticides [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Particular discussion points include that chronic pesticide studies are only on the active ingredient (i.e., technical glyphosate) and the requirement for more real-world exposure data on the formulated glyphosate products, due to the combined effects on the toxicity [ 18 ].…”

Expertise, politics and public opinion at the crossroads of the European Commission’s decision-making: The case of Glyphosate.

“…al 2014) shows that cases of ´no opinion´ happen especially in the field of product safety, because these areas are characterised by considerable tension between scientific opinions and policy preferences (Ansell, 2006;Weingart, 1999). The reasons underlying these voting outcomes derive from the uncertainty with regard to the potential adverse effects on public health and the environment of some of these substances, and the consequent resorting to the precautionary principle 1 of some member states (Tosun, Lelieveldt and Wing, 2019).…”

Right-wing populist parties and environmental politics: insights from the Austrian Freedom Party’s support for the glyphosate ban

“…Glyphosate has been a controversial active substance in plant protection products, especially since 2015 when the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen (IARC 2015). Ever since, governments across Europe have struggled with how to approach the glyphosate issue, both at the EU and national levels (see Tosun et al 2019).…”