Glyphosate is under fire from the global environmental movement because it's applied to genetically engineered crops that environmentalists oppose. However, it also is widely and safely used on conventional farms, open spaces and home gardens around the world.
Still, green activists blame the herbicide for many things from honeybee deaths to cancer. In addition, they won a major victory in 2015 when the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization's cancer arm, declared glyphosate to be a probable carcinogen despite limited evidence of human carcinogenicity.
This led to a huge global outcry among scientists and glyphosate users and prompted a re-review by EPA. Last September, the agency's cancer review committee and issued a "final" report which said that glyphosate "is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" and found no connection to a number of cancers including brain, colon, prostate and lung. The report also raised several concerns with IARCs study, including the use of shoddy data. Over the past year, other agencies including the European Food Safety Authority and WHOs FAO have determined glyphosate is non-carcinogenic.
However, EPA has raised concerns regarding its handling of the report which "could be a major blow to the anti-glyphosate campaign, The Hill says." The agency kept the report under wraps for seven months, then posted it online last April and then removed it a few days later. An EPA spokesman called the posting "inadvertent" and said that the assessment was still ongoing.
Well, that raised plenty of red flags on Capitol Hill, as you can imagine. Rep Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who chairs the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology said that the report's "mishandling may shed light on larger systemic problems occurring at the agency." Smith requested that all documents and emails about the glyphosate report be turned over to the Committee."
The agency did not comply. Last June, EPA administrator McCarthy appeared before Smith's committee which charged that EPA has become an agency in pursuit of a "purely political agenda." McCarthy acknowledged "it is a big deal to deal with glyphosate both in terms of its international context and the importance it has for US agriculture" and that the evaluation should be completed by fall.
It gets worse. In a move many interpret as an additional stall tactic, EPA announced a month later that it would invite another scientific advisory panel in late October — more than a year after the cancer committee report was thought to be finalized.
Smith blasted that development, saying his committee "continues to find evidence that EPA fails to recognize or acknowledge the science that its own agency conducts and instead appears to make politically motivated decisions."
Now, the stakes are high for all involved, The Hill says. Activists are pressing lawmakers here and around the world to curtail glyphosate use and the European Commission recently haggled for months over the relicensing it amid strong opposition from France and Germany. The Commission finally approved glyphosate for 18 months instead of seven years, the original timeframe.
Activists here are also trying to sway public policy. The FDA just announced it will start testing some food for glyphosate residue for the first time and California listed the herbicide on its list of dangerous chemicals. Quaker Oats is being sued for using glyphosate to dry its oats while claiming the oatmeal products are "natural."
All of these efforts hinge on the issue of whether or not glyphosate is dangerous. An EPA imprimatur that the herbicide is safe and doesn't cause cancer would devastate to the legislative and legal arguments against its use here and abroad.
And, it is hard to defend EPA's up and down signals, one of the worst examples of bureaucratic fumbling that comes to mind. However, the problem likely is more complicated than anyone wants and certainly was made much worse by the WHO report that redlined numerous food products commonly used safely, but which may have increased risks when over used. That re-ignited in a modest way the old war over whether appraisals of safety should recognize the importance of dosages.
So, now the issue is hyper-politicized and it is unlikely that Congress will be able to sort it out before the elections, even if it wants to. Still, the outcome is important to producers and should be watched carefully as it evolves Washington Insider believes.