WHO and FAO experts consider that glyphosate does not present carcinogenic risks to humans through dietary exposure.
Is glyphosate carcinogenic or harmless? On this issue, no one seems to agree. While the European Commission must decide on May 18 and 19 on the renewal of the authorization of the herbicide, a new study published on Monday downplays the dangers of the famous Roundup. A controversial opinion that revolts NGOs and associations for the defense of the environment.
Conducted by experts from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization, this work concludes that “glyphosate ingested through food does not present a carcinogenic risk for the man “. This expertise resulting from the joint FAO / WHO meetings on pesticide residues (JMPR) arrives at the same conclusions with regard to the insecticides diazinon and malathion.
This new opinion in favor of glyphosate comes on top of that of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). She too had judged the carcinogenic risk “improbable” last October. However, a few months earlier, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the WHO agency responsible for identifying the causes of cancer, had classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” in humans. Contacted by Why actor, the IARC says it has no comments to make on a JMPR evaluation, and adds that none of the 17 scientists who carried out this study are available this week because of the Board of Directors.
The crushing weight of the lobby
But how can scientific experts come to such contradictory conclusions? For François Veillerette, director of the Générations Futures association, one of the explanations lies in the method. “The IARC relied on a thousand studies peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals, while EFSA used studies carried out by firms that have never been published,” he explains. he.
For the JMPR group, no bibliographic reference is given in the summary of the report. A missing (crucial) information which seems to betray an action carried out in an emergency, according to François Veillerette. “There is an urgent need to save the glyphosate soldier by all means, including making a fool of himself by publishing an abstract without any scientific reference. We can clearly see behind this smoke-smoking technique the work of the lobby ”, laughs the director of Générations Futures.
François Veillerette, director of the Générations Futures association: ” We are not asking to have feelings about food residues (…) If it is certain or probable carcinogenic, it must be withdrawn from the market. “
Because, this is where the problem lies. Experts seem bent under the weight of lobbying. According to the NGO Greenpeace, two of the members of the JMPR have conflicts of interest. They would be Alan Boobis, professor at Imperial College London, and Angelo Moretto, professor at the University of Milan. “Alan Boobis is known to be a member of the International Life Science Institute (ILSI), a lobbying group funded by industry including Dow Chemical and Monsanto,” confirms François Veillerette.
Such conflicts of interest would not have been observed at IARC, according to the director of Générations Futures. “The only working group that is both transparent and independent is IARC. We know their names, their possible conflicts of interest. Conversely, the EFSA experts preferred to keep their names secret ”.
For the JMPR, the identity of the members of the working group is also kept secret. It should be revealed within ten days when the full report is published.
.