Glyphosate: Severe Concerns Raised by New Facts

29.05.2017,

Download of this Press Release dated 29.05.2017 (pdf-file, 135 kb)

An analysis of the original study reports by industry shows that the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR) considered only 20 percent of all tumour effects in its original assessment. Even in the final assessment, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) missed completely eight statistically significantly increased tumour incidences.

An analysis of the original study reports by industry shows that the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR) considered only 20 percent of all tumour effects in its original assessment. Even in the final assessment, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) missed completely eight statistically significantly increased tumour incidences.

This is the result of an analysis of original study report data that became accessible to Professor Christopher Portier, former director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, by a court decision. In a 6-page letter to European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker, dated 28 May 2017, Portier pointed out that the fact that eight unequivocal tumour effects remained undetected "may be interpreted as a failure by the agencies involved in these assessments to carefully review and analyze all of the available data before rendering a decision that there is no evidence that glyphosate is carcinogenic to humans". Therefore, Portier urges that the full data should be disclosed and the study reports re-assessed.

These new findings are in stark contrast to the statement of an EFSA spokesperson who said in an interview in March 2017: "EFSA and EU member states rely primarily on the original studies and the underlying raw data which they check themselves."(1) (emphasis added)

These recent revelations put new pressure on EFSA which still owes an explanation for why it used an invalid study that was favourable for glyphosate while excluding another study because of an alleged viral infection of the animals which provided evidence for glyphosate's carcinogenicity.

The toxicologist and PAN Germany board member Peter Clausing says: "Until now EFSA has failed to explain the factual evidence for claiming the alleged viral infection. The only "evidence" is an oral remark by Jess Rowland, former staff member of the U.S. EPA, who stands accused of colluding with Monsanto by the so-called 'Monsanto Papers' (2), released as part of a court action. While Mr. Tarazona, head of EFSA's Pesticide Unit, claimed that the decision to exclude this study was not due to Rowland's interference, Tarazona has not offered a reasonable explanation in spite of our personal correspondence. The re-assessment of the raw data as requested by Portier in his letter to the Commission's president Juncker is the least that needs to be done. This is not only about the credibility of the authorities, but first and foremost about the protection of the health of more than 500 million EU citizens," Clausing said.

(423 words, 2679 characters)

Contact:
Dr. Peter Clausing, 0049-176 4379 5932, peter.clausing@pan-germany.org
Prof. J. Portier can be reached by E-mail: cportier@me.com

Further Information:

• Letter Portier to Juncker (05//28/2017) http://blog.pan-germany.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Letter-to-Juncker28May2017.pdf
• Correspondence:
  Tarazona to Clausing (15.5.2017) http://blog.pan-germany.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Letter-to-Clausing15Mai2017.pdf;
  Clausing to Tarazona (05/22//2017) http://blog.pan-germany.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Letter-to-Tarazona-22Mai2017.pdf