The
Environmental Protection Agency appears to be punting a final decision on the
safety of a controversial weedkiller into the next administration.
Since 2009,
the agency has been conducting a registration review of glyphosate - one of the
world most widely-used herbicides - and its risk to human and environmental
health, an assessment required every 15 years.
The lengthy process has been
fraught with delays, accusations of political maneuvering and even
Congressional investigations.
Under
questioning by the House
Science, Space, and Technology Committee in June, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
assured lawmakers the review would be finished this fall. But in their latest
stall tactic – despite two internal reports concluding glyphosate does not
cause cancer - the EPA postponed the meeting of
a Scientific Advisory Panel this week to yet again evaluate its carcinogenicity.
In a statement, the agency said “due to changes in the availability of experts
for the peer review panel…the meeting on glyphosate is being postponed to later
in 2016.”
House
Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, a leading critic of the politicized
EPA, blasted back: “It is inexcusable that EPA continues to delay its review of
glyphosate.” Amid valid concerns the EPA might be trying to influence the
outcome, Smith said “The unwillingness of the agency to move forward with this
analysis may be an attempt to pack the panel with individuals who have a
pre-determined agenda or bias not based in sound science.”
Glyphosate
- used on farms, public spaces and home gardens in more than 160 countries - is
a proxy in the battle against genetically engineered crops because many rely on
glyphosate use. It’s sold under the brand name Roundup by Monsanto, the sworn
enemy of the anti-GMO movement (the company also develops and sells genetically
modified seed). Since the science confirms GMO crops are safe, environmentalists
who oppose GMOs have turned their attention to glyphosate and are trying hard
to peddle the narrative that it’s is unsafe and causes cancer. It’s becoming
clear the current EPA does not want to take any responsibility for exonerating
glyphosate and undermining the raison d’etre of these activists.
That’s
why lawmakers have reason to believe politics is at play in the EPAs continued
delays and some of their actions have raised eyebrows. In September 2015, the
EPAs cancer committee deemed glyphosate non-carcinogenic, finding no
association between glyphosate exposure and a number of cancers including
brain, prostate, lung and leukemia. Seven months later, on April 29, 2016, the
committee’s report was posted
online. It was removed a few days later after the EPA said it had been posted
“inadvertently.”
That prompted Smith to demand
all emails and communications about the report (the agency has not yet
fulfilled that request). In a letter to the EPA in July, Senator James Inhofe,
chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, also asked
for internal documents from the EPA over concern “EPA employees have suggested
that public pressure is playing a role in the Agency’s…regulation of
pesticides” and that the EPA was “seemingly under pressure to come to a certain
conclusion….on glyphosate.”
Another
report, released on
September 16 by the EPAs Office of Pesticide Programs, also said glyphosate is
“not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” The 227-page report echoes the
findings reached by other international bodies including the European Food
Safety Authority, the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization and agencies
in Germany, Canada and New Zealand. “We are glad to see the EPA released its
assessment that reaffirmed the outstanding safety of glyphosate and the conclusion
of not likely to be carcinogenic,” said Robert Fraley, chief technology officer
for Monsanto. “I look forward to the full reregistration of glyphosate by the
EPA without the politicization we recently observed in the EU.”
The
EU has been a hotbed of anti-glyphosate activity recently. Over the summer,
some member states including France and Germany opposed renewing glyphosate
amid protests from the EUs influential green activists; in June, the European
Commission approved glyphosate use for 18 months instead of 15 years, the
original timetable. On August 26, Italy announced strict limits on using
glyphosate in public spaces such as schools and parks. Other countries are
considering restrictions as well.
Activists
here are also ratcheting up public opposition to glyphosate. They are trying to
whip up public fear by claiming glyphosate is being found in everything from
bagels to breastmilk, even in vaccines (a tidy way to tie the anti-vaccine and
anti-GMO movements). Companies like Quaker Oats are being sued for labeling
their products “natural” even though the company uses glyphosate to dry their
oats. Last week, anti-GMO activists such as the Organic Consumers Association held
a fake “tribunal” against Monsanto at The Hague, charging the company of
ecocide for manufacturing glyphosate, calling it the “source of the greatest
health and environmental scandal in modern history.”
These
fear-mongers will endure a major blow when the EPA certifies that glyphosate is
(again) safe, which appears to be the inevitable conclusion no matter how long
they want to drag it out. The fear-mongering about glyphosate won’t stop but at
least the activists can be challenged and refuted with solid science.
Julie Kelly is a
National Review Online contributor and food policy writer in Orland Park, IL
