Why favor banning glyphosate in the EU
Glyphosate (or glyphosate) is a chemical compound widely used as a herbicide, introduced to the market as early as the 1970s. It acts by inhibiting an enzyme necessary for plant growth, which is precisely why it is used to control weeds in cultivated fields.
Numerous scientific studies have highlighted its toxicity to the environment, animals, plants and humans (e.g. risk of cancer, neurological and reproductive disorders). Therefore, a European ban on the use of glyphosate would be an important choice for the protection of the entire population.
The issue is still debated between the scientific community and government agencies.
Indeed, until 15 December 2022, glyphosate could be used as an active substance in plant protection products (see trade names), subject to individual authorisation for each product by national authorities.
However, since that date, the European Commission has had to extend the deadline for the use of glyphosate by one year, as the Member States did not reach the majority vote required to extend the marketing of this active substance. As a result, the choice of renewal or prohibition (banning) slips to 15 December 2023.
The European Commission explains that during this time, EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) will have time to carry out re-evaluations.
Glyphosate ban considerations
Having said all this, it is fair to make considerations on several fronts.
Some trade journals report a risk, in the event of a ban, of a 'drop in agricultural production' with significant economic and social consequences. We must be consistent at least once, be realistic and reason, because the truth is another. The real risk is that if we continue to use glyphosate, year after year, agricultural soils will become sterile and people will become increasingly ill. That is why there will be economic and social repercussions.
It is pointless to talk about a European Green Deal and ecological transition if the vision is always to favour the agrochemical lobbies. The truth is that we eat food contaminated by glyphosate (and 500 other 'active ingredients') on a daily basis, and the responsibility lies mainly with the Member States that allow this situation. Italy voted yes to glyphosate. Surprisingly, however, Germany, France and Slovenia abstained, which implies 'a silent yes' and barely a shred of omertà.
We recall the alarm triggered in 2016, in Germany, regarding the detection of glyphosate in 14 German beer brands. We also recall the alarm triggered in France, in 2020, following studies on the presence of herbicides in the urine of almost 100% of French people.
As far as Italy is concerned, all is silent. The only area examined over the years is the region of Lombardy, but the full results of the studies on the toxicity of this substance are not public.
Silence is also rampant regarding the possibility of disclosing the solution to glyphosate pollution. Evidently the word 'de-pollution' is not in the vocabulary of the authorities in charge. Especially if this term implies the elimination of chemical residues from soil-plant-fruit with BioAksxter®.
