In the EU context, for an EC proposal to gain a qualified majority, it needs to receive a positive vote from 55% of member states, representing at least 65% of the EU population. 

While 18 countries making up 55.03% of member states did vote in favor of the reauthorization, the two EU countries with the largest populations — Germany and France, as well as Belgium, Bulgaria, Malta and the Netherlands abstained, while Austria, Croatia and Luxembourg voted against it.

The EC’s decision to recommend the reauthorization of glyphosate sparked a debate between environmental campaigners who argue that the chemical impacts the nutritional content of crops, as well as leads to adverse effects on human health and the environment and members of the Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG) backed by the EC who argue that science is on their side. 

Ahead of last week’s vote, the environmental groups European Pesticide Action Network (PAN), Ekō and FoodWatch Germany responded to statements given to Nutrition Insight by the GRG and EC, presenting evidence against their assertions about glyphosate’s safety.

Reactions to the vote 
Representatives of both sides of the reauthorization debate present mixed reactions to the Friday vote as another vote looms.

“This is an important signal. It does right to the concerns of a majority of Europeans about the impact of pesticides on health and the environment. A wide range of independent scientists have expressed their concerns, and their studies show serious negative effects of glyphosate use,” Gergely Simon, senior policy officer at PAN Europe, tells us. 

A spokesperson for the cropscience division of Bayer, a GRG member, tells us that “A clear majority of European member states voted in favor of the EC’s proposal to renew the approval of glyphosate for ten years. This voting pattern shows that it is possible to achieve majorities in Europe based on a scientific assessment by the national and European authorities. “Despite the EC’s positive stance on glyphosate, independent studies show serious adverse effects associated with its use. 

“The vote result also shows that, from the perspective of most countries, the risk assessment is a solid basis for the authorization of glyphosate-based products at the country level to be carried out according to scientific criteria. Unfortunately, despite many member states supporting the proposal, no qualified majority could be found.”

While Germany’s vote to abstain contributed majorly to the failure of the proposal, Chris Methmann, director of FoodWatch Germany, nonetheless expresses displeasure with his country’s decision not to vote against it.

“The Green Federal Ministry of Agriculture, of all places, refuses to say a clear no to glyphosate and abstains from the vote. By abstaining on the glyphosate prolongation, the ‘traffic light coalition‘ in Germany is breaking its coalition agreement.”

“In the coalition agreement, Greens, Social Democrats and Liberals unambiguously decided: ‘We will take glyphosate off the market by the end of 2023’. We required a ‘no’ from Germany in Brussels to do this. Promising in the coalition agreement to take glyphosate off the market and then avoiding a no in the decisive EU vote is hypocritical and deception of the voters.” 

Scientific evidence
The disagreement about the extent to which glyphosate is needed to ensure food security in the EU and whether the science points to its toxicity or safety remain hot topics after the failed vote.

“EU governments who refused to rubber-stamp the EC’s ten-year plan for glyphosate did the right thing. Europeans are sick of the stuff. Farming and controlling weeds in parks and playgrounds can be done perfectly well without glyphosate, Eoin Dubsky, an Ekō campaigner, tells us.” 

“Re-approval of glyphosate breaches the EU Pesticide Law, under which health and environment should come first. In case of doubt, the precautionary principle must be invoked.” Simon, PAN senior policy officer, continues.

In its statement, Bayer adds, “We continue to believe in the safety of glyphosate, which has been used successfully in Europe and around the world for almost 50 years. A renewed approval of glyphosate would continue to provide farmers and other users in Europe with an important technology in an integrated weed management approach.”

Similarly, a GRG representative says, “EFSA’s conclusions are consistent with the assessments of leading health regulatory bodies around the world from nearly 50 years of science. Furthermore, the EC proposal is taken after a lengthy process, following the EU system for regulating pesticide active substances, one of the most stringent in the world.” 

Appeal Committee vote
The next step in determining the EU’s glyphosate stance will be an appeal committee vote.  

Another vote on the EC’s proposal to re-authorize glyphosate is set to be held in the first half of November. 

Appeal committees comprise EU countries’ representatives and are chaired by the EC. The voting rules are the same as in other committees — if a qualified majority votes in favor of a proposal, the EC must adopt it. If neither side can achieve a qualified majority, the EC could still adopt it or submit a new, amended version.

“The GRG remains confident that the renewal of the approval of glyphosate will ultimately be granted, as the proposal builds on the strong science-based conclusions of the competent authorities, including the European Food Safety Authority, that did not find any critical area of concern.”

”Bayer remains hopeful that at the next step in the approval process, sufficient additional member states will support the renewal of the approval of glyphosate, as proposed by the EC.”

On the other side of the debate, PAN’s Simon reminds us that the “Re-approval of glyphosate breaches the EU Pesticide Law, under which health and environment should come first. In case of doubt, the precautionary principle must be invoked.”

“What we need now is not only a ban of glyphosate here, but a law to also stop European chemical corporations exporting the toxic pesticide abroad,” Ekō’s Dubsky further states. 

The current authorization to use glyphosate will remain in place until December 15, 2023. Therefore, a decision on the reauthorization of the chemical will need to be reached beforehand.