No and no
EU countries have refused to back a limited extension of glyphosate use as a pesticide, threatening to remove Monsanto's Roundup from the market if no decision is made by the end of the month.
The conflicting results on the carcinogenic risks that the use of this product could have has generated a dispute between politicians, regulators and researchers in the EU and the United States.
The EU executive, after failing to win support at two meetings earlier this year to renew the glyphosate license for up to 15 years, had offered a limited extension of 12 to 18 months to allow time for its scientific study.
They trust that a study carried out by the European Union Agency for Chemicals (ECHA) will be able to allay health concerns, which are being raised around the world in general and among many Europeans in particular (including MEPs).
There is no majority
Despite this commitment, the proposal could not obtain the necessary majority, that is, the support of the member states that represent at least 65% of the population of the EU and that is necessary for its approval.
In the last vote earlier this week, seven member states abstained, twenty supported the proposal and one voted against, so the necessary percentages were not achieved and glyphosate remains a source of contention.
In the absence of a decision that is adopted by the majority, the EU executive will be able to present its proposal to an appeal committee of the political representatives of the 28 member states within a month. If once again there is no decision, the European Commission can adopt its own proposal.
Bayer wants to buy
In the midst of all this gibberish is the controversial offer from the German company Bayer, which put 62 billion euros on the table to buy the American seed and pesticide company Monsanto, which would practically achieve a monopoly of the market.
It should not be forgotten that Germany was one of the nations that abstained during the last vote, although in the past it has strongly opposed Monsanto genetically modified seeds for several reasons, among which they argue that they could be dangerous to health. .
On the one hand we have those who consider that we must stand firm and radically and strictly deny authorization for this controversial herbicide, which has already proven to be toxic, to continue to be marketed in Europe.
To do this, they explain that there are clear signs and credible evidence about the health risks that Europeans run when using glyphosate, especially as it is a carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor. But on the other hand they affirm that only because of the devastating impact that glyphosate has on biodiversity, it should have already been banned throughout the world.
They are the ones who applaud and appreciate the public mobilization and significant political opposition that has arisen within the EU to re-approve glyphosate, indicating that key governments in Europe have finally taken this issue seriously and they have forced the Commission to back down.
But there are also those who continue to vote in favor, based on the fact that it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that glyphosate is carcinogenic, that if you do not have this product you will have to resort to others that could be worse and that would break the delicate balance that it has in its agricultures (which are dependent on glyphosate).
There are until they justify that although glyphosate could be bioaccumulative, have toxic synergy and cause problems in animals and people, in soils it denatures, so that in reality the earth is not contaminated because it does not leave residues (and worse atrocities) .
A final thought
Bayer is a multinational that is seeing an important part of the GMO pie lost and obviously does not want to be left out of business. And we are talking about an organization that within all has a fairly good reputation (it has managed to keep and hide its "dirty laundry" very well) that wants to buy another that is little less than the "devil" made a company, for half the world.
And she does not plan to pay a few euros, but is willing to spend more than 60 million million in order to keep the "little package", which in addition to including the patents of hundreds of transgenic seeds, herbicides, pesticides and who knows what else ( there is talk of trans bacteria, GM mosquitoes, etc.), but it also includes a huge “bad reputation” and the worst of advertisements, so much so that one of its star products is currently about to be banned in Europe. It gives to suspect, right?