Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

Parliamentary questions
10 February 2011
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Michail Tremopoulos (Verts/ALE)

 Subject: Renewal of registration of glyphosate

Commissioner Dali's answer to my question (P‑10522/2010) on the active substance glyphosate gives the impression that a legal loophole was exploited to renew the registration of glyphosate, which was, of course, closed by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 and Regulation (EC) No 1141/2010.

In response to comments relating to recent scientific data cited in my previous Question E‑7874/10, which the German authorities consider were obtained ‘in particularly artificial conditions very different from those obtaining in the actual farming’, I would like to draw your attention to another study(1), from 1999, by oncologists Dr Lennart Hardell and Dr Mikael Eriksson of Sweden, which clearly demonstrates the relationship between glyphosate and a form of cancer (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma). The sample group consisted not of laboratory animals, but 442 people living in rural areas.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

On the basis of which political criteria and which public health risk analysis procedure was the registration of glyphosate extended up to the end of 2015?
Does it consider that this extension is consistent with the precautionary principle?
Did all those concerned send the applications for the 39 chemicals covered by Regulation (EC) No 1141/2010, as required by Directive 91/414/EOK, and thus for glyphosate, before the deadline of 31 May 2010?
Why is it necessary to extend the deadline for completion of the renewal programme even though applications have already been submitted and the Commission can easily respect the original deadline?
What exactly are the new criteria set out in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 which will be applied in assessing whether registration of these 39 chemicals should be renewed?
Is the Commission aware of the 1999 research in question?
Does it believe that this research is also flawed? What kind of research would be considered satisfactory to prove the hazardous nature of the herbicide in question?


Original language of question: ELOJ C 286 E, 30/09/2011
Last updated: 24 February 2011Legal notice