Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 38kWORD 9k
12 February 2020
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 138
Harald Vilimsky
 Answer in writing 
 Subject: Ban on glyphosate in the EU

The aim of the Farm to Fork strategy and the Green Deal is to implement sustainable and environmentally friendly policies, in particular in agriculture, and this encompasses the protection of human health and biodiversity.

The total herbicide glyphosate is the most commonly used plant poison in Europe, despite the fact that it is regarded as probably carcinogenic, that it harms beneficial creatures, such as honeybees and earthworms, and that its powerful and non-selective impact destroys the food base of whole ecosystems.

What will the future policy on glyphosate and herbicides be? Why do the words ‘herbicide’ and ‘glyphosate’ not appear even once in the Green Deal and ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy?

When the authorisation period comes to an end, will glyphosate be banned at long last? For how long is the authorisation period for glyphosate to be extended once again, so that it can continue to be used?

How can a decision not to ban glyphosate be reconciled with the EU’s policy of sustainability? For the sake of consistency with EU policy, as illustrated by the Green Deal and the ‘Farm to Fork’ strategy, should herbicides in general, and glyphosate in particular, not be banned, or their use at least restricted or reduced?

Original language of question: DE
Last updated: 27 February 2020Legal notice - Privacy policy