Glyphosate is not dangerous. Cortese: “Science wins”

A new and important victory for science against misinformation on the topic of glyphosate. In fact, the European Financial Supervisory Authority has not identified “any areas of serious concern with regard to the risks it poses to humans, animals or the environment”.

This was reported by the European Food Safety Authority itself, announcing the conclusions of its assessment on the impact of the product: “Now – underlines Alberto Cortese, President of Confagricoltura Mantova – that it is up to the EU Commission to develop a proposal for Member States on the use of this substance, whose authorization expires On next December 15. A proposal that should take into account the scientific evidence collected by the FRA The use of glyphosate in agriculture is a topic that is part of a broader topic related to the tools available to our farms to deal with climate change. Among these tools are chemical products Which, pending valid alternatives, remain important allies to ensure production levels ».

The issue of human health can never be taken lightly, as evidenced by the meticulousness with which the FSA operates. The authority’s opinion was expected in July last year, which was postponed to July 2023 due to the volume of documents collected and evaluated. In a note, the body reported that it had received 368 responses in the course of public consultations, and 2,400 comments and responses from experts working in EU member states.

The file has been produced and, on opinion, exceeds 3,000 pages. Moreover, it must be remembered that, a year ago, the European Chemicals Agency (Echa) reached the same conclusions as the FRA, stating that the assessment of the risks posed by glyphosate does not meet the scientific criteria that justify its classification as a carcinogen. . , mutagenic or toxic substance.

“At this point – concludes Cortese – we hope that certain circles and certain currents of thought, in the face of yet another scientific evidence, will stop once and for all against a practice that has been proven, precisely, to be not harmful, neither for humans nor for animals nor for the environment ».

[email protected]