Contrasting Views on the Legitimate Use of Evidence in EU Risk Regulation: The Case of Pesticides

The regulatory process to authorize the use of chemicals in the production of pesticides is complex and often contentious. This paper explores the controversy over the approval of glyphosate, the most diffused herbicide in the world, whose authorisation is about to expire in the EU and is currently under renewal. The controversy stems from conflicting scientific assessments of its carcinogenic effects. The first assessment report delivered in 2014 by the German risk regulation agency (BfR) as part of the EU re-authorization process concluded that glyphosate should be classified as ‘no carcinogen’. One year later, while the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) was conducting risk assessment on the basis of BfR conclusions, a report published by UN International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as ‘2A potential carcinogen’. The controversy arose since according to Regulation 1107/2009 active substances that fall into this group should be outrightly banned in the EU, without the need for further and more detailed assessment of associated risks. The IARC report therefore forced EFSA to delay the publication of its own opinion and opened up a heated debate among regulators and stakeholders on what type of scientific evidence – laboratory testing, industry studies, peer-reviewed papers - should legitimately be included in risk evaluation procedures and how different sources of evidence should be weighed against each other. This paper explores argumentations advanced in the debate by BfR, EFSA, IARC, industry-related groups like ‘Glyphosate Task Force’ and environmental organisations like ‘Pesticide Action Network’. The analysis highlights the coexistence of different conceptions of ‘legitimate evidence’ and discusses their implications for the regulatory process. By analysing the ‘glyphosate controversy’ the paper provides useful insights into the more broader issue of the use of expertise in risk regulation and sheds light on ongoing trade-offs in the EU system.