GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2022 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Donations
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE EDITING MYTHS AND REALITY

A guide through the smokescreen

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

ON-TARGET EFFECTS OF GENE EDITING

Damaged DNA

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

News Archive

  • 2023 articles
  • 2022 articles
  • 2021 articles
  • 2020 articles
  • 2019 articles
  • 2018 articles
  • 2017 articles
  • 2016 articles
  • 2015 articles
  • 2014 articles
  • 2013 articles
  • 2012 articles
  • 2011 articles
  • 2010 articles
  • 2009 articles
  • 2008 articles
  • 2007 articles
  • 2006 articles
  • 2005 articles
  • 2004 articles
  • 2003 articles
  • 2002 articles
  • 2001 articles
  • 2000 articles

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

EU reports on pesticides are copy-pasted from industry dossiers

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 13 December 2018
Twitter

Anises Syngenta reports

Rapporteur Member States routinely lift text from industry applications without indicating source

Remember the copy-paste scandal, when Greenpeace uncovered that the EU report on glyphosate was, over many pages, identical to the application dossier submitted by Monsanto and other pesticide companies?

Now a team of journalists working for the German news brand BR24 has checked whether this is also true for other pesticides. After all, both the BfR and EFSA said that this was common practice.

And it is. The team checked 25 EU risk assessment reports prepared by different Rapporteur Member States, and in particular the human health parts. It found that many national authorities had done what the BfR had done for glyphosate – they copied large chunks of text from the application dossiers over to the EU report, without any indication of the source.

The journalists also got an interview with EFSA director Bernhard Url who said, again: "We assume that the authority checks whether something corresponds to reality before taking it over." They also got an insider to speak out, anonymously, who confirmed that the authorities didn’t have the time to check all the studies.

The journalists conclude that there is an “error in the system” and that we cannot trust that all pesticides approved in the EU are effectively safe. They conclude with quotes from two MEPs – from the Socialist and EPP groups – who comment on the need (or not) for more data transparency in EU risk assessments of pesticides (i.e. disclosure of industry studies) so that third-party scientists can scrutinize the EU assessments.

The article and infographic (in German) are here.

There is also a 15-minute video (featuring toxicologist Dr Peter Clausing) which goes beyond the copy-paste findings and also features Prof Philippe Grandjean and Asst Prof Axel Mie talking about chlorpyrifos: see here.

The list of 25 pesticides and further background on the data analysis are here, including the outcome of the “similarity test” in two versions: here as a graphical representation and here showing the text that was copied (unfortunately, glyphosate isn’t included).

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

Non-GM Successes

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2023 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design