On 26 September 2024, Antidote Europe filed a lawsuit against the European Commission, seeking to annul the Commission's decision to renew the approval of glyphosate. This legal action, registered as Case T-503/24, centres on alleged procedural violations and health risks associated with glyphosate, a substance deemed "probably carcinogenic" by the World Health Organisation.
Background of the Case
The European Commission renewed glyphosate's approval on 28 November 2023, under Implementing Regulation 2023/2660, despite ongoing concerns over its potential health risks. Glyphosate, a widely-used herbicide, has faced scrutiny globally due to studies linking it to environmental and health hazards. Antidote Europe, an environmental health organisation based in Strasbourg, has been vocal in its opposition, citing long-term risks to mammals and potential harm to humans as key concerns.
Legal Grounds for the Challenge
Antidote Europe’s challenge to the EU decision rests on five main legal arguments:
- Procedural Violations: Antidote Europe argues that the European Commission failed to provide adequate justification for its decision, violating Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The organisation claims that the Commission's internal review lacked transparency and authenticity, with the reasons presented in the final decision not reflecting the points raised in their request for review.
- Precautionary Principle Ignored: The organisation asserts that the Commission's decision contradicts the EU’s precautionary principle, outlined in Article 191 TFEU, which mandates prioritising safety in cases of scientific uncertainty. They argue that the decision prioritises economic interests over public health, with insufficient consideration given to the high risks of glyphosate exposure.
- Fundamental Rights Concerns: Antidote Europe invokes Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which guarantees environmental protection, claiming that glyphosate's classification as a probable human carcinogen directly threatens this right.
- Regulatory Compliance Issues: The lawsuit contends that the Commission’s actions contravene Regulation No 1107/2009. Specifically, Antidote Europe points to the lack of justification for minimising animal testing and notes that the regulation mandates the minimisation of tests on vertebrate animals whenever possible.
- Alleged Misuse of Powers: Antidote Europe argues that the Commission overstepped its authority, encroaching on Member States’ jurisdiction in public health matters. The organisation notes that an increasing number of Member States support restricting glyphosate use, indicating a regional consensus on the matter.
Implications for Glyphosate's Future in Europe
The outcome of this case could impact future regulatory approaches toward glyphosate within the EU. With growing opposition and concerns over health and environmental safety, the case exemplifies the tension between regulatory bodies, public health advocates, and economic stakeholders within the European Union.
