b'need to apply alternative products moretiffs based much of their case, numerousFAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues frequently by spraying; versus a singleregulatory agencies [including the U.S.(JMPR), have reaffirmed that glypho-seed treatment, and there are inevitablyEPA, European Food Safety Authoritysate-based products are safe when used consequences, even if these are deemed(EFSA), European Chemicals Agencyas directed and that glyphosate is not as acceptable risks. In some cases, the(ECHA), the German Federal Institute forcarcinogenic. Of note, in April 2019, the consequences will lead to extra costs,Risk Assessment (BfR), and Australian,U.S. EPA issued its proposed interim reg-more CO2 emissions, or less effectiveCanadian, Korean, New Zealand andistration review decision on glyphosate control, or a higher (even if still accept- Japanese regulatory authorities, as well asand reaffirmed that there are no risks able) risk to the environment, biodiver- the Joint FAO/WHOMeeting on Pesticideto public health when glyphosate is used sity, public, etc. In some cases, farmersResidues (JMPR)], have reaffirmed thatin accordance with its current label and have simply stopped growing the cropsglyphosate-based products are safe whenthat glyphosate is not a carcinogen.they grew before and changed the uses ofused as directed and that glyphosate isWe dont know precisely why juries their land because they still must protectnot carcinogenic. We are convinced thatreached the verdicts they did or what their livelihood. We feel that decisionswe have good arguments for a renewedparticular evidence they found persua-that affect our agricultural productiv- approval of glyphosate beyond 2022. sive. That said, there is a very significant ity are best taken within a more holisticcontrast between the scientific evidence perspective that considers the conse- reviewed by expert regulators across quences and impacts of such decisionsthe worldwho have looked at the full on European agriculture. body of science over 40 years in reach-We need to recognize and balanceIN THE ing the conclusion that glyphosate is not the benefits of using pesticides with thecarcinogenic. On the other hand, juries risks that they bring and consider theGLYPHOSATE CASES,are limited in the number of studies they impact of losing a specific tool versussee, and some of the evidence presented the risks of keeping it. Moreover, prior- JURIES ARE LIMITEDin court is unreliable, such as epidemiol-itizing the introduction of specific con- IN THE NUMBERogy studies that do not control for other trols on where and when it can be used,pesticides. It is important to note that of rather than simply banning it. We alsoOF STUDIES THEYthe three trials to date, IARCs opinion need to recognize that Europe has vastlywas admitted in every one while evidence different climatic and agronomic condi- SEE, AND SOMEof worldwide regulatory support for the tions across the geographies of differentOF THE EVIDENCEsafety of glyphosate was limited in every Member States. A particular pesticide,case.or plant protection product, may not bePRESENTEDIts also important to remember that needed in one country, but it is enor- we are still in early days with this litiga-mously valuable on certain specialty orIN COURT IStion, and none of these verdicts are final. minor crops in another. We need to moveAs is the case with mass tort litigation in towards an agenda that aims to provideUNRELIABLE. the U.S., there is still a lengthy appeals the best options including the safety pro- process for each of all three cases that file, as well as considering agronomic,needs to play out. There are several crit-social and economic consequences forical legal issues that cut across these farmers wherever they are.cases that will be assessed at the appel-ES: WHAT IS WRONG WITHlate level. We have strong arguments on ES: THE REGULATORYTHE CURRENT OUTCOMESeach of these issues, and rulings in our ENVIRONMENT AROUNDOF THE GLYPHOSATEfavor on any one or more of these would GLYPHOSATE IS QUITEVERDICTS? AND WHY DO THEpotentially have a significant impact on CHALLENGING AT THEJUDGES AND JURIES FORMall of these cases. For example, we do not MOMENT; HOW ARE THE USDIFFERENT CONCLUSIONSbelieve the flawed, cherry-picked studies VERDICTS IMPACTING THE EUIN COMPARISON TO THEpresented to the jury by plaintiffs are MARKET?MAJORITY OF SCIENTIFICsufficient to meet their burden to prove BT:In the EU, a five-year re-registrationEVIDENCE?that our herbicides caused the plaintiffs was granted in December 2017 afterBT:The verdicts so far, all of which faceNon-Hodgkin lymphoma given that most thorough and extensive evaluation ofappeal and none of which are final, con- NHL has no known cause, the plaintiffs the scientific characteristics of glypho- flict with the rigorous scientific researchhad numerous risk factors for the dis-sate. Since the registration of glypho- and data on glyphosate and glypho- ease, and exposures were limited. In our sate granted in 2017 will expire on 15sate-based herbicides that confirm thatappeals and in future cases, we are going December 2022, the process for renewalthese products are safe when used asto continue our efforts to exclude, limit, must begin in December 2019, i.e. 3 yearsdirected and that glyphosate is not car- or if necessary, help juries see past this before the current expiry. We trust thecinogenic. Moreover, the IARC publi- unreliable science.regulators to decide responsibly andcation, on which plaintiffs base muchWe continue to believe that the based on scientific findings, including theof their case, remains a notable outlier.extensive body of science behind the European Commission and in the MemberSince IARCs monograph was publishedsafety of our glyphosate-based herbicides States. The jurys decisions do not changein 2015, numerous regulatory and sci- confirms these products are not carcino-the rigorous scientific research and dataentific agencies including the U.S. EPA,genic and will ultimately be determina-on glyphosate and glyphosate-based her- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),tive in the litigation.bicides that confirm that these productsEuropean Chemicals Agency (ECHA), are safe when used as directed and thatGerman BfR, and Australian, Canadian,Editors Note: Bruno Tremblay is Head glyphosate is not carcinogenic. SinceKorean, New Zealand and Japanese reg- of Bayer Division Crop Science for the IARC publication, on which plain- ulatory authorities, as well as the JointEurope Middle East Africa (EMEA).EUROPEAN-SEED.COMIEUROPEAN SEED I 17'