The Green Party politician Renate Künast has been fighting for a ban on glyphosate for years – today could be the day. In the interview she sends an appeal to the FDP.
Almost all over the world, farmers use glyphosate to rid their fields of weeds. In Germany, around 4,000 tons of it were recently sprayed every year. The US seed company Monsanto, which today belongs to Bayer, brought the product onto the market in the 1970s, and many companies now sell it. It’s a billion dollar market. But the pesticide is controversial.
The EU now faces – once again – an important decision on glyphosate: Will it continue to allow its use? The current approval expires on December 15th and the EU Commission wants to extend it for ten years. The member states will vote on it on Friday.
Renate Künast is one of those who hope that the member states will vote against approval this time. The Green politician was Minister for Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture from 2001 to 2005, and now she heads the Food and Agriculture Working Group in the Bundestag. She has been campaigning for a ban on glyphosate for years.
How often have you hoped in vain when it comes to glyphosate?
I chose not to count. In the vote this Friday, I am betting that the approval will not go through. In any case, I know that I will fight until there is a ban.
Why? The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) says: The use of glyphosate does not pose any unacceptable risks.
This is a bogus argument. In reality it is like this: The EFSA has not sufficiently clarified many questions, and it even mentions the data gaps in its July report. With so little knowledge, however, one cannot seriously allow such a total herbicide – i.e. a product that kills every plant. This is not compatible with the precautionary principle set out in EU law.
It states that a measure must not be carried out if it could cause harm to the public or the environment – and there is no scientific consensus on the issue.
Exactly.
Renate Künast: “In any case, I know that I will fight until there is a ban.”
© Imago Images
How can it be that this consensus still doesn’t exist today?
In recent years there have been repeated indications that the drug could be carcinogenic. There are also enough proceedings in US courts. The investigation also involves not looking at the substance alone, but rather in its interaction with all the active ingredients in the end product. The EU has not yet had this investigated. And the latest studies are not taken into account.
But why is that? Because there are strong economic interests behind it?
That must be the case. The EU Commission now wants to approve glyphosate for another ten long years. At the same time, it does not mandate research into how the product affects the environment when used in concrete terms. Which she has had the obligation to do since 2009. I see a prevention strategy there. In doing so, it is only doing a favor to those who want to make money in the short term.
Many farmers argue that they are dependent on being able to use glyphosate – alternatives are not necessarily better. If they plowed more to clear the field before sowing, there would be more soil erosion. It also costs time and fuel. What do you tell them?
The debate is not easy, I know that. But I also know that we have been running them for decades. We cannot simply accept the health risks and ignore biodiversity. This will pay off in the end. We can’t just keep applying more chemicals; at some point the soils have reached a tipping point. In the end, this will also harm the farmers.
That probably doesn’t help you much in the specific situation. How exactly should farmers be supported during the transition?
We could restructure EU subsidies so that those who suffer particular disadvantages as a result of a ban are compensated. If farmers use fewer herbicides, this is ultimately an ecological service for society as a whole. That must be honored.
Regardless of the outcome of the EU decision, the SPD, Greens and FDP have agreed in the coalition agreement to remove glyphosate “from the market by the end of 2023”. In the event that the EU decides differently – what should a German solo effort look like?
In my opinion, the first thing that means is that whoever agrees to this in the coalition agreement must also vote “no” at the EU level. I also expect the same from our two coalition partners.
You are referring to the FDP, which welcomed the EU Commission’s proposal. Transport Minister Volker Wissing and Research Minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger, among others, are promoting the continued use of glyphosate.
I heard that, but I expect Germany to vote “no” today. I expect that the EU Commission’s proposal will be rejected in its entirety.
Let’s see what the day brings. Ms. Künast, thank you very much for the interview.