The evidence on the toxicity of glyphosate is
not clear yet;
with carcinogenic compounds the evidence would never be clear
and also we need to remember that for political and money reasons, the
legislation is always 10-20 years behind the scientific evidence...
example 1/ The story of hexavalent Cr [Cr(VI)] in
drinking water
(we all KNOW that Cr(VI) is carcinogenic but only California
State in US has a separate legal limit for Cr(VI) in drinking water, in EU we
still have a legal limit for TOTAL Cr but not a separate legal limit for
Cr(VI)...
example 2/ the recent scandal with Bute in
horsemeat and the food chain...I can still recall top “Scientists” in UK and
Greece saying that a bit of bute in the food chain is ...SAFE... (tragic joke!)
In the case of Cr(VI), bute and now
glyphosate, the precautionary principle should be applied. This principle states that
"where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk,
recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop
distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to
be hazardous".
As Scientists (and Food Scientists) we
should use the precautionary principle in order to offer maximum protection to
the Society and therefore... our customers.
The latest data on glyphosate in the food
chain as reported here are rather alarming...
To sum up, using the precautionary
principle, the use of glyphosate should be banned/restricted till further data
are available.
Ioannis Zabetakis
Ioannis Zabetakis
