EU General Court Dismisses Glyphosate Challenge by Antidote Europe

• The General Court of the European Union dismissed Antidote Europe's challenge to the European Commission's approval of glyphosate until 2033.
• The court rejected arguments on both procedural grounds, such as late submission of studies, and substantive grounds, citing a lack of specific errors in the Commission's assessment.
• The European Commission renewed glyphosate's approval in November 2023, despite a 2015 WHO classification of the substance as probably carcinogenic.
• Experts criticize the ruling for placing an "impossible burden of proof" on civil society and limiting judicial scrutiny of complex scientific evidence.
• The decision highlights the stringent requirements for challenging EU regulatory decisions, emphasizing the need for meticulous adherence to procedure and specific evidence of error.

The General Court of the European Union has dismissed a lawsuit brought by Antidote Europe, an association seeking to overturn the European Commission's decision to approve the weedkiller ingredient glyphosate until December 2033. The legal challenge specifically targeted the Commission's refusal to reconsider its renewal of glyphosate's authorization, aiming to invalidate the renewal itself. This ruling marks a significant setback for campaigners who sought to reverse the continued market presence of one of the world's most widely used pesticides.

The court's decision, issued on Wednesday, found against Antidote Europe on both procedural and substantive grounds. The association had initiated its legal action after the European Commission, in June, rejected its request to reconsider the glyphosate approval. That request, submitted two months after the November 2023 renewal, questioned the compound's cancer risks and the reliance on animal experiments in its assessment.

Glyphosate, a ubiquitous pesticide employed by farmers to eliminate weeds before planting crops, thereby reducing the need for soil plowing, and also used in gardens and along railway lines, has been at the center of a protracted scientific debate regarding its potential cancer risks. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans," citing limited evidence from human studies and sufficient evidence from experimental animals. This classification indicated the substance's potential to cause cancer, rather than the probability of developing the disease at a specific exposure level.

Despite the WHO agency's findings, European regulators, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that a cancer classification for glyphosate was unwarranted. The European Commission proceeded to renew the approval of glyphosate in November 2023, a decision reached after member governments twice failed to achieve the necessary majority to issue an opinion on the matter. This renewal set the stage for Antidote Europe's subsequent challenge, which ultimately led to the General Court of the European Union ruling.

The General Court's dismissal of the Antidote Europe glyphosate lawsuit hinged on critical procedural shortcomings and a failure to demonstrate specific errors in the European Commission's assessment. Crucially, the court excluded two cancer-related studies from its consideration because Antidote had not submitted them alongside its initial request for reconsideration to the Commission. This highlights the stringent procedural requirements for challenging EU regulatory decisions.

Furthermore, the court determined that Antidote Europe's arguments did not pinpoint specific errors that would undermine the Commission's assessment. For instance, while invoking the WHO cancer agency's classification, the association failed to clearly articulate which specific findings regulators had overlooked or should have given greater weight. The court also clarified that regulatory approval only necessitates one representative use of a product to meet legal requirements. Although assessors had identified high long-term risks to mammals in 12 out of 23 proposed uses, Antidote Europe did not dispute the existence of at least one safe use. The judgment explicitly stated, "Moreover, the fact that some proposed uses of products containing glyphosate pose high risks does not mean that all proposed uses involve similar risks." Regarding animal testing, the court noted that EU rules expressly permit such tests, and Antidote had not adequately explained why justifications for avoiding or repeating these tests were insufficient, nor had it demonstrated that the species chosen for the tests were inappropriate.

The General Court's decision underscores the significant burden of proof placed on applicants seeking to challenge complex scientific assessments by EU institutions, particularly in cases involving EU weedkiller cancer claims. Legal experts suggest this ruling could have broader implications for the accessibility and effectiveness of challenging regulatory decisions. Tessa Trapp, a researcher at the University of Amsterdam specializing in strategic climate litigation, described the outcome as revealing an "illusion of access to justice." She argued that the process imposes an "nearly impossible burden of proof" on the public and civil society in internal review requests, effectively granting "nearly unchecked discretion of the commission" in practice, allowing it to selectively engage with scientific sources.

Pietro Mattioli, a Ph.D. researcher at the University of Liège, echoed these concerns, noting that procedural restrictions can lead to the exclusion of potentially relevant studies without an examination of their merits. He questioned the extent of judicial scrutiny remaining, suggesting that the requirement places a "considerable burden" on applicants. This burden, he indicated, might reduce judicial review to merely verifying whether an applicant has sufficiently substantiated their criticisms, rather than conducting a thorough examination of the scientific merits of the Commission's assessment itself. This outcome emphasizes that lawyers advising clients on challenging EU regulatory decisions must ensure meticulous adherence to procedural requirements and be prepared to demonstrate specific errors in the Commission's assessment, as general scientific debate or late submissions of evidence are likely to lead to dismissal.

Lawyers advising clients on challenging EU regulatory decisions, particularly those involving complex scientific assessments, must ensure meticulous adherence to procedural requirements and be prepared to demonstrate specific errors in the Commission's assessment. This ruling underscores that general scientific debate or late submissions of evidence will likely lead to dismissal, emphasizing the high burden of proof on applicants in such cases.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service