EU court disregards weedkiller cancer claims in rejecting challenge

With judges excluding some glyphosate studies because they were submitted too late, researchers questioned how much room the process leaves to challenge the science.(CN) — A bid to undo another decade of glyphosate approval stumbled Wednesday over what campaigners had put on paper before reaching an EU courtroom.The General Court of the European Union dismissed Antidote Europe’s lawsuit against the European Commission over the weedkiller ingredient’s approval until December 2033. The association sought to overturn the commission’s refusal to reconsider the renewal and, consequently, the renewal itself.Glyphosate lets farmers kill weeds before sowing crops, reducing the need to plow the soil. It is also used in gardens and along railways, making it one of the world’s most widely used pesticides.Its cancer risks have divided scientific authorities for years. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans, citing limited evidence in people and sufficient evidence in experimental animals. That classification described its potential to cause cancer, rather than the likelihood of developing the disease at a particular exposure. European regulators considered the findings but concluded a cancer classification was unwarranted.The commission renewed approval in November 2023 after member governments twice failed to muster the majority needed to deliver an opinion. Antidote requested reconsideration two months later, questioning cancer risks and reliance on animal experiments. The commission refused that June.The court rejected some arguments on procedural grounds and the rest as unfounded. Two cancer-related studies were excluded because Antidote had not submitted them with its original request. The review process allows qualifying environmental groups to ask EU institutions to reconsider decisions, then challenge their response in court.The arguments judges accepted did not identify specific errors undermining the commission’s assessment. Antidote had invoked the cancer agency’s classification without explaining which findings regulators had overlooked or should have given greater weight.Approval required only one representative use of one product to meet the legal requirements. Assessors had identified high long-term risks to mammals in 12 of 23 proposed uses, but Antidote had not disputed that a safe use existed.The court explained in the judgment, issued in French: “Moreover, the fact that some proposed uses of products containing glyphosate pose high risks does not mean that all proposed uses involve similar risks.”Tessa Trapp, a researcher studying strategic climate litigation at the University of Amsterdam, criticized what she saw as an illusion of access to justice.“It places a nearly impossible burden of proof on members of the public and civil society in relation to internal review requests and leads to nearly unchecked discretion of the commission in practice,” she said. In her view, the approach allowed the commission to select scientific sources without adequately engaging with competing evidence.Pietro Mattioli, a researcher in law at Maastricht University, said procedural restrictions excluded potentially relevant studies without examining their merits.He questioned what scrutiny remained: “This requirement places a considerable burden on applicants seeking to challenge the commission’s evaluation of complex scientific evidence, potentially reducing judicial scrutiny to a verification of whether the applicant has sufficiently substantiated its criticisms, rather than an examination of the scientific merits of the commission’s assessment itself.”The judges found EU rules expressly allowed animal testing. Antidote had not specified why justifications for avoiding tests or their repetition were inadequate, or shown that the species chosen made the tests unreliable. Another study first submitted in court was excluded. By the March 2026 hearing, Antidote had also dropped several grounds, including its complaint about the commission’s explanation of its decision.Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) and five other groups have a separate case pending over the commission’s refusal to reconsider the same renewal, challenging assessments of cancer risks, damage to DNA and effects on wildlife, among other issues.Martin Dermine, executive director of the pesticide campaign group, said its case rested on a different foundation. “PAN Europe’s legal action against the renewal of glyphosate from 2023 is based on other legal arguments, and an in-depth scientific expert work the General Court will need to assess,” he said.A commission spokesperson said the judgment confirmed its decision to reject Antidote’s review request had complied with EU law, particularly the bloc’s rules on pesticides. Antidote Europe did not respond to a request for comment.Antidote was ordered to pay its own costs and the commission’s. The renewal remains intact. Antidote can appeal to the Court of Justice within two months and ten days of notification, but only on points of law — not for a fresh weighing of the science.Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads