Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

"It remains difficult to buy food and be sure that it has not been treated with glyphosate "

François Veillerette, spokesperson for future Generations, rests on the presence of the herbicide in the sixteen products of consumption on the thirty analysed by the NGO.

- 50 reads.

François Veillerette, spokesperson for future Generations, rests on presence of herbicide in sixteen products of consumption on thirty analysed by NGO.

glyphosate residues in cereals for breakfast, legumes and pasta. By analyzing thirty samples of food products, NGO future Generations was found in sixteen of m, " or 53.3 per cent ", of residues of molecule of herbicide used most in world, a substance is classified as "probably carcinogenic" by an agency of world health Organization.

Read our article :   traces of glyphosate were found in breakfast cereals

a total of seven breakfast cereals on eight analyzed (Nestlé, Kellogg's, Jordan...) contained glyphosate, and seven pulses on twelve had also. For pasta, proportion is lower : two food brands on seven showed traces.

While active ingredient in Roundup, weedkiller flagship of Monsanto, is awaiting a new european homologation (a vote on renewal for ten years of license of glyphosate, which expires at end of 2017, is expected in October), and François Veillerette, spokesperson and director of future Generations, rests on this report.

Read also :   Roundup : pesticide divides european Union and WHO

what is it that prompted you to conduct this analysis on food products bought at supermarket ?

In context of debate on re-registration of glyphosate in european Union (EU), our NGO has said it would be interesting to know more about presence of this product in our plates. In doing research, we realised that re was finally little research of glyphosate in official analyses because it is necessary to implement a specific test to detect it. These analyses are more complicated and cannot be combined with research of or molecules, refore y are more expensive. Unfortunately, public authorities do not have enough facilities for this type of research.

The results of your research are y surprising ?

There is very little point of reference, because we only had figures that are very general prior to our analyses. However, finding more than 50 % of pesticide residues in analyzed products when we test a single molecule, it remains very surprising. It shows us in any case that residues of glyphosate are very strong on se food products. Unfortunately we were not able to test that a thirty products, so we can't draw complete comparison but it can at least get an idea of importance of debate.

For time being, is re a way for consumer to know if foods y buy contain traces of glyphosate ?

When consumer goes to buy apples or bread at supermarket, we would like to see it has a list of treatments used on se foods. It advocates for a comprehensive information so that consumer chooses for himself what he eats, because today, as shown in our study, we do not choose.

Unfortunately, it does not exist in France, as is case in State of California, on label on packaging wher a product contains glyphosate. From point of view of consumer, it remains difficult to buy food and be sure that it has not been treated with glyphosate.

In your report, it is observed that maximum residue limit (MRL) for pesticides set by EU food raw is never exceeded, n, should we be alarmed ?

first of All, you should know that re are MRLS to all food gross, but not on all processed foods. For example, re is no rule for breakfast cereals that we have analysed and on which we found traces of glyphosate.

Then, it is considered that limit, as it is set currently, is much too high. If a product is carcinogenic, determine a limit will not allow us to assess risk in long term.

The european Agency of chemicals (ECHA) and food safety (EFSA) considers that re is no reason to classify this substance as a carcinogen. Do you think in spite of all that license of glyphosate could not be renewed in EU ?

We keep hope. France's decision to vote against proposal of Commission to renew license for ten years is good. But today it is necessary to find or countries to vote against a qualified majority of 55% of member States representing 65% of population of EU, is required in this folder]. It is, refore, not merely vote against it, but also take responsibility to convince or countries to follow us.

Warning!

You have to login for comment. If you are not a member? Register now.

Login Sign Up