An EU court ruled Thursday that European lawmakers must be given access to scientific studies examining the safety of glyphosate, a chemical commonly used in pesticides whose possibly carcinogenic nature has raised global controversy.

The ruling by the EU's General Court could reinvigorate debate over glyphosate in the EU, which has seen an EU-wide petition to ban the product rejected by the bloc's executive arm and raised questions of transparency.

Glyphosate is used in agriculture to control crop-damaging pests

Ruling excerpts

The court statement read: "The public interest in having access to the information relating to emissions into the environment is specifically to know not only what is, or foreseeably will be, released into the environment, but also to understand the way in which the environment could be affected by the emissions in question."

Views on the case

Sven Giegold, a German member of the European Parliament for the Green party, told DW ahead of the ruling that the core of the case was transparency in food and health safety: "This case is about getting access to the … original studies, which were used by the European Food and Safety Agency in order to approve glyphosate."

"We asked for the data, it was refused, and so we went to court to get it," he added.

Why is glyphosate controversial?

Glyphosate is found in many pesticides used widely in industrial agriculture, as well as in domestic and urban settings. The most well-known example is RoundUp, a weedkiller made by chemical giant Monsanto, which was recently acquired by German pharma giant Bayer.

Some global health bodies have warned glyphosate can cause cancer and other health issues, while environmentalists argue it destroys crucial biodiversity. However, others have argued the cancer links are tenuous and maintain the product is safe to use.

What was the EU case?

Four EU lawmakers — Finland's Heidi Hautala, Hungary's Benedek Javor, France's Michele Rivasi and Belgium's Bart Staes — filed the case in May 2017 against the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which had used toxicological and carcinogenic studies to determine the safety of glyphosate, finding that "glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans."

While the European Commission used the findings to classify the chemical as safe, lawmakers were denied access to the same studies, based on the argument that it could harm the commercial interests of companies that presented the studies.

What do EU countries think?

Views over glyphosate use in the EU and how to proceed are divided by country, as well as by branch of the bloc.

In October 2017 the European Parliament approved a nonbinding resolution to ban the chemical's use by 2022. However, the law-making executive branch of the EU, the Commission, voted a few months later to extend the glyphosate license for another five years, though the vote revealed divisions in the bloc.

France voted against the 2017 extension, and President Emmanuel Macron has pushed for phasing out glyphosate in the coming years. Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy Luxembourg and Malta also voted against the extension.

Germany supported the extension, though roughly one year later the country introduced stricter national regulations for pesticides. The Czech Republic has also announced they will limit its use.

What happens now?

With the release of the data, other scientists can also view the procedures and attempt to replicate and verify the conclusions.

However, MP Giegold said the case was "more about the past than the future," because the approval process for pesticide has already been changed in EU law, resulting in increased public transparency.

Toxic toys and dodgy engines: Highlighting dangerous products in the EU Rapid alert The European Commission has released its annual report on the 'Rapid Alert System' for dangerous products across 31 European countries. The system aims to provide a way for manufacturers, importers, retailers, experts, and national authorities to identify and report dangerous products as quickly as possible. Pictured is Věra Jourová, Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality.

Toxic toys and dodgy engines: Highlighting dangerous products in the EU Unmasking hidden threats Many products for sale across the EU 28, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are considered dangerous, from risk of injuries, to dangers of fire, chemical contamination or even choking. Toy-related products, such as the mask displayed here, consistently present the most risks. In the 2017 Rapid Alert System report, toys accounted for 29 percent of all product alerts — the most of any category.

Toxic toys and dodgy engines: Highlighting dangerous products in the EU Shoring up the market The main aim of the system is that when a product for sale is identified as potentially dangerous in one country, other EU states can quickly have access to this information and take appropriate steps to secure their own market. In 2017, there were 2,201 product alerts across the 31 European countries that are part of the system. The most alerts were raised by Germany, with 354.

Toxic toys and dodgy engines: Highlighting dangerous products in the EU Food for thought The Rapid Alert System deals with non-food products. Food and feed safety issues — one such example being the hotly-contested issue of the use of weed-killer glyphosate (pictured) — are dealt with within the EU by the RASFF (the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed). Both systems work in much the same way, using online portals and databases to exchange information about product alerts.

Toxic toys and dodgy engines: Highlighting dangerous products in the EU Not so cuddly Despite their seemingly innocent intentions, toys (29 percent) were the most notified category in 2017, followed by motor vehicles (20 percent) and clothing, textiles and fashion items (12 percent). Most dangerous products came from outside the EU, with China — which produces millions of toys (pictured) for the European market, among other things — the number one country of origin (53 percent).

Toxic toys and dodgy engines: Highlighting dangerous products in the EU Feeling the burn The European Commission cites as an example of good practice by the Rapid Alert System the case of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 mobile phone. After several media reports detailed the product's risk of causing burn injuries, a widespread exchange of information about the product took place across the network and the product was identified as posing a high risk of burns, leading to mass recalls.

Toxic toys and dodgy engines: Highlighting dangerous products in the EU The German obsession Germany signaled more dangerous products than other country in 2017, 16 percent of the total. Of the 354 alerts raised from Germany, 68 percent related to motor vehicles, a reflection of the importance of that industry. A simple example: a recent alert concerned springs in the starter motors of some Volkswagen cars, with the risk being that the starter motor could overheat and cause fires.



cmb/rt (dpa, Reuters)

Each evening at 1830 UTC, DW's editors send out a selection of the day's hard news and quality feature journalism. You can sign up to receive it directly here.