The Glyphosate Saga, A Further but Not a Final Step : The CJEU Confirms the Validity of the Regulation on Plant Protection Products in Light of the Precautionary Principle

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, a body of the World Health Organisation) classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic”.3 Yet, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)4 and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)5 rejected IARC’s conclusions, minimising the danger to humans posed by glyphosate. [...]the so-called Monsanto Papers, Monsanto’s internal documents declassified by the US courts in 2017, seem to show that, since 1999, Monsanto was aware of the carcinogenic effect of glyphosate and tried to impede the work of competent scientific bodies by disguising the data proving the danger of this product.6 According to these documents, Monsanto financed experts to carry out scientific research to defend the non-carcinogenic nature of glyphosate. [...]pursuant to the information provided by two newspapers (The Guardian and La Stampa), dozens of pages of the risk assessment report conducted by EFSA in relation to glyphosate are identical to passages in the application submitted by Monsanto to request the authorisation of this product.7 Taking into account these uncertainties, and based on the precautionary principle, on 15 January 2019, the Tribunal administratifde Lyon (Administrative Court of Lyon, France) set aside the decision authorising the placing on the French market of Roundup Pro 360 containing the active substance glyphosate.8 Furthermore, on 2 July 2019, Austria became the first European country to ban all glyphosate products on its territory.9 It is in this context of uncertainties about the harmfulness of glyphosate and doubts about the validity of its evaluation procedure that the Blaise judgment will be analysed.10 In the case at stake, on 27 September 2016 and 1 March 2017, Mr Blaise and 20 other individuals (jointly the Defendants) entered three shops. The essential issue before the CJEU is, therefore, whether the provisions of Regulation no 1107/2009 are flawed in such a manner as to render the regulation invalid in light of the precautionary principle.17 Given the scientific and technical complexity of the questions surrounding the application of this principle, judicial review by the CJEU is limited to the assessment of whether the provisions of Regulation no 1107/2009 are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.18 First, the CJEU states that an applicant is bound to identify, when submitting his application for authorisation of a plant protection product, any substance forming part of the composition of that prod