Three major controversies over glufosinate spraying on red beans remain unresolved; legislators and farmers call for no turning back

The Council of Agriculture plans to allow the herbicide glufosinate as a defoliant for red beans. More than a month after the news was exclusively revealed by News&Market, the Bureau of Animal and Plant Health Inspection and Quarantine (BAPHIQ) has issued multiple public explanations but still cannot clarify the following controversies: 1. The EU's official assessment found glufosinate to have high reproductive toxicity and banned its use, so why is Taiwan expanding its approval? 2. How many farmers actually need to apply glufosinate to harvest red beans? 3. Imported red beans are not produced with glufosinate, so will Taiwan's approval of its use harm the domestic industry?

BAPHIQ under the Council of Agriculture held an expert meeting yesterday (the 6th) on the safety risks of glufosinate. Most experts attending said that, based on briefings provided by BAPHIQ and the Taiwan Agricultural Chemicals and Toxic Substances Research Institute (TACTRI), it would not increase environmental or food safety risks, but that there was a "problem with risk communication." Tseng Te-ssu, professor emeritus of the Department of Plant Pathology at National Chung Hsing University, held the opposite view, arguing that glufosinate carries five risks including reproductive toxicity, and should only be approved on the premises that a warning stating it "may affect pregnant women and fetuses" is added and users receive professional training.

The Homemakers United Foundation yesterday invited legislators, scholars and farmers to a forum. Chief Executive Wu Pi-shuang said consumer health must not be sacrificed for the convenience of field management. Legislator Lin Shu-fen questioned that while the government is clearly moving toward "halving chemical pesticides in ten years," it is announcing the use of glufosinate, asking "can this path still be followed?" Hsiao Cheng-lung, head of the third team of the Meinong Farmers' Association coarse grains (red bean) production and marketing group, stressed that in past years farmers have worked hard to cooperate with government promotion and switch to friendly defoliation methods, and there should be no turning back. Legislator Chen Chiao-hua demanded that BAPHIQ hold a public hearing within one month and disclose the trial information for public scrutiny.

EU officials recognize glufosinate as having high reproductive toxicity; Taiwan officials disagree

After the herbicide glufosinate came onto the market in the 1980s, more and more studies showed risks of neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity. A scientific review published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2005 pointed out that animal experiments showed glufosinate could cause vaginal bleeding, miscarriage and stillbirth, with severe reproductive toxicity, and "may cause irreparable reproductive risks." It was classified as 1B, the high-toxicity category.

However, the Council of Agriculture offered a different view on the toxicity of glufosinate. Tsai Wei-jen, head of the Applied Toxicology Division at TACTRI, said at the expert meeting that according to a 2006 report, "if used correctly, glufosinate's reproductive toxicity is not high." That study held that glufosinate should not be classified as a 1B reproductive toxicant. Tsai Wei-jen said TACTRI, combining that report with its own internal research, concluded that glufosinate's reproductive toxicity is not high, differing from the EU's official conclusion.

It is worth noting that this report comes from the website Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, which clearly discloses that the report's scientific partner was "Bayer." The report also indicates that the data analyzed in the study was provided by Bayer, and Bayer was precisely the company that at the time applied to the EU for approval of glufosinate.

Why does TACTRI take a reserved attitude toward the EU's official report and instead trust research supported by Bayer more? In an interview after the meeting, Tsai Wei-jen said the EU's official decision was made by a vote of member states, and it cannot be determined whether the result came from a vote by experts or by administrative bodies. As for the 2006 report, its researchers came from a larger group of experts. Tsai stressed, "the 2006 report is not material issued by Bayer, it is material submitted by a laboratory commissioned by Bayer," and the website also specifically states that it is an independent body.

Former BAPHIQ director-general: The EU did not "ban" it, only "had doubts about its properties and did not approve its use"

In 2009, the EU explicitly stipulated that if a pesticide's reproductive toxicity falls under the high-toxicity categories 1A or 1B, approval shall not be granted or renewed. Sweden also stated at an EU meeting held in January 2017 that glufosinate did not comply with the plant protection product regulations introduced by the EU in 2009, and after its expiry on 1 October 2017, no license would be issued, amounting to a ban.

In response, BAPHIQ recently assigned a pesticide company to explain on behalf of the government: "Glufosinate was not banned by the EU; the company did not apply for license renewal due to commercial considerations." BAPHIQ also issued a press release echoing the company's statement: "According to relevant information, the EU's non-use is the result of commercial considerations; this Bureau has continued to verify through relevant channels."

Former BAPHIQ director-general Feng Hai-tung yesterday further commented on the current status of glufosinate use in the EU: "(The EU) did not go so far as to use the word 'ban.' Although in substance, banning a substance's use and not approving its use have the same effect, both meaning it cannot be used, but a ban in legal terms is a very strong act." Feng stressed, "It was abandoned because the industry did not submit an application, not a ban; it went from approved status back to unapproved status. Don't think of it so strongly. The main issue is that there are doubts about some of its properties. Don't spread alarmist talk."

Tseng Te-ssu: Withdrawal of approval is a ban on use; don't play word games to confuse the focus

Whether it is called a "ban," "no commercial interest" or "not approved," the difference lies in differing definitions of terms, but the result is that at this very moment in the EU, glufosinate indeed cannot be used because of reproductive toxicity. Facing the issue of glufosinate in the EU, how much does BAPHIQ actually know?

In response, Tseng Te-ssu, professor emeritus of the Department of Plant Pathology at National Chung Hsing University, said, "Withdrawal of approval is withdrawal of use; it is a ban on use." He called on BAPHIQ not to play word games and blur the focus that glufosinate had its approval withdrawn because of reproductive toxicity risks.

Tseng Te-ssu stressed, "Taiwan does not have a team that collects, compares and verifies international information and responds to major information with domestic policy as it stands." He further stressed that the EU has already told the world that glufosinate has reproductive toxicity, the EU has already withdrawn its approval and stopped its use, yet Taiwan is still expanding its use and cannot even manage a warning label.

"We have so many young farmers who graduated from university and are very good at gathering information. The government must protect farmers." "This should be a problem that both BAPHIQ and the Food and Drug Administration must face together!" Tseng Te-ssu said.