Seralini, Huber and many other discredited documents on dangers of Glyphosate dismissed in court case.
While this application for judicial review is allowed, the Court notes that most of the grounds for the applicant’s request for the special review were abandoned before this Court at the hearing of the application.
Partial Costs were awarded to WCEL and Wier, a special review will take place to satisfy their request.
Minister of Health already indicated a reevaluation is in the works, all evidence has been reviewed and no need for special review.
Worst case senario, Glyphosate label will indicate not to spray near sensative wetlands. At a major cost to taxpayers.
The applicant, (Environmental Researcher) Josette Wier, did not file an affidavit or attend the hearings.
The special review can co-exist with the section 16 re-evaluation of the pesticide. The special review will be narrower than the comprehensive re-evaluation being conducted in the conjunction with the United States. For this reason, the special review will be targeted and possibly quicker. The applicant is entitled to a proper analysis as to whether the pesticide in issue presents an environmental risk to amphibians inhabiting ephemeral wetlands which are subject to the aerial spraying of the pesticide in silviculture. The evidence alluded to is that the two year field studies have just been completed and that the studies may present new evidence upon which the Minister can make a transparent and intelligible decision under section 17 of the Act.
"At the hearing before the Court, counsel [West Coast Environmental Law] for the applicant conceded that the evidence does not demonstrate a "health risk" to humans or animals from the pesticide in issue. Accordingly, that part of the applicant's request was withdrawn."
Josette Wier was concerned about Human Safety with POEA and referenced Seralini InVitro studies from France.
This Discredited information was dropped in court as were 14 other studies Josette Wier claimed proved that Glyphosate and POEA were dangerous to humans.
In the End, her Lawyer relied on 1 single report that indicated Data Gaps were know in effects on Frogs. This is what was used to have a special re-evaluation granted. The Canadian Forestry Services is releasing this information shortly as it has compiled the information for 2 plus years now. They do not feel the dangers to POEA or Glyphosate are significant, that is why they chose 2014 to release this information as a group with the EPA.
This is also why the Judge only offered Midpoint Costs in this case.