Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Glyphosate Scientific Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Massachusetts Glyphosate Commission adopts ERG's final scientific review, refers report to pesticide subcommittee
Summary
The commission voted Sept. 17 to adopt ERG's final scientific review of glyphosate, noting the report reflects literature available through January 2023, received two written public comments and will be used by the pesticide subcommittee and submitted to the relevant legislative committees.
The Massachusetts Glyphosate Commission voted Sept. 17 to adopt the final scientific review prepared by consultant ERG and asked the pesticide subcommittee to use that review in its individual evaluation of glyphosate.
The commission's chair, MassDEP Commissioner Bonnie Heiple, summarized the report process: ERG submitted a proposed final report that was posted for public comment through July 22, 2024; the commission posted a track-changes version that shows edits made in response to comments. "Only 2 comments were received during the written public comment period," Heiple said, and she noted that one comment from Bayer identified two factual errors that were corrected in sections 2.5.5 and 2.5.8 of the final version.
The report and accompanying materials state that the literature and assessments formalized in the review were current through Jan. 2023; the commission emphasized that the review represents the body of scientific literature available up to that cutoff date. Commissioners also noted that MDAR provided additional funding to expand the original appropriation for the commission's work, with the chair saying MDAR contributed about $135,000 beyond the initial statutory appropriation of not less than $50,000.
After adopting the report, commissioners described the next procedural steps: the pesticide subcommittee will conduct an individual review of glyphosate, and MDAR will submit both the scientific review and the pesticide subcommittee's individual review to the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture. Andrea Serlin, a member of the public, asked which legislative committee would receive the report now that the environment and agriculture jurisdictions are split; MDAR said their intention is to submit to both committees.
Members of the public offered comments about process and oversight. Public commenter Marymar Ruggles asked why the use of chemicals under review is not halted during the review process, saying, "Why there is not a process in which the use of that, chemical or element in question is not stopped." Commissioners and MDAR staff responded that pesticide registration and ongoing review are primarily administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and that the commission's work was intended to keep state-level evaluation aligned with evolving science. Commissioners also noted the final report contains a section on alternative control methods and said a fuller alternatives analysis will be considered in the pesticide subcommittee's next phase.
The commission formally adopted the report by voice vote and adjourned following closing remarks thanking ERG, Tetra Tech, MDAR and DEP staff and public participants. The final report and appendices, including the two written comments, are posted on the commission's website.
