The Great Glyphosate Court Case

The European Commission made a reckless decision: it reapproved glyphosate—a widely used pesticide found to be harmful to health, biodiversity, soil, and water—for another 10 years. Under EU law, this toxic pesticide should have been banned; health and the environment should come first and in case of doubt, the precautionary principle has to be applied. But instead, the Commission and certain Member States seem to have put corporate profits ahead of public safety and the environment. This is a disaster–but we are fighting back!

Fighting for a glyphosate-free future – help us win this court battle!

Alongside our five dedicated members—ClientEarth, Générations Futures, Global2000, PAN Germany, and PAN Netherlands—we, PAN Europe, have taken this battle to court to hold decision-makers accountable for public health and environmental protection. With your support, we can continue this vital work and make a lasting impact.

Why this case matters

You’ve probably seen the headlines. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in Europe, a flagship product of the chemical agriculture industry, but it is harmful. What you might not know is that the EU’s approval process for glyphosate downplayed critical evidence of its harm to health and the environment.

Flaws in the EU glyphosate assessment

Together with our partners, we have uncovered major shortcomings in the EU’s evaluation of glyphosate:

Incomplete testing: The EU assessment did not fully evaluate the long-term toxicity, cancer risk, or combined effects of the representative formulation of glyphosate, which is used in the fields.
Dismissive independent studies: Peer-reviewed evidence has been dismissed in favour of industry-funded studies which downplay the evidence on genotoxicity, neurotoxicity and environmental impacts.
Ignoring key risks: The EU assessment is disregarding glyphosate’s impacts on biodiversity, on the microbiome and on related health implications.

By approving glyphosate despite the evidence about its harm and shortcomings in the assessment, the Commission clearly violated the precautionary principle, which requires banning substances when there is any scientific doubt about their safety.

For glyphosate the scientific evidence showing it causes harm is clear: urgent action is needed to protect people and nature.

We’ve taken bold steps, and here’s what’s next

January 2024 – We filed a formal request to the Commission, demanding a review of its approval decision. [1] We presented a strong case detailing the serious failures and scientific shortcomings in the EU’s risk assessment of glyphosate.
June 2024 – The Commission rejected our request without properly addressing our concerns. [2]
December 2024 – We escalated our case to the European Court of Justice, to contest the Commission’s refusal. [3]
February 2025 – Our case has been registered[4]. We are awaiting the Commission’s response and the potential intervention of third parties, including industry giants, who will likely oppose our challenge.

So the battle is far from over, we need to keep going!

Why your support matters

We are committed to this fight, no matter what. But taking on this legal battle requires significant resources in time and costs. We are up against powerful industry players who have vast resources to defend the status quo. While science and the law are on our side, your support helps us expand our reach, strengthen our case, and push for meaningful change.

This case is about more than glyphosate—it’s about protecting our health, our biodiversity, our soil, our water, and ensuring a healthier future for generations to come.

Your donation directly strengthens our fight for a future where public health and the environment take priority over corporate interests.

A fight for public health and the environment

Our legal challenge at the European Court of Justice is about more than glyphosate—it’s about holding regulators accountable, ensuring independent science guides decision-making, and protecting public health and biodiversity for generations to come.

With this case, we aim to:

Hold the European Commission and Member States accountable for failing to protect public health and the environment.
Expose the shortcomings in the risk assessment process that keep glyphosate and other harmful pesticides on the market.
Set a legal precedent that strengthens EU pesticide risk assessment and approval for future generations.

Why we can win

This is a landmark case, and we are confident in our ability to succeed. Why?

We are leading experts in pesticide risks and EU pesticide law and have won key cases before the EU Court of Justice
We work with a dedicated and specialised legal team to build the strongest case possible.
We collaborate with a network of renowned scientific experts to ensure our arguments are backed by the best available evidence.

Your support makes a difference. Donate today to stand with us in holding decision-makers accountable and protecting future generations.