Martin wrote:

ECHA should have the final say in safety of pesticides etc. not
politicians, who don't have the expertise to judge.

Why follow the ECHA rather than the WHO?
Have you looked at any ECHA reports?
They are not in the same league, in my view, as the IARC/WHO,
and they also seem to me to be more open to lobbying.

Incidentally, their views are not that far apart.
The IARC believes that glyphosate is "probably" carcinogenic,
while the ECHA believes it is "unlikely" to be carcinogenic.

Also the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) seems to support
the WHO position.

seems to? If that were true the FDA wouldn't be making their own studies.

Both the IARC and the FDA are continuing their studies of this issue.
That is the scientific method.
(Incidentally, the IARC has recently published a provisional report,
which seems to suggest, as has been pointed out,
a weakening of their view that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic.)

The ECHA is not planning any further investigation as far as I know.
It is a different kind of organisation to the IARC or the FDA;
as far as I can see it is a group of scientists from different EU states
who meet from time to time and publish their views,
which are not based on any joint scientific research.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin