5. Environment Protection Authority—Glyphosate ReviewSTEFFAN BROWNING (Green) to the Minister for the EnvironmentEnvironment Protection Authority—Glyphosate Review5. STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he have confidence in the Environmental Protection Authority's review of glyphosate?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) sought an independent scientific review of glyphosate last year. This was undertaken by Dr Wayne Temple the former director of the National Poison Centre. It had input from other toxicologists and was properly peer reviewed. The report's conclusion was that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic or carcinogenic to humans and does not require classification under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act as a carcinogen or as a mutagen. I note that the member welcomed that report at the time.Steffan Browning: Is he aware that the EPA review relied on unpublished research supplied by the industry rather than the independent peer-reviewed and published research that the International Agency for Research on Cancer used and which led the European Commission to recommend restricting the use of those toxic sprays that contain glyphosate?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My problem is this: the member early last year demanded that the EPA review the registration of this chemical. It was independently done by one of New Zealand's top toxicologists who happened to be the head previously of the National Poison Centre. The report was peer reviewed. It came to a conclusion that the member does not like and now he wants to dredge up some other evidence.Steffan Browning: Can he confirm that the Ministry of Health refused to peer review the EPA's work because it fundamentally disagreed with the EPA's method and need?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No.Steffan Browning: Why did the New Zealand EPA spend time and money arguing against the International Agency for Research on Cancer about the dangers of glyphosate the key ingredient in sprays like Roundup?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that the conclusion of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority concluded it was not a carcinogen in its review of September last year. I note that the Canadian authority the Pest Management Regulatory Agency came to the same decision. I note that was the decision of the United States Environmental Protection Agency but to take a cautionary approach in response to the member's concerns and others' we asked for it to be independently reviewed. I would just hope that one day the Green Party might have a member of Parliament with some prior qualifications in science so that we might get a rational view to these issues.Steffan Browning: I seek leave to table a research report prepared by my office titled Public Health Concern: Why did the New Zealand EPA ignore the world authority on cancer?" dated 27 July 2017. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any more assistance but we do not by habit in this House publish papers that are prepared by members themselves.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave to table the Environmental Protection Authority's review of the evidence relating to glyphosate and its carcinogenicity.Mr SPEAKER: I just want an assurance that it is not readily available on the internet for members. Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No it has been provided to me and given the questions I think it would be helpful for it to be tabled in the House. Mr SPEAKER: I need the answer to the question that was asked. Is it readily available on the internet?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am unsure of that.Mr SPEAKER: Then I am not prepared to put the leave. I have pointed out to members many times that they will be asked that question and it is expected that they should know the answer."