The legislative proposal establishing criteria for the identification of endocrine disruptors in pesticides is illegal, according to a study by the European Parliament’s legal service presented to coordinators on 31 August. MEPs are expected, therefore, to call on the Commission to revise the text.
In mid-June, the Commission brought forward a series of criteria that would allow substances that have a harmful effect on the hormonal system – endocrine disruptors – to be identified (and, ultimately, banned) (see EUROPE 11573). It took three criteria from the 2002 definition of the International Programme on Chemical Safety and the World Health Organisation: (1) adverse effects on human health; (2) endocrine mode of action; (3) an adverse effect on human health as a consequence of the endocrine mode of action. It also adjusted the system for derogations: whereas, currently, the chemical industry may seek a derogation for plant health products where there is “negligible exposure” and for biocides where there is a “negligible risk of exposure”, the Commission has proposed harmonising the two, using “negligible exposure” for both types of product. On its website, the Commission states that a danger-based approach has been maintained in the two cases (see EUROPE 11609).
This view is not one shared by the European Parliament’s legal department, which argues that the Commission does not have the authority to amend a basic legislative act (Regulation 1107/2009) by means of implementing acts, replacing an evaluation based on danger by one that is risk-based. The draft regulation on pesticides goes beyond the implementing powers of the Commission, it concludes in its seven-page study.
This legal opinion has no legislative value but it may be supposed that it will influence future negotiations. The European Parliament, it should be remembered, has the power to block the two legislative proposals: the pesticides regulation must first be discussed by the expert group before being adopted by the Commission after which the Parliament and the Council will have two months to object. The proposal on plant health products falls within the regulatory procedure with scrutiny: the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed will come to a decision by qualified majority. If there is a positive opinion, the Council and the Parliament will have three months to respond; if the opposite is the case, the Council will have two months to act and the Parliament four months to use its right of veto. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)