The Commission acknowledges that further discussions are necessary and will now examine the best possible options. These are the terms the spokesperson for Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis used at the end of the group of experts’ meeting on endocrine disruptors on Wednesday 21 December.
The Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed - Pesticides Residues held a simple discussion but did not proceed to a vote as the Commission, however, had envisaged. According to information we have received, the different positions were still far too removed from one another: around ten or so supported the text on pesticides while “five or six” supported part of the text but not all of it (the Commission divided its proposals into to: one part on the criteria as they stood and the other on the derogations, Ed).
The health organisations expressed their relief that the proposed identification criteria were not approved and Lisette van Vliet from Heal, speaking on behalf of the EDC Free NGO Coalition stated, “Member states clearly and rightly want a better proposal, that befits the commitments in the 7th EAP and responds to the recent Council conclusions”. She particularly welcomed the fact that the last-minute exemption for chemical products deliberately designed to disrupt the endocrine system did not receive the support of the member states. The PAN-Europe organisation expressed the same relief but particularly denounced the far too high level of proof demanded to demonstrate that a substance was a disruptor. Hans Muilerman, the coordinator in charge of chemical products at PAN Europe explained, “An adverse effect is not enough, also the mechanism of action needs to be defined as well as the link between adverse effect and mechanism. Given the fact that this type of information is generally not available, not many chemicals will be identified, possibly even none. If however a pesticide would be identified as an endocrine disruptor, the chance that it will be banned is almost absent. SANTE changed the system from hazard to risk”.
The pesticides industry, however, was not surprised by the report and Graeme Taylor, the spokesperson for the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), indicated that, “Given the level of uncertainty going in to the meeting, and the confusion created by the Commission splitting the proposal, it’s not really a surprise that there was no decision”. He added that, “Perhaps this signal from Member States should give the Commission some pause for reflection, and allow them to look seriously at the impact of the criteria. Since the outset we have pushed the Commission to include elements of hazard characterisation, in particular potency, and the principles of risk assessment into the criteria – this is the only way to regulate and ensure you can distinguish substances of concern from those that are not”.
The next meeting of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed - Pesticides Residues is planned for 19 January. It is, however, uncertain whether this dossier will be included in the agenda. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)