The European Union is struggling to reach an agreement on a definition that helps to identify endocrine disruptors. The Commission failed to obtain a qualified majority during the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF) on Tuesday 28 February.
It should be pointed out that in the middle of 2016 (see EUROPE 11573), the Commission put forward three criteria for identifying and ultimately banning chemical substances that have dangerous implications for the hormonal system: 1) provoking unwanted side-effects; 2) the endocrine mode of action (that helps explain effects at cellular and molecular levels); 3) a correlation between the two previous criteria (see EUROPE 11573). It also proposed to introduce an exception to this principle for chemical substances – pesticides and biocides – that present a “negligible risk” after exposure, which means that the substances could continue to be marketed.
4th attempt already.
Six months later, no agreement appears to be on horizon. The group of experts, however, did meet up on four occasions (21 September, 18 November, 21 December and 28 February), with the Commission slightly amending its proposals each time. The version discussed on 28 February (see EUROPE 11725) abandoned the idea of authorising the marketing of pesticides that contained a “negligible risk” and replaced it with those that present “negligible exposure”. It also retained the idea suggested by the German delegation to authorise pesticides and biocides that are known to intentionally disrupt the endocrine system, such as herbicide 2.4-D.
Member states divided
Nothing, however, has been done and the Commission has not managed to obtain the support of a qualified majority of member states. During the discussion, three groups of countries stood out: (1) the member states that are not satisfied but which are calling for a vote; 2) a group of countries that is calling for new amendments; 3) a third group that is calling for the two texts (the one on the criteria as they currently stand and the one on the derogations) to be voted on in a single block. According to our information, the latter group consists of the Czech Republic, Ireland, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia.
Overall, Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland and Finland are member states in favour of the proposals. France, Sweden, Denmark, Estonia and Slovakia are against and Belgium, Ireland, Poland and the United Kingdom abstained.
Reactions
The Commission responded by affirming that it would now look at what approach to follow and that it “remains committed to fulfil its obligations to identify endocrine disruptors in the field of plant protection products (pesticides) and biocides, and will continue to act in full transparency”.
Pelle Moos from the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) indicated, “Today’s meeting shows that, after five encounters and three revisions, Member State experts are still unconvinced by the Commission's flawed approach. So are we. What we need is more than just a few cosmetic changes to the text, so the Commission now needs to go back to the drawing board” The PAN-Europe organisation regretted that, “Many member states ask for the derogation to be put at the table again, a derogation that includes changing Regulation 1107/2009 by Commission, an illegal act, that will effectively ensure that identified endocrine disrupting pesticides will be banned”. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)