The member states of the EU are moving towards authorisation of intentional endocrine disruptors on the condition that they are identified as such. This is the trend that appeared to be developing at the beginning of the month, following the most recent biocide experts’ meeting
It should be pointed out that in mid-2016 (see EUROPE 11573), the European Commission proposed retaining three criteria for identifying and ultimately banning chemical substances that have a hazardous impact on the hormonal system. Its proposals are based on two texts: a draft regulation on pesticides and a delegated act on biocides. The two documents are subject to different adoption procedures and are discussed by different bodies: the former requires a vote from member states by qualified majority and is overseen by the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF Committee), whilst the latter can only be opposed by the Parliament and Council after adoption by the Commission and is discussed by the experts’ group (see EUROPE 11758).
Growth regulators
The meeting on 7 April focused exclusively on the “biocides” proposal: the Commission wanted the opinion of the member states on what treatment should be applied to intentional endocrine disruptors (the so-called “growth regulators”). During the 5th meeting, it proposed authorising pesticides and biocides that do indeed intend to disrupt the endocrine system, such as the 2.4-D herbicide (see EUROPE 11725). This time, in discussions with biocide experts, however, it proposed to clarify that this provision did not apply to vertebrates.
Although the majority of member states (with the exception of France, Sweden and Denmark) supported this provision of 28 February during the discussions on pesticides, it would appear that 10 member states opposed it during the biocides group: Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Spain, Finland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands therefore taking a different position to that taken at the end of February with regard to pesticides and subsequently opposed this derogation on intentional biocides. Norway and Switzerland also attended and by way of written commentaries, also rejected this provision. According to our information, the only delegations to support it were Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia and the United Kingdom (Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia were absent and Croatia, Hungary and Poland did not take a position)
The Danish Compromise
During the meeting, Denmark therefore proposed a “compromise” that would allow intentional disruptors, on the condition that they are labelled and analysed as endocrine disruptors. This reformulation obtained the support of Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom (it should be recalled that these countries initially supported the Commission proposal to authorise intentional disruptors).
In addition to intentional disruptors, it is the question of derogations as a whole that is it stake: should active substances contained in pesticides and which present a negligible risk (which is currently the case) or negligible exposure (as initially proposed by the Commission) be authorised? The former appears to be the preferred option even though at least five member states are opposed to it and called for a vote on the text on the criteria not to be separated from the one on the derogations.
In its response to EUROPE, the European Commission would only say that it was now, “going to think about the different stages”. There are certain rumours circulating that suggest that it may wait until the end of the French elections before organising another meeting. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)