Contrary to what was announced before the meeting of the PAFF committee of national experts, no vote took place on Tuesday 30 May on the criteria for helping define endocrine disruptors. Why was this? The brand-new French government of Emmanuel Macron has called for more time to enable it to define its position.
The European Commission spokesperson defended what happened and explained, “The Commission has not changed its plans. It had simply indicated that a vote was ‘possible’”. The spokesperson also said that another meeting would take place “before the summer” and added, “a vote may take place on this occasion”.
The only certainty at this stage is that the Commission has absolutely no intention to amend its proposals. This would mean that the version of the beginning of April remains valid. The three criteria retained for defining an endocrine disruptor would therefore be the appearance of unwanted side-effects, the endocrine mode of action and a correlation between the previous two criteria (see EUROPE 11573).
At the same time, active substances that deliberately disrupt the endocrine system of different organisms other than vertebrates could be authorised if they are not considered as an “endocrine disruptor” as such.
This same casting no longer tackles the question of the other derogations (the notorious debate on “negligible risk” or "negligible exposure”). Last February, the Commission effectively decided to separate this question. During the meeting on 30 May, it reasserted that it would present a proposal on this issue (article 3.6.5 of the regulation 1107/2009) at a later date. In February, however, it said that, “the technical amendment in the clause on negligible exposure has not been withdrawn and has just been postponed to a later date. The Commission is still convinced of the legality of its proposal”.
Normally, the member states are expected to give their viewpoints during the next meeting on the proposal for the criteria. On 18 May, 15 member states supported the proposal on pesticides, 9 abstained, 3 were against and 1 did not formulate a position. One member state has subsequently withdrawn its support and has abstained. According to the information we have received, some countries in Eastern Europe and the United Kingdom have withdrawn their support due to the fact that there was no vote on the negligible exposure clause.
The Commission has also informed the member states that it was currently preparing guidelines for criteria, according to one source close to the dossier. The same source added that a draft text would be available “when the criteria entered into force” and it should, in a completely exceptional way, be adopted by the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF). (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)