On Tuesday 4 July, the national experts managed to reach an agreement on the criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors deemed to be hazardous (see EUROPE 11573). This agreement was obtained thanks to the active support provided by France. According to the information we have received, only the Czech Republic, Denmark and Sweden voted against these new criteria.
The Commission regulation on pesticides will be considered to have been adopted if the European Parliament and member states do not oppose it over the next three months. It will apply from the middle of January 2018 to on-going assessment and reassessment procedures.
We have been informed that with regard to a parallel proposal on biocides, the Commission is expected to adopt it very soon. This proposition for a delegated regulation does not need a positive vote from the member states to be adopted by the Commission.
With the exception of Commissioner Andriukaitis, the majority of stakeholders – the pesticides industry, for example, represented by the European Crop Protection Association as well as public-health activists – reacted rather negatively to this vote. The Belgian MEP, Marc Tarabella (S&D) referred to it as a “lamentable European saga”.
The European saga
The dossier has been the subject of discussion for many years in Brussels. The European Commission was beholden by EU law to present criteria in December 2013 that would help identify and ultimately prohibit pesticides and biocides deemed to have a harmful impact on the hormonal system (the so-called “endocrine disruptors”). Evidence about their toxicity has accumulated, particularly with regard to diabetes and obesity, sterility and certain kinds of cancer.
Acting under the impact of a ruling from the European Court of Justice, the Commission finally resigned itself to presenting proposals relating to pesticides and biocides in June 2016. The two draft regulations put forward three criteria: (1) the appearance of unwanted side-effects; (2) the endocrine mode of action (which helps explain the effect at a cellular and molecular level); (3) a correlation between the two previous criteria (see EUROPE 11573). These proposals, however, immediately provoked controversy between the member states at the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF), whose approval was essential for the section on pesticides.
Three significant changes
There are three parameters that help explain the turnabout in the situation on 4 July: the change of government in France, the withdrawal of the part on derogations and the introduction of a certain amount of flexibility for intentional disruptors.
The arrival in office of French President Emmanuel Macron will have helped the Commission obtain the support of France (the previous government was one of the main critics of the text). In a press release, French ministers in charge of the dossier announced, however, a raft of transparency measures and a revision of the French strategy on endocrine disruptors.
The withdrawal of the part on derogations will also have helped obtain the support of Belgium and Finland, although it led to the rejection of the text by the Czech Republic.
It should be recalled that the Commission proposed to prohibit pesticides that have a harmful impact on the endocrine system “unless they present a negligible risk”. In February, it finally decided to do a U-turn and returned to the current derogation stipulating “negligible exposure”. Parliament clearly indicated that it believed the initial proposal was illegal.
Finally, the regulation recommends, under the impetus of Germany, the approval of active substances that have been designed to impact on the endocrine system of different organisms other than vertebrates (so-called “intentional disruptors”).
Next steps
The European Commission has made a commitment to presenting guidelines “in the autumn” for implementing these criteria. It is also committed to adopting a European strategy before the end of its mandate, which will provide a framework on endocrine disruptors contained in toys, cosmetic products and food packaging.
In the context of research, the Commission has promised to earmark €50 million by 2018 for financing 10 research projects and presenting an assessment of the criteria and special provisions, “at the right time”, for intentional disruptors.
Despite our many questions, we did not manage to find out whether the Commission had made a commitment during the meeting to present an alternative draft on the derogations.
Given the vote in favour by the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed on pesticides, the Commission is soon expected to adopt its parallel proposal on biocides (delegated regulation). In this case, Parliament and the Council will have two months to oppose it.
Rather negative reactions
The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) criticised the criteria as fundamentally flawed and insufficient as they, “do not enable the authorities to clearly separate substances that have a real potential to cause damage and those that do not”. It particularly regretted the absence of proposals on negligible risk.
The anti-pesticide lobby, however, did not attempt to conceal its disappointment either. PAN-Europe asserted, “The European Commission and majority of member states are more concerned by the impact of getting rid of the market of pesticides that impact on the endocrine system then by protection of the population, environment and future generations from many different health problems and diseases caused by exposure to endocrine disruptors”. This opinion was also shared by the European Consumers Office (BEUC).
To see the text: http://bit.ly/2sIIYsu. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)