The EU is just about to set out new criteria to identify pesticides and biocides that can have a hazardous effect on the endocrine system. To achieve this aim, it is essential that Parliament and the Council do not oppose it. Two MPs are currently preparing a draft rejection resolution, on the basis of an opinion provided by their research service, which concluded that the Commission had gone beyond its remit.
New criteria
It should be recalled that in June 2016, the European Commission presented two legislative proposals to establish criteria for identifying “endocrine disruptors”: a draft Commission regulation for pesticides and a draft delegated regulation for biocides. The elaboration of these two initiatives provided a response (after a delay of more than two years) to the requirements set out in the regulations on pesticides (EC1107/2009) and biocide products (EU 528/2012). The Commission is proposing to retain three criteria: (1) the appearance of unwanted side-effects; (2) the endocrine mode of action (which helps to explain the effect at a cellular and molecular level); (3) a correlation between the two previous criteria (see EUROPE 11573).
The text on pesticides was discussed at great length, given that approval from the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF) is required before it can be adopted by the College of Commissioners. On the basis of the discussions with member states, the Commission decided to withdraw its derogation on the text on pesticides for substances presenting a negligible risk and, instead, introduced a new derogation for authorising active substances that have been deliberately devised to disrupt the endocrine systems of different organisms other than vertebrates (see EUROPE 11822). In practice, this provision will allow for the marketing of the active substance in a pesticide that seeks to disrupt the endocrine system of targeted organisms (such as insects, for example) and which would subsequently modify the systems of organisms that are not targeted under this category) (crustaceans, for example, which belong to the same category as insects –arthropods).
Parliament and Council’s right of objection
The Parliament and Council now have until 4 November to exercise their right of objection. In this context, Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Netherlands,) and Jytte Guteland (S&D, Sweden) are preparing a resolution of objection that will be put to a vote at the environment, public health and safety Committee (ENVI) on 28 September. If it is adopted, the text will be programmed for the following week at the plenary session in Strasbourg.
The two rapporteurs are basing their opinion on the opinion provided by the European Parliament’s legal service, which concluded on the illegality of the measures for deliberate disruptors. This opinion has been seen by EUROPE and explains that, “the adoption of regulatory elements that are essential to a specific question, is reserved for the legislative power of the EU and cannot be delegated to the Commission”. In other words, it is not opposed to the derogation the deliberate disruptors benefit from as such, but considers that such derogation can only be introduced by way of a legislative procedure that amends the basic regulation (1107/2009).
The problem of remit is the main argument invoked by the co-rapporteurs. Other arguments could also be put forward, such as the fact that the guidelines for governing criteria implementation – currently subject to consultation – would amend key definitions, whilst being completely outside parliament’s control. There is also the argument relating to the lack of reference to a category of suspected disruptors.
The Council considers that it is rather unlikely that the member states will oppose the regulation on pesticides that their experts validated on 4 July. According to the information we have received, the member states that are opposed to it may present a joint declaration at the time of the adoption of the text by the Council. Things are less clear for the regulation of biocides. (Original version in French by Sophie Petitjean)