The General Court of the EU has upheld the validity of the restrictions introduced in 2013 at European Union level against three neonicotinoids due to their risks to bees, in a judgment return on Thursday 17 May (joined cases T-429/13, T-451/13 and T-584/13).
In view of the risks identified by the European Food Safety authority (EFSA), the European Commission restricted the use of three substances from the neonicotinoid family with effect from May 2013 – clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid – and prohibited, with effect from December 2013, the marketing of seeds of certain crops treated with phyto-pharmaceutical products containing these substances, with the exception of seeds used in greenhouses (regulation 485/2013 (see EUROPE 10852).
The European institution also restricted the use, from August 2013, of phyto-pharmaceutical products containing the active substance fipronil, a member of the phenylpyrazole family, and prohibited the marketing of seeds treated with these phyto-pharmaceutical products, with the exception of crops grown in greenhouses (regulation 781/2003) (see EUROPE 10889).
The groups Bayer, which produces and sells imidacloprid and clothianidin, Syngenta, which produces and sells thiamethoxam (and treated seeds) and BASF, which produces and sells fipronil, went before the General Court of the EU to have these prohibitions and restrictions overturned (see EUROPE 10909). Syngenta sought minimum compensation of €367.9 million.
In its judgment, the General Court rejects the appeals against the three neonicotinoids. It notes that since 2011, the requirements concerning the absence of unacceptable effects to bees, which play an important pollinating role, have been tightened up (regulation 1107/2009), and the exposure to bees of the substances in question must be negligible.
According to the General Court, the existence of studies into the adverse effects of exposure to bees of non-fatal doses of the substances in question justifies the Commission’s determination to carry out a further examination of the approval of these substances. It considers that in light of the reinforced EU rules, the risks observed by EFSA justified the conclusion that the three substances in question no longer met the approval criteria.
The marketing ban was the only way of preventing existing stocks of legally treated seeds from getting into the atmosphere before the authorisations are changed.
As for the principle of precaution, the General Court recalls that this allows the institutions of the EU, where scientific uncertainty persists, to take measures to protect human health or the environment without being required to wait until the reality and seriousness of these risks is fully demonstrated or for adverse effects to health emerge. Furthermore, it stresses, that the principle of precaution gives precedence to the requirements related to the protection of public health, safety and the environment over economic interests.
Fipronil. On the other hand, the General Court partly cancelled regulation 781/2013 concerning phyto-pharmaceutical products containing fipronil. It considered that the restrictions it brought in were adopted without the Commission having measured the consequences of its action on the various interests at stake.
The marketing ban of phyto-pharmaceutical products containing fipronil with effect from March 2014 is upheld. As BASF does not itself sell seeds treated with these products, this prohibition does not directly concern it.
Environmental organisations welcomed the General Court judgment on the three neonicotinoids. On behalf of the network PAN Europe, Martin Dermine said that the verdict is “very timely as it backs the recent EU decision to completely ban all outdoor uses of neonicotinoids”.
Meeting at the PAFF committee, the experts of the Twenty-Eight at the end of April approved the Commission’s proposal to extend the partial ban of the three neonicotinoids to all field crops (see EUROPE 12011). From the end of 2018, the use of the three neonicotinoids will be authorised only in permanent greenhouses.
Greenpeace agrees. On behalf of the organisation, Franziska Achterberg said that the verdict sets out the right priorities and that the EU must first and foremost protect the population and nature, not the profit margins of businesses. It calls for the restrictions to be extended to the other neonicotinoids (acetamiprid, thiaclopride, sulfoxaflor and flupyradifurone) and insecticides (cypermethrin, deltamethrin and chlorpyrifos). (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)