The General Court of the European Union dismissed the action brought by two manufacturers of plant protection products against the European Commission’s January 2020 decision (see EUROPE 12401/21) to ban the active substance chlorpyrifos-methyl in the EU (implementing regulation 2020/18), in a ruling handed down on Wednesday 4 October (case T-77/20).
The General Court is ruling on a number of issues that have not previously been addressed in the context of plant protection products, such as the concept of ‘conclusions’ adopted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). It assimilates these to rules relating to the procedure for renewing the approval of an active substance, within the meaning of the specific implementing regulation (844/2012).
On the substance, the European Court is of the opinion that, contrary to what the applicants maintain, the precautionary principle can be applied during the risk assessment phase. For the Court, the approach adopted in the procedure that led the Commission to refuse to renew the approval of chlorpyrifos-methyl complies with the precautionary principle. This principle means that EFSA must inform as well the Commission of any uncertainties linked to the proposed use of the active substance on human health, so that the EU institution can adopt restrictive measures if necessary (see EUROPE 12310/14).
The Court also considers that the methods (read-across method taking into account data from studies carried out on a closely related active substance such as chlorpyrifos, and weight-of-evidence method) employed by EFSA could be used in the context of examining the renewal of the approval of chlorpyrifos-methyl in order to assess the risks posed by this substance to human health.
EU law provides for the use of these methods, which are deemed sufficiently reliable from a scientific point of view, it notes.
The Court went on to point out that, for an application for approval of an active substance to be rejected, it is sufficient for a simple uncertainty as to the presence of a health risk to be identified.
On behalf of the Health & Environment Alliance, Natacha Cingotti described the Court’s ruling as “ a significant victory for the health of Europeans”. “Neurotoxicity and genotoxicity are not abstract concepts. We are talking about irreversible effects over several generations, such as altering the development and functioning of a healthy brain and the potential development of cancers”, she added.
To see the Court’s judgment: https://aeur.eu/f/8va (Original version in French by Mathieu Bion)