“Welcome to the European Parliament, new MEPs. Here’s an illustration of the Commission’s obstinacy”, declared Christophe Clergeau (S&D, French) on Thursday 12 September, at the end of a debate on the maximum residue levels of the pesticides cyproconazole, spirodiclofen, benomyl, carbendazim and thiophanate-methyl in or on certain imported products.
The Parliament’s two objections to the Commission’s draft amendment to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 concerning the adjustment of these maximum residue levels, which were put to the vote in the Environment Committee, were adopted by 54 votes in favour out of 80 voting.
The concerns expressed during the debates related to both the level of consumer health protection in the EU and unfair competition for European farmers.
With its vote, the ENVI committee “removed the possibility of importing products such as lemons, mandarins, sugar, coffee, ornamental plants, legumes and animal products that do not comply with the limits” for these substances, said committee chair Antonio Decaro (S&D, Italian) on the X social network.
“We have a safe exposure threshold for consumers”, said the European Commission, whose decision is based on a risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
On the subject of concerns about imports, the Commission stated that, for cyproconazole, a level for animal feed has been “maintained”, because soya is “not produced in sufficient quantities in the EU” and its import is important for farmers in the single market.
The ENVI committee did not consider these explanations to be sufficient, and Christophe Clergeau, the rapporteur on this text, concluded the debates with a trenchant statement: “The question is simple. If these products are not dangerous, why are they banned in Europe?” (Original version in French by Florent Servia)