In 2006 the European Commission put forward a proposal for a Regulation concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Under the Draft Regulation active substances that can be used in the pesticide production would appear in a positive list drawn up at EU level while the others would be banned. The pesticides will be authorised by Member States taking into account that list.
The Commission has proposed to divide the EU into 3 geographic zones, a northern zone, a central zone and a southern zone. The draft proposal provides for a system of zonal authorization of plant protection products and for the compulsory mutual recognition of authorisations in Member States belonging to the same zone. Plant protection products authorised by one Member State will automatically be approved for use in the other Member States in that particular zone. In case of specific national environmental protection Member States will be allowed to refuse the mutual recognition of registration of certain pesticides or limit their application.
The draft proposal also provides for a comparative assessment of products intend to encourage the substitution of dangerous substances by safer alternatives. It also includes provisions on packaging, labelling and advertising of plant protection products and obligations to keep records and official controls.
The European Parliament voted at first reading on the proposal in October 2007 adopting 247 amendments. The main controversial issues have been the positive list of active substances banned from use in the production of pesticides and the compulsory mutual recognition of authorizations.
Last June the Agriculture Council reached a political agreement on the draft regulation and adopted its common position on 15 September. The agriculture council has backed the Commission proposal hence the regulation will "totally prohibit the marketing and use of substances proven to be carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction.” The compromise text allows a possible derogation to the prohibition. If there are no other available means to control a serious danger to plant health, it would be possible to approve hazardous substances for a maximum period of 5 years even if it does not satisfy the listed criteria. These substances would also be excluded from obligatory mutual recognition.
The political agreement was approved by 23 Member States whereas four Member States, Romania, Hungary, Britain and Ireland, has decided to abstain. Those Member States argued that the draft regulation is too restrictive on pesticide approval, specially taking into account the food crisis. They believe, therefore, at the moment, restrictions which would reduce crop yields, should not be introduced.
It should be noticed that Britain’s leading scientists are fully against such legislative proposal. According to Dr. Colin Ruscoe of the British Crop Production Council “There is no evidence of public health benefit to justify these proposals.” Moreover, the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) Director General Friedhelm Schmider has said “Just because a product has hazardous properties does not mean it is dangerous. At a time when the global population is worried about high food prices, the current proposal will make it more difficult for European farmers to continue producing high quality food at affordable prices.”
Moreover, the regulation would harm developing countries as the EU is not considering the risks of not using pesticides. Professor Donald Roberts, a medical entomologist, said "It seems that EU regulators have no idea about the real risks to health and development to which most people in developing countries are exposed. They not only ignore real-world risks of chemical use but also ignore the risks of NOT using insecticides to protect crops and human health."
Nevertheless, on 5 November, the European Parliament's Environment Committee adopted Hiltrud Breyer’s report on the regulation on the authorisation of plant protection products by 39 votes to 20 with 6 abstentions. The Committee members confirmed the European Parliament first reading and backed the European Commission proposed ban on the use of pesticides.
The Committee has supported the Commission’s proposal of banning substances that are “genotoxic, carcinogenic, reprotoxic or endocrine-disrupting” but it has expanded the scope of substances banned from usage in the production of pesticides in the EU, adding neurotoxic and immunotoxic substances to the banned list. Whereas the Environment Committee has proposed the developmental neurotoxicity and immunotoxic effects as exclusion criteria the Council included it in the criteria for definition of candidates for substitution. Furthermore, if these hazardous substances are needed to combat cases of serious danger to plant health they may be approved for up to four years whereas the Council has proposed five years.
Farmers as well as chemical manufacturers will be required to replace plant protection products that are considered to be hazardous with safer alternatives. According to the draft proposal products containing certain hazardous substances ("candidates for substitution") will have to be replaced if there are safer alternatives. However, whereas the original proposal provided for a five years maximum replacement period the MEPs voted to cut this period to two years.
The Council backed the Commission proposal of dividing the EU into three zones for the purpose of licensing pesticide products, with Member States within each zone applying the principle of mutual recognition. The Committee has reaffirmed the European Parliament position and rejected such proposal. The Environment Committee has proposed a single EU zone asking, therefore, for more harmonisation for products authorisation. According to the MEPs within a single EU zone Member States would be allowed to ban pesticides on grounds of local environmental conditions.
According to Robert Sturdy, MEP, “This legislation threatens already hard pressed consumers who are now even more likely to see their monthly food bill go up. With the current worries over food prices and food security it seems absurd that MEPs are voting on these proposals without the benefit of an impact assessment to make a more informed decision."
It remains to be seen what will come out from the negotiations. It is very likely that the European parliament will seek to make the draft regulation even tighter taking into account its first reading vote. The European Parliament second reading is scheduled to take place in January and the legislation could enter into force in 2010.
If such legislation is adopted there will be a substantial reduction of pesticides available in the market, consequently crop protection will be reduced and there will be an increase on food prices and dependency on food imports. It is also believed that the new rules would lead to job losses in the farming sector. Taking into account the present food crisis, the timing could not have been worse.
