topics sprayers, pesticides, insecticides, fundgicides,
Europe
Next week the controversialplan to revamp the EU's systemof
approving pesticides will be presented to the European parliament
for second reading. Ahead of this crucial debate, Farmers Weekly
met the EU Commission team spearheading the changes. Philip Clarke
put the questions
Q The current system of approving pesticides,
Directive 91/414, has served the food and farming industry well
for 17 years. It's been described as the "gold standard" for
pesticide approval. Why change it?
A It was always foreseen in Directive 91/414 that the EU
Commission would review it after 10 years. This we did in 2001,
presenting our report in 2002. We identified a number of weaknesses
and in response the European parliament and the Council asked us to
find ways of improving the system, in particular by setting clear
criteria for approval.
Q But why suddenly introduce a hazard-based system, banning
products that contain active ingredients that are carcinogenic or
endocrine disrupting, rather than sticking with the established
system based on actual risk?
A We were considering hazard criteria as part of the risk
assessment anyway, but this was open to interpretation. By having
clear criteria, the whole system becomes more predictable, making
it easier for a manufacturer to know whether or not to develop a
particular pesticide.
Q But what is the evidence that the existing, risk-based system
has been failing or causing problems with human or environmental
health?
A During the first review of pesticides in the EU, we removed
substances which posed an unacceptable risk on the basis of current
knowledge. However, science has progressed considerably over the
last 20 years, and so did our knowledge about the risk of some
substance classes. So now, we have to refine our assessments.
Q But many medicines contain hazardous active ingredients. You
would not think of banning them.
A There is a fundamental difference. For example, if an
individual has cancer, just because the treatment involves a risk,
of course he or she will still take that medicine. But with food
production, we are talking about what the whole population eats, as
well as the safety of farm workers and the environment.
Q The
UK Pesticides Safety Directorate has estimated that 15% of
current pesticides would be removed from the market under the EU
Commission's proposal, and up to 85% under the European
parliament's position. Why are you so critical of the PSD's
findings?
A The PSD's impact assessment is clearly a worst-case scenario,
but also does not take into account the picture as it will be when
the new regulation enters into force. It says large numbers of
products will be taken off the market because of the criteria. But
some of those pesticides will go anyway under the current review of
existing pesticides for some others, it is not yet clear whether
they would fall under the criteria or not. Ignoring both these
elements makes the figures seem worse.
The assessment also ignores new products that are still in the
system, many of which may get approval. And it ignores the many low
volume substances, like plant extracts, pheromones and substances
used in organic production, all of which are important for their
users. Again, this distorts the figures.
Q Why has the EU Commission not published its own list of
products that will be affected by the new cut-off criteria?
A Currently, due to the ongoing review, we do not have a robust
baseline. Our best estimates, however, suggest that just 4% of
substances will be lost because they are endocrine disrupting and
2% because they are carcinogenic, mutagenic or reprotoxic, which
would mean about 20 active substances in total.
Q How do you define endocrine disrupting? This is the one hazard
criteria that affects most pesticides, but is causing most
confusion.
A. Endocrine disrupting means affecting fertility or
reproductive behaviour. The proposed regulation says active
ingredients will be subject to an agreed international or EU test.
At the moment we are working hard to develop guidelines, though
they have not been finalised yet.
Q Isn't it irresponsible to introduce new legislation when there
is no agreed guideline for one of the key criteria?
A By the time the legislation enters into force, the necessary
guidelines will be defined. Endocrine disruption is a real danger,
independent from the question of how you can measure it. In that
respect it was important to include it in the proposed provisions,
even if the implementing guidelines are not yet fully
finalised.
Q Given the uncertainty, and given the belief that many
pesticides will be lost, and given the fear that this will lead to
reduced food output and increasing food prices, many in the
industry are calling for a new impact assessment. Does the EU
Commission agree?
A The initial impact assessment we did was thorough. We
intensively sought the views of all stakeholders, including
farmers, consumers and the pesticide industry over several years.
Before finalising the proposal, we held a last meeting for 150
people from the whole spectrum of society, to allow for final
submission of comments. We got none.
Q But wasn't this before the hazard criteria were built into the
proposal?
A Phasing out carcinogens, mutagens, substances toxic to
reproduction and endocrine disruptors has been EU policy since 2001
and is already integrated in other policy areas.
Q But what about the effect of the new legislation on farmers
who, at a time of food shortage, need pesticides to keep
productive?
A We believe they will still have sufficient pesticides at their
disposal. The new zonal system means that the authorisation of a
pesticide will have to be recognised by all other countries of that
zone upon request. Secondly, the new criteria will only apply when
existing approvals come up for renewal, mostly around 2016, giving
time for the industry to adapt. Finally, there is the derogation,
which says that, if no alternative product exists, an active
ingredient that would otherwise be banned may be approved for up to
five years.
It also has to be stressed that the current emergency provision
remains, which allows a national government to authorise any
product for up to 120 days, to deal with a specific urgent
problem.
Q And what about food price concerns?
A There are many factors at play in determining food prices. To
draw a direct link between withdrawing some pesticides and
increases in the price of food is simplistic.
Q Another common complaint is that, with less food produced by
EU farmers, we will end up importing more, from countries which
continue to use pesticides banned in the EU.
A Our regulation on maximum residue levels means that any
imported food has to respect the thresholds we impose. So consumers
are afforded the same level of protection whether the crop is grown
inside or outside the EU.
* Have you signed our
Save Our Sprays e-petition yet? If not, please visit our
SOS campaign website.