Next week the European parliament'senvironment committeewill vote on
controversial new rules restricting the approvals of
pesticides.Hiltrud Breyer, the German Green MEP
overseeing the legislation, explains why she thinks the industry's
concerns about this are misplaced
"The
new EU pesticides rules, which are currently being debated in
the European parliament, will create a win-win situation for all:
for consumers' health, for the protection of the environment, but
also for Europe's farming industry.
As the rapporteur for the European parliament's environment
committee, I therefore condemn the way in which industry uses
unscientific and false figures to create panic about the new law,
instead of taking part in a rational debate. This strategy seems to
have fallen on fertile ground - at least with some agricultural
representatives, which take these unrealistic estimates without
question.
I know that British farmers are especially concerned about the
study of the
Pesticides
Safety Directorate, on whose estimates the
Save our Sprays campaign is based. But the EU Commission itself
has made it clear that the PSD study is an unrealistic overestimate
of the impact of the foreseen pesticide provisions.
Why? Because the study takes an arbitrary number of substances
as a basis, which has nothing to do with the actual number of
available substances.
PSD also lists as 'endocrine disruptors' many substances for
which the final classification is not definite yet.
They have not taken into consideration that the EU Council
introduced a derogation, which allows the continued use of
substances which are carcinogenic and mutagenic, when there is a
serious danger to plant health.
Last, but not least, for most substances the new provisions will
not take effect before 2016, so another eight years from now.
The fear that European farmers will have no more means to
control pests and weeds is completely unfounded. The foreseen
cut-off criteria for cancerogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic
substances, as well as endocrine disruptors, will only affect a
handful of substances - less than 2% for CMR, less than 4% for
endocrine disruptors - in no way 15% as estimated by PSD.
The same holds true for immunotoxic and neurotoxic pesticides,
which the European parliament also wants to see taken off the
market. Less than 1% of all substances will be affected, according
to independent assessments.
For substances which are Persistent Organic Pollutants, I have
brought the cut-off criteria in line with internationally agreed
definitions, so this cut-off will not affect up to 70% of products
as claimed, but less than 1%.
Some problematic substances will be put on a list of 'candidates
for substitution', which mean they will have to be replaced when
better and safer products are available. But there is no automatic
process, and they cannot be put into the same calculation as
substances which fall under cut-off criteria, which is exactly what
the PSD study does.
It is in fact European farmers who will benefit first and
foremost from the new EU regulation, as they and their families
bear the disproportionate costs of long-term exposure to hazardous
pesticides. I wish that these and other advantages would be
stressed more in the current discussion on pesticides. After all,
isn't our common interest to make pesticides as safe as possible
for all?"