Parallel import pesticides get Europe all-clear
Parallel import pesticides get Europe all-clear
By Andrew Blake
PESTICIDE manufacturers seem to have lost a five-year battle to clamp down on so-called parallel imports.
A recent ruling by the European Court of Justice will make little practical difference to current arrangements, which allow growers and distributors to import products already approved elsewhere within the 18 members of the European Economic Area, says MAFF.
The British Agrochemicals Association has long campaigned for tighter restrictions on such activities, which are driven mainly by demand for cheaper inputs. Its main argument is that the imports may not be identical to those approved for use in the UK.
"A product made for use in Greece may have the same active ingredient and name on the label, but be formulated differently in a way best suited to Greek farming conditions," says a BAA spokesman. "The UK farmer/sprayer operator may not be aware of these differences and will not be pleased if the product damages his crop."
According to the Pesticides Safety Directorate, the ECJs definition of what is identical is effectively the same as that in the UKs 1994 Control Arrangements for parallel imports. So there is no need to amend existing approvals or the arrangements for verifying import identicality, it maintains.
The only exceptions are for products bought outside the EEA containing new active ingredients or actives which have been reviewed under European Directive 91/414. For these potential importers will need to submit full supporting data packages, says MAFF.
The NFU believes the ruling could make importing easier both for distributors and growers. "We take the view that it should facilitate it and we have written to the PSD to see whether our interpretation is correct," says pesticides specialist Chris Wise.
But until more active ingredients are included on the ECs Annex 1 list the decision is largely of academic interest, he says. "Currently, there are only two, imazalil and azoxystrobin, so the list is pretty thin. But there are another 50 actives waiting to get on."
Main reason for the BAAs stance on parallel imports is to protect the research-based interests of primary pesticide registrants, says Dr Wise.
Jannine Quinn for Barclay Chemicals says the main effect of the ruling on distributors concerns bulk supplies. According to MAFFs understanding it means that from now on only products packaged and offered for sale to users will be accepted as parallel imports.
"But we are not too concerned, because we have slowly been moving out of parallel imports."
Having seen PSDs assessment of the ECJ ruling the BAA has not given up hope. "The effect of that judgement will have to be determined by the English High Court which may reach different conclusions from PSD. A final decision is likely during May," says the spokesman.
Parallel imports
• European ruling.
• Little change, says MAFF.
• Maybe easier, NFU hopes.
• BAA awaiting final ruling.
PARALLEL IMPORTS
• European ruling.
• Little change, says MAFF.
• Maybe easier, NFU hopes.
• BAA awaiting final ruling.