0
Home
News
Directory
E-newsletter
Magazine
Events
Data
AgReport
Subscribe
EU reaches deal on banning toxic pesticides
Dec. 25, 2008
The agreement on new market authorisation rules divides the EU into three zones (north, centre, south) inside of which mutual recognition of pesticides will become the rule. However, member states will still be allowed to ban a product on the basis of specific environmental or agricultural circumstances.
It also introduces bans on:
Certain highly toxic chemicals, namely those which are genotoxic, carcinogenic or toxic to reproduction (unless their effect would in practice be negligible), and;neurotoxic, immunotoxic and certain endocrine-disrupting substances if deemed to pose a significant risk.
However, the deal allows continued use of both the above-mentioned groups of chemicals for up to five years, if they are proven essential for crop survival. Otherwise, products containing certain hazardous substances are to be replaced within three years if safer alternatives are shown to exist.
The deal on sustainable use of pesticides:
1. Asks member states to adopt national action plans on safer use of pesticides as well as overall usage?reduction targets;
2. bans aerial crop spraying, with exceptions subject to approval by member-state authorities;
3. asks member states to establish approporiate measures, such as buffer zones, to protect aquatic organisms, and;
4.bans the use of pesticides in public places, such as parks and school grounds, or at the very minimum asks for their use to be kept to a minimum.
Positions:
"We can't accept the trialogue negotiations," said Phil Newton, senior communications manager at the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), describing the proposals as "bad legislation based on incorrect science," with the cut-off criteria based on ideology, fear and perception.
In particluar, the inclusion of endocrine disruptors in the list of potential substances to be banned is problematic, he said. The current criteria for endocrine disruptors is only an "interim definition" based on "incorrect assumptions", Newton said, and would therefore concern more substances than scientifically proven.
"Our reservations and concerns over lack of scientific input regarding the proposed legislation have been ignored," added ECPA regulatory affairs director Euros Jones.
However, he underlined that it was positive that the overall legislative process so far had brought a "surge of unanimity" in the food sector and throughout the food chain on the need for science-based legislation.
Health and environment-related non-governmental organisations (NGOs) cautiously welcomed the deal as "a step towards better health through environmental protection" and a means of "allowing the EU to move on to a better system without further delays".
Pekka Pesonen, secretary-general of COPA-COGECA, which represents European farmers, said the compromise was not perfect, particularly because authorisation of certain substances is still hazard-based, and "we would have favoured risk-based decision-making". He also joined ECPA's criticism of the categorisation of endocrine disruptors.
Pesonen said farmers are not against stricter rules on pesticides in general, but underlined that if the use of a substance or a product is forbidden for European farmers, their use should be banned for the imported products as well. If that is not the case, end consumers will still end up buying products including the banned substances and the competitiveness of European agriculture will be distorted, he added.
Health and environment NGOs "cautiously welcomed" the compromise as a "step towards better health through environmental protection".
PAN (Pesticides Action Network) Europe, the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and the European Environment Bureau (EEB) hailed the compromise "because it means the creation of an EU-wide pesticides blacklist, which removes some of Europe's most hazardous pesticides from the market, and therefore from food products grown in the EU".
They also welcome the fact that member states need to prepare national action plans to reduce the use of pesticides and hail the idea of applying integrated pest management from 2014.
However, "the major downside of the deal," they say, is that it fails to include the environment committee's demand to eliminate the division of the EU into three authorisation zones, what "reduces the control of member states over whether or not to reject a hazardous pesticide within their territory".
Source: Euractiv
More from AgroNews
Change
Hot TopicSubscribe
| Subscribe Email: | * | |
| Name: | ||
| Mobile Number: | ||
Comment
0/1200
NEWSLETTER