0
Home
News
Directory
E-newsletter
Magazine
Events
Data
AgReport
Subscribe
Disagreement escalates over EU agchem proposals
May. 23, 2008
The gulf between opposing views on the proposed revision of the EU agrochemical registration Directive (91/414) grew wider in May. Slovenia, as EU president, had to abandon its aim for EU Agriculture Ministers to reach agreement on the proposals at their May meeting, after last minute rejections of its compromise text by some member states and even the European Commission. Instead, the presidency has asked the Permanent Representatives Committee, which includes EU member state and Commission officials, to relook at the text and find a solution to the outstanding issues. These include the proposed introduction of hazard-based cut-off criteria and changes to data protection rules.
In its report of the meeting, the presidency claimed that "substantial progress" had been made, which "should lead to a breakthrough in June". However, the parties differ widely in condemning the proposals as too strict or not strict enough, indicating that the Directive's revision could face lengthy delays.
Much of the debate is centred over the potential loss of active ingredients if hazard-based criteria are used in the registration procedure, which is currently based on the assessment of risk. Following "very delicate negotiations", the presidency compromise had aimed to lessen the impact by setting the criteria of genotoxicity, carcinogenicity and endocrine disrupting properties at "a level which provides a high level of protection for human health while ensuring that the products needed to protect crops are available". Many hazardous ais would be classified as candidates for substitution rather than simply being withdrawn. The text also included provisions that would take account of data showing that under "realistic conditions of use" exposure was negligible.
While the presidency says that such provisions are considered by the "very great majority" of member states to be a "sound basis for a compromise", a number of them remain concerned. The UK, in particular, believes that the use of hazard-based cut-off criteria would make conventional agriculture in the UK and elsewhere "unachievable". By contrast, the Commission maintained a firm stand against any watering down of its proposals. It believes that the original text was more likely to encourage the development of new, less toxic, ais. At the Ministers' meeting, EU Health Commissioner Androula Vassiliou stressed the importance of guaranteeing the safety of consumers. She claimed that the potential loss of substances was "very small", reports Brussels news agency AgraFacts.
France, which had previously agreed with the compromise text, withdrew its support just before the meeting, AgraFacts adds. Officials stated that the proposals conflicted with France's new environmental policy that seeks a 50% cut in pesticide use.
Another disputed issue is data protection. The Commission's original proposal maintained the ten-year protection period for data submitted for an ai approval, but courted controversy by seeking to remove protection for studies that were submitted for the renewal or review of an authorisation. The compromise text sought to restore a five-year protection period for such studies. The Commission, supported by France and Italy, and partly by Greece and Ireland, expressed reservations about the change, arguing that the provisions might harm competition and restrict the availability of products.
Other issues include the mutual recognition of product approvals within the same geographical zone. The compromise would allow member states some flexibility to block a national approval in "exceptional cases", where there are fears of serious health or environmental risks due to local circumstances. The move has the support of the Commission and member states, except Hungary, which has reservations on the division of the EU into the three zones of north, centre and south.
Elsewhere, France has objected to the fact that the three-zone system does not apply to seed treatments. The French delegation argued that they should not be treated differently from other products.
The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) says it is "not surprised" that the Ministers failed to reach an agreement on the proposals. Hazard-based cut-offs are not the right solution to ensure food safety and "clearly need more discussion", it points out. "We hope that all the players will now realise that we definitely need a proper impact assessment on this proposal," says ECPA director-general Dr Friedhelm Schmider.
Observers warn that lengthy EU legislative procedures could lead to a considerable delay if the issues are not resolved soon. An agreement by Ministers requires translation of the text into the different EU languages before it can be adopted as a common position. The transmission of the proposals to the European Parliament for its second reading may be delayed to the end of the year, by which time MEPs will be preparing for elections in 2009. Officials predict that if there is no agreement by Ministers in June, the completion of the revision of Directive 91/414 could be delayed for a further 2-3 years, AgraFacts reports.
Source: Agrow
More from AgroNews
Change
Hot TopicSubscribe
| Subscribe Email: | * | |
| Name: | ||
| Mobile Number: | ||
Comment
0/1200
NEWSLETTER