Despite strong warnings from scientists and civil society, the European Commission will introduce unlimited-term approvals for certain pesticides.
This represents a significant weakening of EU pesticide legislation at a time when chemical-dependent agriculture is harming ecosystems and public health, writes Pesticide Action Network.
A leaked draft at the end of November initially showed that the EC was considering unlimited approval and authorization for up to 90% of approved active substances, including synthetic toxic substances such as the carcinogenic glyphosate and the neurotoxic acetamiprid.
This proposal sparked strong mobilization from EU citizens, civil society organizations, and scientists, who expressed serious concerns and urged the Commission to completely abandon the proposal.
Following this negative reaction and intense internal negotiations, the Commission has scaled back its approach in the proposal presented on Tuesday. A specific reassessment would now be necessary for substances where uncertainties have arisen.
Furthermore, the Commission would be obliged to identify active substances or groups of active substances with unlimited approval periods for which a renewal procedure will be carried out.
However, even in its revised form, the proposal continues to undermine key pillars of EU pesticide legislation.
"The strong mobilization of citizens has forced the Commission to step back from the extreme option of granting unlimited approval for almost all pesticides. While we welcome this, it is clear that it is not enough to ensure protection against harmful pesticides.
This proposal remains heavily influenced by the requirements of the pesticide industry. The first victims of this reduction in health and environmental protection will be farmers and rural communities, who are chronically exposed to toxic pesticides," said Martin Dermine, Executive Director of PAN Europe.
"Scientific developments consistently show that the impact of synthetic pesticides extends far beyond target organisms, including humans. By abandoning reassessment requirements, the Commission is asking society to first accept harm and later provide evidence; an approach that contradicts both science and the precautionary principle," added Angeliki Lysimachou, Head of Science and Policy Department.
In addition, the proposal:
- Restricts Member States' use of the latest scientific evidence in evaluating pesticide products, contradicting a recent EU court decision.
- Expands derogation criteria, facilitating market approval of pesticides that do not meet safety standards, allowing approval not only for phytosanitary emergencies but also for plant production needs.
- Extends grace periods for banned hazardous pesticides, allowing the use of banned pesticides for up to three years, but only from existing stocks and only where viable alternatives are not available.
- Facilitates the review of previously approved substances to allow their reclassification as low-risk.
- Introduces a broad definition of biological control substances, encompassing not only compounds derived from natural sources but also modified analogs designed to mimic them, which may have distinct molecular structures and, consequently, different toxicity or ecological impact profiles.
- Introduces the possibility for Member States to grant a general derogation from the ban on aerial spraying for certain types of drones. This is problematic as aerial spraying should remain subject to individual authorizations and derogations, given the associated risks, especially those arising from spraying deviation.