You are viewing 1 of your 2 free articles

You’ll need to join us by becoming a member to gain more access.
Already a Member?

Login Join us now

Fight over endocrine disruptors continues


The European Commission has found itself unable to secure the backing of member states for its proposals on endocrine disruptors, throwing the future of pesticides in the EU into doubt again.

Twitter Facebook
Share This

Endocrine disruptors: The fight continues

Endocrine disruptors are chemicals which, at certain doses, can interfere with hormone systems. A number of important crop protection active substances could be defined as endocrine disruptors, but they are also found in plastics and cosmetics.


Environmental groups claim they pose a risk to human health.


A World Health Organisation (WHO) report from 2012 said there was “mounting evidence for effects of these chemicals on thyroid function, brain function, obesity and metabolism and insulin and glucose homeostasis”, and the Commission has been trying to regulate their use for several years.


The EU’s 2009 pesticides regulation states that active substances cannot be approved for use if they are endocrine disruptors, but in order to be considered as such, a definition needs to be decided upon.


The Commission hoped to get agreement from member states before Christmas on a definition and an exception to the rule banning them – once defined.




Because of the disagreement surrounding the proposal, the Commission chose to split it into two parts which would be voted on separately.


The first part would focus on a definition, which was controversial in itself. The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) felt the chosen text would ban safe chemicals because it did not take potency – the scientific measurement of the chemical’s ability to produce a negative effect – into consideration.


Graeme Taylor, ECPA’s director of public affairs, said: “The Commission’s continued refusal to include hazard characterisation elements, in particular, potency, makes it impossible to see how they will identify those substances which pose a real concern from those that do not.”


Senior plant health adviser at the NFU, Emma Hamer, agreed: “The definition being proposed would not allow substances which are a real danger to be differentiated from those which are not.


“Exposure to hazard, potency, how often a chemical is used and what mitigation measures can be put in place all need to be taken into account.”




The second part of the proposal focused on the derogation, which was similarly divisive.


The European Parliament and a number of member states, particularly the Scandinavian countries, were unhappy with the exception, which would allow chemicals identified as endocrine disruptors to continue to be used if there was ‘negligible exposure’ to them.


They claimed the Commission was acting illegally in proposing an exception because it was only required by law to come up with a definition.


Environmental groups said the exception would allow harmful chemicals to stay on the market.


“We are not happy with legislation by derogation because it prevents a level playing field”, Ms Hamer said.


“Neonicotinoids are a good example of that; in some countries they have been used and in others they have not, but at least the derogation would have allowed for some discretion.


“We were more concerned the Commission separated the two because we could have been in a situation where the definition went forward but the derogation was blocked.”


No formal vote


In the event, the Commission did not call a formal vote on either part of the proposal as there was no qualified majority in the ‘indicative vote’.


A UK Crop Protection Association spokesperson said: “It is not surprising the Standing Committee was unable to reach a decision. There was already a great deal of confusion ahead of the meeting and the Commission’s decision to split the proposal into two only increased it.”


The issue will be discussed again on 22-23 January, but there is little hope of a quick fix as the EU has been trying to regulate for so long already.


Ms Hamer added: “The fact that agreement could not be reached shows nobody is happy. The NGOs are not happy, farmers are not happy, the Commission is not happy.


“We absolutely want to see safeguards for human health and the environment, but we also need to have plant protection products farmers can use.”

Twitter Facebook
Rating (0 vote/s)
Post a Comment
To see comments and join in the conversation please log in.

More News

Make dairy as important as the car industry, insists Dairy UK chairman

Dairy should receive the same treatment the car industry does in upcoming Brexit negotiations, according to the Dairy UK chairman.

Over 1,500 farm vacancies unfilled as labour shortage bites

Over 1,500 on-farm vacancies went unfilled in May this year as labour providers struggled to recruit enough workers.

'Headless chickens' - farmers angered by Defra’s response to bird flu outbreaks

Concerns have been raised about Defra’s response to the ongoing outbreaks of bird flu.

Record dryness in Western Australia drives wheat price rises

There has also been a lift from drought in the US spring wheat belt

Trade main focus for potential new EFRA Select Committee chief

Neil Parish, former chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, has said he intends to make a trade inquiry the main focus of the committee if he is re-elected to the post by his fellow MPs.
FG Insight and FGInsight.com are trademarks of Briefing Media Ltd.
Farmers Guardian and FarmersGuardian.com are trademarks of Farmers Guardian Ltd, a subsidiary of Briefing Media Ltd.
All material published on FGInsight.com and FarmersGuardian.com is copyrighted © 2016 by Briefing Media Limited. All rights reserved.
RSS news feeds