New Threat to Pesticides

As the glyphosate saga rumbles on, another threat to key pesticides has come to the fore.  The EU Commission has published it proposals to identify Endocrine Disruptors (ED).  This puts at least 26 active substances under threat, including 2,4-D, boscalid, cypermethrin, mancozeb, pendimethalin, propyzamide, triflusulfuron and many of the ‘azole’ fungicides.

EDs have an effect on the hormone system.  Under EU rules on the authorisation of Plant Protection Products (PPP), any such substance should not be approved.  However, until now there has been no definition of what was an ED – the legislation was meant to be in place by December 2013, but was repeatedly delayed.  Draft criteria have now been set out.  These are somewhat complex and technical, but are based on World Health Organisation (WHO) standards.  Importantly, the legislation retains the hazard-based approach to regulation rather than being risk-based.  This means that anything found to be an ED will not be authorised regardless of whether it might be safe under real-world levels of exposure.

Within the legislation there is a derogation that allows EDs to be authorised for use if there is a ‘serious danger to plant health’ if they are not available, or if there is a ‘negligible risk’ from them.  Some green groups believe that this is a loophole that will allow dangerous active substances to continue to be used, and which will re-introduce risk-based legislation through the backdoor.  This is likely to be a major area of contention as the proposals move through the legislative process. 

An impact assessment released alongside the draft legislation identified 26 active substances thatwere potential ED’s under the new definition.  This was the result of a ‘screening’ process of existing scientific work.  Not all pesticides were screened (324 out of 482 active substances – so around two-thirds).  Therefore, additional pesticides may be included.  Conversely, some of the substances flagged as EDs may not, in fact, fall foul of the criteria when a full scientific assessment is made.  Even so, it is highly likely that some key elements in the ‘toolkit’ of crop protection products will be lost over time.

For more details see – http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/policy/index_en.htm (Be warned however, that the Impact Assessment on the proposals runs to over 400 pages!)