On 11 March, the Commission published a revised proposal for a controversial new Regulation governing the EU's pesticides regime, wherein it rejects nearly half of the 249 amendments introduced by Parliament during its first reading in October 2007.
At the centre of the Commission and Parliament's disagreement is the question of whether or not to extend an existing list of substances banned from use during the production of pesticides in the EU.
Parliament, notably Green and Socialist MEPs, want to expand the list to include neuro-toxic, immuno-toxic and other high-risk substances.
But the Commission does not consider such a ban acceptable. Rather, it says it prefers to keep substances 'of particular concern' on the market and to make them 'candidates for substitution' with less harmful ones.
"Member states should regularly re-examine whether plant protection products containing such active substances can be replaced by plant protection products containing active substances which require less risk mitigation," according to the Commission’s revised proposal.
The debate between Commission and Parliament mirrors a debate that is raging between industry and environmentalists.
The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) argues that banning too many substances would be detrimental both for farmers and EU crop yields, bringing higher food prices and increasing the bloc’s dependence on food imports (EurActiv 06/02/08).
But green groups and a number of MEPs say certain substances are simply too dangerous to be placed on the market.
National capitals are reportedly divided on the issue, and it thus appears unlikely that member states will support the Parliament's position. And, under EU voting rules, a unanimous agreement in Council is required to over-ride Commission opposition to an amendment by the Parliament.
A second reading by the Parliament is expected after the summer.
