EU reaches deal on banning toxic pesticides

"We can't accept the trialogue negotiations," said Phil Newton, senior communications manager at the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), describing the proposals as "bad legislation based on incorrect science," with the cut-off criteria based on ideology, fear and perception. 

In particluar, the inclusion of endocrine disruptors in the list of potential substances to be banned is problematic, he said. The current criteria for endocrine disruptors is only an "interim definition" based on "incorrect assumptions", Newton said, and would therefore concern more substances than scientifically proven.

"Our reservations and concerns over lack of scientific input regarding the proposed legislation have been ignored," added ECPA regulatory affairs director Euros Jones. 

However, he underlined that it was positive that the overall legislative process so far had brought a "surge of unanimity" in the food sector and throughout the food chain on the need for science-based legislation.

Health and environment-related non-governmental organisations (NGOs) cautiously welcomed the deal as "a step towards better health through environmental protection" and a means of "allowing the EU to move on to a better system without further delays". 

Pekka Pesonen, secretary-general of COPA-COGECA, which represents European farmers, said the compromise was not perfect, particularly because authorisation of certain substances is still hazard-based, and "we would have favoured risk-based decision-making". He also joined ECPA's criticism of the categorisation of endocrine disruptors.

Pesonen said farmers are not against stricter rules on pesticides in general, but underlined that if the use of a substance or a product is forbidden for European farmers, their use should be banned for the imported products as well. If that is not the case, end consumers will still end up buying products including the banned substances and the competitiveness of European agriculture will be distorted, he added.

Freshfel Europe, the European Fresh Produce Association, noted that the additional cut-off criteria introduced by the compromise will phase out even more active substances compared to the previous compromise agreed among member states. It regrets that the consequences were not measured in detail through a solid impact assessment. 

"The loss of some essential active substances will have a concrete impact for the horticultural sector. It will become a serious challenge to control certain pests in the future, in particular for minor crops," said Freshfel Europe in a statement. Therefore, member states need to, in some cases, "take benefit of a derogation clause to continue using certain active substances if certain pests cannot be contained. Such a clause will therefore be crucial to maintain economically viable horticulture in certain regions," it added.

Health and environment NGOs "cautiously welcomed" the compromise as a "step towards better health through environmental protection".

PAN (Pesticides Action Network) Europe, the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and the European Environment Bureau (EEB)  hailed the compromise "because it means the creation of an EU-wide pesticides blacklist, which removes some of Europe's most hazardous pesticides from the market, and therefore from food products grown in the EU".  

They also welcome the fact that member states need to prepare national action plans to reduce the use of pesticides and hail the idea of applying integrated pest management from 2014.

However, "the major downside of the deal," they say, is that it fails to include the environment committee's demand to eliminate the division of the EU into three authorisation zones, what "reduces the control of member states over whether or not to reject a hazardous pesticide within their territory".