Brussels – Overshadowed in the flurry of measures announced yesterday (December 16) by the European Commission, most notably the U-turn on the 2035 ban on combustion engines and the plan to tackle the housing crisis, the ninth ‘Omnibus’ package of regulatory simplification delivers a heavy blow to European legislation on pesticides and public health. Experts and environmental associations are sounding
the alarm over the “dangerous deregulation” Brussels is proposing for the use of harmful substances in agriculture.
The European Commission called it a “package of measures to streamline and simplify EU food and feed safety legislation.” And it emphasized cost-cutting: over 1 billion euros in compliance costs, over 428 million euros in annual savings for EU businesses, and 661 million euros for national administrations. According to Valdis Dombrovskis, EU Commissioner for the Economy, the proposals “eliminate overlaps in requirements and reporting, address legal uncertainties, and eliminate procedures that had little added value.”
Key measures include speeding up market access procedures for biopesticides: farmers “will have more and better tools at their disposal to protect their crops and produce effectively,” emphasised Health Commissioner Olivér Várhelyi. The most controversial points, however, concern the indefinite extension of authorizations for several plant protection products and feed additives, and the extension of tolerance periods for banned pesticides to a maximum of three years.
Currently, when EFSA – and then the European Commission – give the green light to new pesticides, the first authorization expires after 10 years and its renewal (after a new risk assessment) after 15 years. An EU executive official admitted that “it is not possible at this moment to give a precise number” of substances that will benefit from the extensions, but stressed that “it is not true that the majority will be renewed indefinitely.”
According to Pesticide Action Network Europe, the Commission was initially planning to extend the unlimited authorization to around 90 percent of approved active substances, including synthetic toxic substances such as the carcinogen glyphosate and the neurotoxic acetamiprid. It then backtracked due to reactions from the scientific community and civil society organizations. In its final proposal, the Commission envisaged a targeted re-evaluation of all substances for which uncertainties or data gaps emerged during their risk assessment, in addition to those approved as “candidates for substitution.”
“While we welcome this, it’s clearly not enough to ensure protection from harmful pesticides. This proposal remains heavily influenced by demands from the pesticides industry,” said Martin Dermine, Executive Director of PAN Europe.
Regarding the grace period during which products can remain on the market even if their authorization is revoked, the European Commission proposes to double it, bringing it to two years for the distribution and sale of banned dangerous products, plus an additional year for the use of existing stocks. The reason, an official explains, is that often, when substances and products are banned and authorizations are not renewed, “in some member states, farmers have no immediate alternatives.” Therefore, extending the grace period would allow states to identify new products without having to grant emergency authorizations to the supply chain.
There is another controversial and ambiguous point in the proposal. The regulation would limit member states’ ability to use the latest scientific evidence when evaluating pesticide products. In essence, the Commission argues that “Member States will have to rely on the latest evaluation conducted at EU level,” excluding studies not yet endorsed by the specialized EU agencies, EFSA and ECHA.
“The Commission is asking society to accept harm first and evidence later; an approach that contradicts both science and the precautionary principle,” attacked Angeliki Lysimachou, Head of PAN Europe’s Science and Policy Section. For the EU executive, on the other hand, the proposed simplification “responds to repeated calls from Member States and stakeholders for faster and clearer procedures in these areas.”
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
