Pesticide legislation veers away from science;

The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) warned today that the wording of the certain aspects of the legislation adjusting
pesticide authorization has no scientific basis and could lead to unwarranted blanket prohibitions.  Overblown claims have already been made which directly result from the
scientifically baseless wording.

 “We have serious reservations about the trialogue agreement, and believe that certain changes are required, particularly to
the criteria on endocrine disruption,” said Friedhelm Schmider, Director General of the ECPA.

 “We ask that Parliament consider the criteria for endocrine disruption separately with an aim to ensuring a more
scientifically rigorous basis.  The current wording has already led to extravagant declarations about non-existent pesticide “blacklists” from certain members of parliament before
the legislation has even been voted; claims which are aimed at whipping up and capitalizing on public fear about food safety.  This is entirely inappropriate, overreaching the
bounds of good governance.”

 The criteria for endocrine disruption has been a key sticking point in the final negotiations and has resulted in the current
text which is based on incorrect assumptions.  As currently written, classification of potential effects which are not linked to endocrine function are being used as general
indicators of endocrine disruption – and hence could ban substances which are actually free from those effects.

A recent statement released by MEP Hiltrud Breyer exploits the erroneous nature of the criteria to make fanciful claims, containing
distortions which require urgent clarification.  Breyer asserts that the new regulation creates a ‘black list’ of active substances to be removed from the market in 2009. 
This claim is entirely unfounded:

• The new Regulation contains NO “black list” of substances. The Regulation contains criteria against which all
  active substances will be evaluated. It is therefore not possible to state which substances will be impacted by the criteria.  Further, the term Blacklist is manipulative
  and blatantly fear inspiring.

• The substances mentioned by Breyer will be subject to the cut-off criteria, as will all substances in use. However, it is misleading
  to claim that these particular  substances will be removed from the market before the required detailed scientific evaluation is carried out. 

• Breyer’s  list of substances includes a number from the ‘triazole’ class. Triazoles are key  fungicides, needed in the
  fight against potato blight for example, but also important in human medicines. 

• Breyer also claims that some of these substances will be removed due to endocrine disrupting effects.  It is not possible for
  Breyer or anyone else to give such a definitive list of substances that would be impacted by the endocrine disrupting criteria as they have yet to be fully defined. 

It is important to note that the substances mentioned have all been recently evaluated against the strictest scientific risk
assessment criteria and have been found to be safe and acceptable for use in the European Union.

We urge Parliament to mandate the development of scientific, risk-based criteria by independent experts, without political
interference.  ECPA has consistently asked for an independent  scientific review during this legislative process.  Unfortunately this has not taken place and one result
has been the erroneous wording of the criteria.  It is now vital for such a perspective to apply during the implementation phase and we ask that the European Food Safety Authority
(EFSA) evaluate the criteria currently in place and to put in place sensible, science-based criteria as required by the legislation.

 The cut-off criteria  are major concerns across the food sector, as well as the introduction of manifestly inappropriate
use reduction targets instead of focussing on risk reduction measures as contained in the Framework Directive on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides.  The potential negative impact
of the loss of active substances, in particular on integrated pest management programmes, food supply and affordability has been highlighted many times.

 “We will continue to work with Commission, Parliament and Member States to ensure that the cut-off criteria are
implemented using the best science in support of sustainable agriculture,” said Schmider.