{"id":24155,"date":"2019-01-29T00:00:24","date_gmt":"2019-01-29T04:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=24155"},"modified":"2019-01-28T17:11:56","modified_gmt":"2019-01-28T21:11:56","slug":"eu-committee-of-parliament-calls-for-stiffer-pesticide-restrictions-total-overhaul-to-protect-health","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2019\/01\/eu-committee-of-parliament-calls-for-stiffer-pesticide-restrictions-total-overhaul-to-protect-health\/","title":{"rendered":"EU Committee of Parliament Calls for Stiffer Pesticide Restrictions, Total Overhaul to Protect Health"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, January 29, 2019) After eight months of deliberation and discussion, the European Parliament\u2019s Special Committee<\/a> (the PEST Committee) overwhelmingly approved<\/a> its draft report<\/a> in early December 2018 with recommendations to strengthen pesticide restrictions. PEST was established in January 2018 to assess the European Union\u2019s authorization procedure for pesticides. The group\u2019s charge was to review the European Union\u2019s (EU\u2019s) pesticide authorization process, identify its failures in evaluating and approving pesticides and their use (including any conflicts of interest impacting the process), and make recommendations to improve the protection of human, animal, and environmental health from pesticides. The 30-member committee concluded:<\/a> improvement of the system will require changes in the entirety of the pesticide approval process \u2014 from the point of industry application for authorization of a pesticide, to the sale and use of any products containing the compound in EU Member States, to evaluation of impacts of its use once on the market.<\/p>\n

The approval, sale, use, and regulation of what the EU calls \u201cPlant Protection Products\u201d [PPP] \u2014 active substances used to \u201c1) to protect plants or plant products against pests\/diseases, 2) to influence the life processes of plants (such as substances influencing their growth, excluding nutrients) and 3) to preserve plant products\u201d \u2014 are controlled by the \u201cPPP\u201d Regulation<\/a>. This regulations uses a two-step approach: active substances (the base chemical compounds) are approved at the EU level, and plant protection products, or formulations, are authorized at the national, or Member State, level.<\/p>\n

The convening and charge of this committee by the European Parliament (EP) was a response, in large part, to widespread pressure and considerable clamor from more than a million European citizens, and a number of NGO (non-governmental organization) advocacy and anti-toxics groups<\/a>. Complaints sparked many months of controversy related to the compound glyphosate,<\/a> the active ingredient in multiple herbicide formulations \u2014 most notably, Monsanto\u2019s (now Bayer\u2019s) Roundup \u2014 and, pointedly, related to Monsanto\u2019s undue and inappropriate influence on scientific studies that comprised the basis of much of the review process. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reportedly\u00a0copied dozens of pages from a Monsanto<\/a>\u00a0study in\u00a0providing evidence for its conclusion that glyphosate is \u201cunlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.\u201d\u00a0(EFSA\u2019s recommendation was supposed to provide an independent analysis for EU member states when deciding to renew approval of the compound.)<\/p>\n

The coalition\u00a0Citizens for Science in Pesticide Regulation<\/a>, comprising 120+ groups and institutions, sent\u00a0an\u00a0open letter<\/a>\u00a0to EU regulators in Member States, calling for reform of the pesticide authorization process and increased levels of protection. The letter charged that the current model of pesticide risk assessment is failing to protect people and the environment from the harm caused by these chemicals, and must be reformed.<\/p>\n

In May of 2017, the European Union proposed a 10-year extension<\/a> on the approved use of glyphosate-based compounds. Member States of the European Commission (EC) came up short<\/a> in the EC\u2019s bids to approve 10- and 15-year extensions on the continued use of the compound, and in November issued a limited (five-year) extension for use. The EC was holding out for further information on carcinogenicity, which was assessed by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA),\u00a0whose report was issued in March 2017<\/a>; that assessment found that glyphosate is \u201cunlikely to be carcinogenic.\u201d A chronicle of some of the activity on glyphosate use in Europe can be read here.<\/a> Relatedly, Beyond Pesticides recently covered the disparity<\/a> between the conclusions, on glyphosate\u2019s potential carcinogenicity, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC<\/a>) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).<\/p>\n

Among the many shortcomings of the EU\u2019s current pesticide approval system<\/a> identified in the PEST Committee draft report are: involvement of the pesticide industry in the toxicity assessments of pesticides, misuse of the academic scientific literature, a lack of sensitive testing for neurological and other serious diseases, the lack of post-market monitoring data to assess the real impact of pesticides, and poor transparency of, and access to, the process for the public. The report calls out a multitude of specific failures of the existing process,<\/a> such as: \u201cthe decision-making process has been found to be lacking in transparency throughout the procedure, from lack of public access to the full studies and raw data through to the risk management stage\u201d; \u201cnational competent authorities involved in the approval and authorisation process are in some cases understaffed and underfunded\u201d; and \u201cthere is currently no legal obligation to test active substances for their developmental neurotoxicity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Recommendations by the PEST Committee are legion<\/a> \u2014 72 of them, in fact \u2014 and constellate around those shortcomings and other issues. Importantly, the committee\u2019s product is a set of recommendations that are not binding<\/em>. That said, they include calls for:<\/p>\n

\u2022 heightened transparency across the entire pesticide assessment and approval process<\/p>\n