Non-commercial research suggests flaws in industry’s claims on pesticide bans

For the first time an in-depth research by a non-commercial group shows the exact numbers of endocrine disrupting pesticides (ED-pesticides) that will be regulated if the options of the European Commission road map for an impact assessment of the endocrine criteria[1] are applied. From the 31 pesticides known to have adverse endocrine effects, seven, four or zero will be regulated depending on the different Commission criteria and options proposed.

This outcome greatly contradicts the studies published by several farmers and industry groups stating that by applying the Commission’s criteria 44 to 87 (UK-farmers), 17 to 66 (UK-agriboard) and 'more than 37' (pesticide industry group ECPA) pesticides would be regulated. These studies are based on wrong assumptions and do not consider the availability of ED-pesticides alternatives[2]. Commission Health service SANCO even considered a percentage of 20% (this is about 100 pesticides) -mentioned by ECPA- reliable and started ringing alarm bells in 2013, as an internal document reveals[3].

Based on an analysis of all available science on endocrine disrupting pesticides collected in a database of more than 600 relevant health studies[4]^,[5], PAN Europe concludes that, 31 pesticides should be regulated as ED- pesticides because they show ED-properties and adverse effects in test animals, this is approximately 6.1% of the current authorized pesticides in the EU. However, 11 of these will be excluded because EU Commission doesn’t take academic research into account, leaving 20 pesticides to be regulated; a further 13 will be dismissed as the effects will be considered irrelevant for regulation because of the criteria proposed by Commission (Option 3), leaving seven pesticides to be regulated; and a further three will be considered irrelevant if the criterion “potency’ is used (Option 4), as favored by industry and UK, leaving only four pesticides to be regulated. By applying Option B of Commission’s Roadmap for regulatory decision-making, these last four pesticides will be considered to have a “safe” level, if traditional risk assessment is applied, resulting in the regulation of zero pesticides. A further Option C in the roadmap to include derogations to the rules is completely futile. These last options totally cancel out the effectiveness of the Pesticide Regulation (PPPR 1107/2009) to protect human and environmental health.

According to PAN Europe, their research shows that the Commission road map, in contrast to what the industry claims, only puts forward options that have very little or no commercial impact, and fail to have the benefits as foreseen in the pesticide Regulation to protect EU-citizens. PAN-Europe feels the road map is undermining current pesticide health laws to a great extent.

However, European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) Director General Jean-Charles Bocquet said: "After the public consultation the four options are still under consideration, and based on the impact assessment the Commission will propose criteria for adoption. Only then will we have a clear idea of how many substances will be affected.

"In the meantime we can only estimate the number of substances that will be affected.

"Contrary to what the PAN report claims, the potential alternative substances have not been shown to combine the same level of efficacy and safety as the currently registered products, which have all undergone thorough risk-benefit analysis and been considered safe."

More information

[1] Impact assessment of the endocrine criteria
[2] ED-pesticide alternative assessment
[3] PAN Europe 2013 internal documents
[4] PAN Europe impact assessment 1a
[5] PAN Europe impact assessment 1b

Share this article: