Lobbying Is The Way Forward Everywhere, Agriculture Is No Exemption
The Meeting between EU and US department of agriculture took place in September this year to come to some sort of solution to maximum residue level settlement of agriculture produces. The European Union has in mind that their proposals may have an impact that may call international attention. In an effort to have the US on their side this meeting becomes more important.
Foreign Agriculture Service & USEU hosted a breakfast roundtable meeting in order to discuss the latest developments on the European Commission’s rules for identifying endocrine disruptors (EDs) and what that means for agri-food exports to the EU through the setting of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for plant protection products in the September this year. The European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) believes that the current developments will have an enormous impact on trade and explained the current situation to the U.S. and other like-minded third countries during the meeting.
Following the vote on the endocrine disruptor criteria on 4th of July, the Commission is now developing its policy on the setting of import tolerances (IT) for active substances that will be affected by the hazard based cut-off criteria. This IT policy could have a major impact on the availability of plant protection products (PPPs) and trade. The Commission developed an informal working document and requested feedback from the Member States by 13th September this year.
Representatives of third countries and several agrochemical companies discussed some key strategies in order to influence Member States positions on the Commission’s stated intention to use approach b from their working document, which means not maintaining existing ITs and refusing ITs for imported food and feed for substances with non-approval under ‘1107/2009 and where the non-approval is due to hazard criteria’ (A primary concern for Third world leader nations like India). The issue is on the agenda of the next Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF) on 21st or 22nd September, 2017.
Key points of the discussion
The need remains for full risk assessment for maximum residue levels (MRLs) and ITs in line with WTO (SPS Agreement). Third countries should continue to raise this issue at every opportunity at the highest level in the hierarchy, including examples to show the impact on trade. The cut-off criteria are purely political because they are hazard-based and there is no genuine health reason. This is not in compliance with WTO rules and should be raised as such.
There is also a need for capacity building at EU Member State level. One of the key action points at this time is to engage with the EU Member States because of their ability to change EU policy. The idea was to explain the broader view and the impact in the long term, as well as the need to bring the derogation back into the discussion.
The European Commission decided 10 years ago on how to move forward, resulting in a hazard-based approach when drafting Regulation 1107/2009 on plant protection products (PPPs). The impact of that decision is starting to become visible now and for the next 10-15 years from now, especially with regard to the Commission’s current decisions on MRLs, EDs, and ITs. This is why there is a need for an impact assessment in order to fully understand how these current decisions will affect trade with the EU in the long term.
Status of the ED criteria
The Commission proposal transferred to Council and European Parliament (EP). The Council signed off and will not oppose, while two objections were raised at the ENVI committee (EP) by the Greens and Socialists & Democrats (S&D). The adoption of the criteria is still expected by the end of this year, in order to enter into force by mid-2018. This is when the Commission is expected to restart the discussion on the derogation, although there is no commitment from its part on when exactly it will be brought back.
Potential Impacts on IT’s
The Commission has now developed a working document on how to deal with ITs under Regulation 1107/2009 when substances fall under the hazard based criteria. It means the substances that, upon renewal, would be triggered by the ED criteria, as well as substances that fall under any other category of hazard-based criteria, or so-called cut-off criteria, such as carcinogenic, mutagenic, reproductive toxicants (CMR), persistent organic pollutant (POP). Etc. This working document contains six scenarios on how to deal with ITs. The Commission’s stated intention is to use approach ‘b’ from their working document, which means not maintaining ‘ Non-existing IT’s ’ and refusing ITs for imported food and feed for substances. For substances with non-approval under 1107/2009 and where the non-approval is due to hazard criteria.
