7 Pesticides: maximum residue levels in
plant and animal products
| (24380)
7635/03
COM(03) 117
| Draft Regulation on maximum residue levels of pesticides in products of plant and animal origin
|
| Legal base | Articles 37(2), 95(1) and 152(4)(b) EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | SEM of 19 April 2004 and Minister's letter of 24 April 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxii (2002-03), para 8 (21 May 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 26 April 2004
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (decision reported on 21 May 2003)
|
Background
7.1 Because of the harmful effects of pesticides, maximum residue
levels (MRLs) set the concentrations above which any produce containing
such levels must be withdrawn from the market. These levels in
turn form an integral part of two major sets of Community legislation
in this area:
- Council Directive 91/414/EEC, which requires the Community
to authorise the chemicals ("active substances") providing
protection, and to set MRLs for them, whilst the commercial pesticides
derived from them are in turn assessed and authorised by the Member
States, which are then responsible for setting the MRLs attached
to their use.
- Four more specific measures — Council Directives
76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC — enable
Community MRLs to be established for pesticides in different groups
of produce of animal or plant origin: these measures also allow
Member States to set or maintain national MRLs, pending decisions
on Community levels, provided they do so on the basis of common
principles, and pay regard to any MRLs set under Directive 91/414/EEC.
7.2 Because national MRLs tend to differ according
to the particular pesticide use in the Member States concerned,
their existence has created barriers to trade, and the Commission
therefore brought forward in March 2003 this document, which would
consolidate the earlier Directives, and replace them by a single
Regulation. The main effect of this would be to:
- effectively prohibit the presence
of any residue if a Community MRL has not been fixed;
- prevent Member states from setting MRLs; and
- harmonise Community MRLs after a transitional
period.
7.3 These steps are, however, complicated by the
fact that, when Directive 91/414/EEC came into effect in 1993,
over 800 active substances were already on the market. It was
therefore decided that these should be reviewed over the following
ten years, and that they should in the meantime continue to be
allowed on the market. The current phase of that review was due
to be completed last year, and to result in nearly half of the
active substances in question being withdrawn from the market.
The proposal therefore addressed the ways in which MRLs both
for these substances and for those which would remain on the market,
should be handled. In the former case, a default MRL of 0.01
mg/kg would be set, whilst in the latter a temporary Community
MRL (based on the national MRLs in force) would be set, to be
replaced by a substantive Community MRL, as soon as the necessary
evaluation under Directive 91/414/EEC had been carried out.
7.4 As we noted in our Report of 21 May 2003, the
Government's view was that the proposal provided a welcome simplification,
but that there were a number of areas of potential concern. In
particular:
- the responsibilities proposed
for the EFSA were ambitious for a new body;
- whilst the UK agreed in principle that temporary
Community MRLs should be established following a review of national
MRLs and pending full harmonisation, it was concerned that this
would represent an additional, and very substantial, body of work
both for the EFSA and for Member States;
- the intention to introduce an effective prohibition
of any residue if a Community MRL had not been fixed for it was
reasonable, but it too depended heavily on the EFSA's ability
to set MRLs and import tolerances to cover all legitimate pesticide
uses, and could in particular have implications for developing
countries which may not be as well placed to provide the data
needed; and
- the establishment of a Community system for pesticide
residues, including a database for MRL legislation and Community
proficiency tests, was welcome in principle, but raised concerns
over whether the needs of users would be met at a reasonable cost,
and how work would be funded where the Community did not make
a full contribution to costs.
7.5 We commented that, because of its technical nature,
and the complex inter-relationship between the various Directives
currently in force, this was a difficult subject to assess. However,
since the proposal was mainly concerned with the procedure
for setting MRLs, with the actual residue levels themselves
being determined separately within the framework established,
and since the UK had broadly welcomed the proposal, we decided
to clear the document, bearing in mind also the previous consideration
which the House had relatively recently given to Community policy
on the sustainable use of pesticides.[11]
Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum of 19 April
2004
7.6 We have now received a supplementary Explanatory
Memorandum of 19 April 2004 from the Minister of State at the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Alun Michael),
which says that, as a result of discussions within a Council working
group, a number of changes have been made which address the Government's
previous concerns. In particular:
- instead of evaluating the residues
component of all applications in Member States for authorisations,
the EFSA would concentrate on risk assessment to ensure consumer
protection, leaving routine evaluations with Member States;
- a much more realistic timescale would be allowed
for the setting of national MRLs on which temporary Community
MRLs would be established;
- there would now be a wide-ranging provision for
official services to recover their costs; and
- more flexible arrangements have been made to
allow certain uses of active substances to continue, pending the
establishment of substantive Community MRLs.
7.7 The Minister has also sent us a partial Regulatory
Impact Assessment updating the Assessment provided by his Department
last year. In summary, this suggests that the option favoured
by the UK may result in some small additional costs for industry,
but that these will be more than offset by savings from trials
work being carried out over a longer period, the prevention of
some loss of pesticide uses, and the benefits arising from securing
supplies of good quality, locally grown, reasonably priced produce.
Minister's letter of 24 April 2004
7.8 We have also received from the Minister a letter
of 24 April 2004, informing us that the proposal is scheduled
for political agreement at the meeting of the Council of Ministers
on 26 April, where maintenance of the gains made during the negotiations
relies on unanimity of the Member States in the face of opposition
from the Commission, which he says is continuing to push for the
re-introduction of significant aspects of its original proposal.
Since the Minister considers that difficulties could arise if
the Council does not adopt a text along the lines now on offer,
he is anxious to support that text, even though we will not by
then have considered his supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
of 19 April.
Conclusion
7.9 We have noted the present position, and in
particular the advantages which the Minister sees in securing
the changes which have been made to the Commission's original
proposal. Since we have cleared that proposal, and since the
Government evidently believes that the text now on offer contains
a number of important improvements, we are content simply to draw
these latest developments to the attention of the House.
11 (23653) 10665/02; see HC 152-xxxix (2001-02), para
1 (23 October 2002).Official Report, European Standing Committee
A (26 March 2003). Back
|
