AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES (10930/06-10937/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Lord Rooker,
Minister of State for Sustainable Farming and Food, Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Sub-Committee D (Environment and Agriculture)
has considered these proposals together with your Explanatory
Memorandum.
We support the stance which the Government is
proposing to take—that six of the eight pesticides in question
should be cleared for use on an unrestricted basis but that the
remaining two (Azinphos-methyl and methamidophos) should not be
cleared for use at all on the grounds that their safety has not
been satisfactorily demonstrated. We note also your Department's
view that further significant changes along the lines you are
proposing will be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to secure
and that, if the Council cannot reach agreement, the Commission's
view will prevail as the default position.
Nonetheless, we are concerned over the implications
of releasing onto the market the pesticides whose safe use, in
your Department's view, has not been demonstrated. We propose
therefore to keep the proposals in respect of Azinphos-methyl
and methamidophos under review and we would be grateful if you
would provide further information on the reasons why these two
pesticides, both of which we note are organophosphates, are considered
to be unsafe. In particular, we would be interested to know to
what uses these two pesticides would be put if their useage were
to be allowed, what scope there would be for their leakage into
the food chain and on what independent research evidence your
conclusions are based.
20 July 2006
Letter from Lord Rooker to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 20 July concerning
the Commission's proposals for two pesticide active substances
(azinphos-methyl and methamidophos).
These compounds are being considered as part
of a European Community review of active substances under Council
Directive 91/414/EEC. The Directive provides for the establishment
of a positive list of active substances (Annex 1) that have been
shown to be without unacceptable risk to people or the environment.
Companies supporting compounds through the review must submit
a comprehensive dossier of data for each of them, which is evaluated
by a designated rapporteur member State on behalf of the
Community. Each dossier generally contains around 200 scientific
studies covering, for example, the compound's physical and chemical
properties, its toxicology and ecotoxicology, its residues in
food, and its fate and behaviour in the environment. Rapporteurs
may also consider other relevant published data, as well as
evaluations carried out by regulatory authorties in other countries
or by international organisations.
Since neither compound is approved in the UK,
we have relied to a large extent on the Rapporteurs' evaluations.
In concluding that safe use has not been demonstrated, we are
particularly concerned about the possible effects of azinphosmethyl
on non-target arthropods and of methamidophos on operators, birds
and mammals. This is not to say, however, that these compounds
are necessarily unsafe; only that we believe a safe use of them
has not been demonstrated by the data which the companies have
provided.
The Commission's current proposals would, if
adopted, initially restrict use of both compounds to potatoes.
However, should the companies wish to market either compound in
the UK, we would have the opportunity to look more closely at
the above areas of concern and would refuse an application if
we were not satisfied. This leave the question of residues in
food should treated produce be imported into the UK. We have a
double reassurance on this point. First this was not an area of
concern for either compound during the review process. Second
we would not expect quantifiable residues of either to occur in
tubers. The government's Pesticide Residues Committee has looked
for both compounds in potatoes as part of its monitoring programme,
and found neither of them. In principle, applications could be
made to extend their use to any other crop once they were included
in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC. Such applications would require
an additional dossier of supporting data and we would have an
opportunity to assess the implications for consumers in each case.
There have, however, been developments in the
Council's consideration of these proposals. Following discussions
between attachés, only two of the proposals—for azinphos-methyl
and vinclozolin—are subject to a qualified majority against
and the Commission will have to reconsider its position on these
compounds. For the remaining six (which would include methamidophos),
there is a non-opinion which should lead to adoption of the proposals
by the Commission under comitology rules. The Presidency has indicated
that it will ask Ministers to confirm the position on all eight
proposals at the September Council. In the circumstances (and
given that we have the safeguard of a further national evaluation
before methamidophos could be approved in the UK), I hope you
will be able to lift your reserve on these proposals.
8 August 2006
|
