AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES (10930/06, 10937/06)
Letter from Lord Rooker, Minister of State
for Sustainable Farming and Food, Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 20 July 2006[67]
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 I) 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 authorities 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 leaves 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.
9 October 2006
Letter from Lord Rooker to the Chairman
Further to my letter of 8 August 2006,[68]
I am writing to let you know the outcome of the Commission's proposals
for two pesticide active substances (azinphos-methyl and methamidophos).
The proposal for azinphos-methyl was rejected
by a qualified majority of Member States at the Agricultural Council
on 18 September and returned to the Commission to reconsider,
in accordance with comitology procedures. The Commission has,
however, confirmed that it does not intend to bring forward any
further proposals for this substance. Since the Regulation establishing
the review of pesticides requires a decision by the end of 2006,
its approval will lapse by default and it will be withdrawn.
The Council initially reached no opinion on
the proposal for methamidophos, which would normally have led
to its adoption by the Commission under comitology procedures.
However, given the predominant opinion against it, the Commission
agreed to reconsider, in accordance with a previous undertaking
to the Council, and came forward with a revised proposal to approve
methamidophos for only 18 months (rather than the seven years
initially proposed, or the 10 years which are standard). They
put this proposal to the Competitiveness Council on 25 September
and, although we continued to vote against it, there was no qualified
majority and the proposal will now be adopted by the Commission.
25 October 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Lord Rooker
At its meeting on 22 November 2006 Sub-Committee
D considered your letters of 8 August and 25 October 2006 on the
above draft Directives.
We are pleased that the Commission has shown
some flexibility in its approach but we share the Government's
concerns about placing methamidophos onto the approved list of
pesticides. While clearing this item from scrutiny, therefore,
we would ask you to keep us informed of any further developments
on this issue.
22 November 2006
67 Correspondence with Ministers, 40th Report of Session
2006-07, HL Paper 187, p222. Back
68
Correspondence with Ministers 40th Report of Session 2006-07,
HL Paper 187, pp 222-223. Back
|
