Providing so-called 'emergency authorisations' to keep toxic pesticides on the market is a recurrent practice from EU Member States. Belgium recently provided a derogation to Spirotetramat [1], a pesticide for which there is strong scientific evidence of endocrine disruption. According to PAN Europe and Nature et Progrès Belgium, these derogations are not in line with EU law. A formal complaint was submitted yesterday before the Council of State of Belgium.
Spirotetramat is an insecticide that was approved for a broad range of uses in the EU until 2024. In the frame of the former authorisation from 2013 [2], Bayer (patent owner of Spirotetramat) was requested to provide additional toxicology information regarding potential endocrine disruption to the environment. The European Food Safety Authority concluded in 2017 that the data provided by Bayer were of insufficient quality to be able to make a conclusion [3]. Bayer decided not to reapply, considering Spirotetramat no longer meets the EU safety criteria [4].
A series of scientific publications point towards the endocrine- disrupting properties of the substance [5]. An EU Court ruling from 2023 [6] established that Member States are not allowed to provide derogations to pesticides already banned for health or environmental reasons.
According to Virginie Pissoort, lawyer at Nature et Progrès: "Belgium is providing numerous derogations that are not in line with the law. Despite a past judgement from the Belgian Council of State, the administration continues providing such derogations to very toxic pesticides, such as Spirotetramate."
Martin Dermine, Executive Director of PAN Europe, adds: "It is a strategy from the industry to not reapply, or to withdraw their application for re-approval during the procedure, to avoid a formal ban in the EU and the negative consequences it would have at EU- and international-levels."
When banned for health reasons, the Maximum Residue Levels of pesticides must be reduced to 0. Furthermore, non-EU countries use steps taken in the EU to inspire their own regulatory decisions; in this way, we see that avoiding a "EU-banned label" allows the industry to maintain higher sales in these countries.
"Substances for which the industry purposely does not apply for renewal should be treated as banned substances as they have not been reassessed in the frame of the most recent safety criteria and in this case: endocrine disruption,” concludes Martin Dermine.
Contact: Martin Dermine, Executive Director, martin [at] pan-europe.info, +32 486 32 99 92
Notes:
[1] https://fytoweb.be/fr/nouvelles/produits-base-de-spirotetramat-temporair...
[2] Implementing regulation 1177/2013
[3] https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1156
[4] https://agro.bayer.nl/nieuws-en-algemeen/nieuwsoverzicht/respijttermijne...
[5] E.g. Zhang et al. 2020; Jiao et al. 2024
[6] https://www.pan-europe.info/press-releases/2023/01/eu-court-justice-no-m...
