GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2022 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Donations
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE EDITING MYTHS AND REALITY

A guide through the smokescreen

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

ON-TARGET EFFECTS OF GENE EDITING

Damaged DNA

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

News Archive

  • 2023 articles
  • 2022 articles
  • 2021 articles
  • 2020 articles
  • 2019 articles
  • 2018 articles
  • 2017 articles
  • 2016 articles
  • 2015 articles
  • 2014 articles
  • 2013 articles
  • 2012 articles
  • 2011 articles
  • 2010 articles
  • 2009 articles
  • 2008 articles
  • 2007 articles
  • 2006 articles
  • 2005 articles
  • 2004 articles
  • 2003 articles
  • 2002 articles
  • 2001 articles
  • 2000 articles

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

European regulators plan escape route for endocrine disrupting pesticides

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 20 May 2014
Twitter

The European Commission's chemicals regulator DG SANCO and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are trying to provide an escape route for endocrine disrupting pesticides, which under European law should be banned.

These shenanigans on the part of SANCO and EFSA are relevant to the GMO issue because glyphosate, the herbicide used with over 80% of GMOs, is an endocrine disruptor (see for example the new edition of GMO Myths and Truths http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/gmo-myths-and-truths) and thus should be banned.
---
---
New attack on EU policy regarding endocrine disruption
Health DG SANCO prepares an escape route for pesticides
Press release, Pesticide Action Network Europe, 20 May 2014
http://www.pan-europe.info/News/PR/140520.html

Commission health service DG SANCO is on its way to develop an escape route for endocrine disrupting pesticides that will be banned in future. This is done behind closed doors with EU member states and Food Authority EFSA. Sweden fiercely protested against this initiative because they feel the pesticide Regulation is misused and doesn’t allow for a general derogation. Food Authority EFSA is also active in the SANCO working group, lobbying to revise the legislation on endocrines back to traditional risk assessment and encouraging SANCO to use an escape route.

European Commission refused to meet their obligation to present criteria for endocrine disrupting pesticides by December 14, 2013 and decided to do an economic impact assessment first. They next fail to come up with a roadmap for the impact assessment for already more than 9 months now. In contrast to this inactivity, Health DG SANCO is actively looking for an escape route in case future criteria would lead to a ban of pesticides. The text in the Regulation mentions that in case of "negligible exposure" (1107/2009, Annex II, 3.6.5[1]) an authorization might be given. This however is only allowed for closed systems or systems where humans are not put in contact with the substance, according to the legal text. Sweden now blows the whistle and send letters to DG SANCO (published on the PAN Europe website[2]) saying DG SANCO is not playing according to the rules and develops a general derogation for pesticides.

It also appears from documents released by Commission to PAN Europe (on the PAN website[3]) that EFSA has an active role in the SANCO working group. A representative of the EFSA Scientific Committee writes to Barroso’s advisors that they keep on opposing the pesticide legislation and aim to return to traditional risk assessment. This is in line with pesticide industry’s efforts. The representative also complains about the pesticide legislation having no "control route" or "socio-economic route" to save endocrine disrupting pesticides from a ban and keep them on the market. The person suggests that the "negligible exposure" option will be a good option to fill this gap.

PAN Europe feels that EU Commission is undermining the rules and the hazard approach that is included in the democratically agreed rules. By unilaterally changing the rules, Commission is sidelining EU Parliament and choosing economic interests over their own mission to protect people and the environment.

Notes

[1] Unless the exposure of humans to that active substance, safener or synergist in a plant protection product, under realistic proposed conditions of use, is negligible, that is, the product is used in closed systems or in other conditions excluding contact with humans and where residues of the active substance, safener or synergist concerned on food and feed do not exceed the default value set in accordance with point (b) of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.
[2] http://www.pan-europe.info/News/PR/140520.html
[3] http://www.pan-europe.info/News/PR/140520.html

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

Non-GM Successes

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2023 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design