Only yesterday we told you about PAN Europe’s battle to ban Flupyradifurone, the Bayer pesticide accused of killing bees and representing a potential risk for children. As we had already announced, that story is not an isolated case, but the reflection of a system that, month after month, continues to postpone, extend and dodge the most difficult decisions. This is clearly demonstrated by the statement that the organization released yesterday, on the eve of the monthly European meeting dedicated to pesticides.
The March meeting presents, according to PAN Europe, a contrasting picture. On the one hand, some ban proposals that have been awaited for years finally seem to be moving in the right direction. On the other hand, the political stalemate persists on two of the most urgent issues: the ban on pesticides classified as endocrine disruptors and the ban on PFAS pesticides, the so-called “eternal substances” that do not degrade in the environment and accumulate in living organisms. And in the middle, as if that wasn’t enough, the Commission proposes to extend the authorization of some of the most problematic substances on the market.
The worrying list
Substances for which an extension of the approval period is proposed include lambda-cyhalothrin, deltamethrin, fluopicyclide, chlorotoluron and benzovindiflupyr. These are not just any names: lambda-cyhalothrin and chlorotoluron appear in PAN Europe’s “Toxic 12” list, the list of twelve pesticides that the organization considers so dangerous that they should be banned immediately.
Four of the five substances are candidates for substitution, meaning that the EU itself considers them problematic and would like to replace them with safer alternatives. Two of them are PFAS. And deltamethrin, while not falling into this category, is now suspected of interfering with brain development in young children.
The sentence ignored
What makes this even harder to stomach is the timing. These extensions are proposed a few weeks after a historic ruling by the General Court of the EU, obtained thanks to the appeals presented by PAN Europe and other environmental organisations.
The judges clearly established that extensions of authorizations must be exceptional, temporary and justified by concrete progress in risk assessments. The Court also ruled that it must be assessed whether the producers themselves contributed to the delays by providing insufficient or incomplete data.
Despite this, the Commission continues as before. For PAN Europe this is a choice that compromises the European rule of law.
On the PFAS front
On the front of “forever chemicals“, the proposal to ban flutolanil – a PFAS pesticide that degrades into trifluoroacetic acid, a persistent substance, mobile in water and toxic to reproduction – is welcomed by the organization, which has supported it for over a year against any political blockade. But the optimism stops there.
Penoxulam, structurally similar to flutolanil and potentially capable of producing the same toxic residues, is under discussion for renewal without adequate data existing to exclude this risk.
Diflufenican, a widely used PFAS herbicide, was shown in a Danish study to degrade into trifluoroacetic acid under real-use conditions, contaminating groundwater, but EFSA did not consider this evidence critical enough to block the renewal.
Endocrine disruptors and worrying new approvals
On the endocrine disruptors front, the proposal to ban buprofezin, identified as a disruptor of the human hormonal system, is a positive sign. But other pesticides with the same characteristics, already identified by EFSA as such, remain in the running for renewal, with some Member States even requesting derogations to circumvent the safety criteria.
And while old substances are discussed, the door is opened for new ones: cinmethylin and phenmedipam, both suspected endocrine disruptors, are slated for new approvals.
What worries PAN Europe is not just the single meeting, but a broader trend taking shape in the so-called omnibus proposal on food and feed safety, which the organization strongly opposes. If approved, that proposal would allow unlimited authorizations for active substances – including PFAS and neurotoxic pesticides – and limit the ability of member states to use the latest scientific evidence in national assessments.
Grace periods for substances that no longer meet safety criteria could be extended by up to three years. In other words: a pesticide already recognized as dangerous could remain in legal use for another three years without anyone being able to stop it.
It is a framework that PAN Europe summarizes with a specific request to the Commission and the Member States: “ensure priority for the protection of human health and the environment.” A simple, almost obvious phrase. Yet, judging by what happens every month in the meetings in Brussels, it is anything but obvious.
