Three years late, the European Commission has defined criteria for endocrine disruptors in the field of pesticides.
All that for this. After six years of work and expertise, the European Commission has finally published its list of criteria for defining an endocrine disruptor (ED), something it was supposed to do since 2013. Obviously, this long period of reflection does not. did not encourage oneself to be courageous.
The criteria in question are indeed enough to disappoint those who expected a somewhat ambitious regulation. These scientific criteria must apply to pesticides and biocides, and allow the prohibition of all those which disrupt the endocrine system of the human being.
Human evidence
Three criteria were therefore retained to define an MOU in the field of pesticides. First, the substance must have a proven effect on human health; it should also exhibit an endocrine mode of action. Finally, the link between the undesirable effect and the mode of action should be known.
If these three conditions are met, then the substance in question can be considered as a PE. “The scientific criteria approved today by the Commission are based on the definition of an endocrine disruptor from the World Health Organization (WHO), which is the subject of a broad consensus”, specifies the Commission in a report. communicated.
Which is not quite fair. In fact, if no one questions this definition, many players have protested that one of the criteria is based only on the toxicity observed in humans.
Exit the precautionary principle
“It’s disastrous,” responded Lisette Van Vliet, from the Health and Environment Alliance HEAL, a collective of 70 NGOs, quoted by AFP. Normally, we look not only at all the evidence found on humans, but also at what happens in animals, either on a rodent in a laboratory or in nature ”.
The Commission’s choice is all the more surprising given that the European Parliament adopted in 2009 a Regulation on EP based on the precautionary principle, as the NGO Générations Futures recalls in a report. communicated.
This regulation “provided for the exclusion of PE substances that could have a harmful effect on humans and not, as in this proposal, having a proven effect!” The difference is that if, before, we had enough data on the animal, it was considered that this was sufficient to exclude the suspected pesticides PE; here, it will also require certain data for humans! “
Right Pass
With such a level of proof required, the Commission has just provided a free pass to many substances suspected of belonging to the EP category. All the more so since manufacturers will always be able to obtain exemptions in the event of “negligible exposure” – an element that has little meaning, one of the problems of EPs residing in their cocktail effect.
“This is an unacceptable setback, because the 2009 regulation provided for such exemptions only for negligible exposure defined as the absence of contact with humans (closed system or absence of contact with humans)”, further deplores Future Generations. .
.