Researchers warn EU pesticide plan could weaken safety checks
Scientists from 27 European institutions say a proposed EU simplification package could raise pesticide risks for biodiversity and human health.
By Lucas Ferreira · Science & Environment Writer
3 min read
A European Commission plan to change pesticide approval rules would weaken safeguards that help catch health and environmental risks, researchers from 27 European institutions warned in Science. The warning matters because the proposal could reduce recurring checks on pesticide ingredients while extending the time some products remain in use after an approval lapses.
The Commission has presented the Food and Feed Safety simplification package as part of a broader effort to simplify European Union law and cut administrative demands. In a Policy Forum article in Science, researchers led by Dimitry Wintermantel of the University of Freiburg and Julia Osterman of the University of Gothenburg said the proposal would undercut parts of the current approval system.
Under existing EU rules described by the authors, active substances used in pesticides are generally approved at the EU level for 10 years. Manufacturers seeking renewed approval must then provide safety data, which is assessed again before the substance can remain authorized.
The researchers said the Commission package would move most active substances to open-ended approvals and remove the routine reassessment requirement. They argued that the change would create a gap because approved substances are not subject to systematic monitoring for new risks, and there is no automatic process to require another review.
Wintermantel said periodic reassessment has been an important safety tool. According to the authors, 59 active substances have failed to receive renewed authorization since 2011 because of health or environmental concerns.
Concerns over current science
The authors also raised concerns about how scientific evidence would be used when individual pesticide products are authorized by EU member states. Active substances are approved at the EU level, while member countries authorize specific products, according to the researchers.
Current rules require member states to consider the latest scientific knowledge, the authors said. The proposal would not formally remove that requirement, but would define the relevant knowledge as what was available at the time of the latest EU assessment of the active substance. If approvals become indefinite, the researchers said, that assessment could be old.
The Science article also criticized a proposed extension of grace periods for products containing substances that lose approval. Under current rules, products containing a non-reapproved active substance may continue to be used for up to 18 months. The package would extend that period to as long as three years, including cases involving health or environmental concerns unless those concerns are classified as immediate and serious, according to the authors.
Osterman said the change could reduce incentives to develop safer alternatives by allowing older products to stay on the market longer while also removing routine reassessment pressure.
Researchers propose faster reviews
The authors said the EU could improve efficiency without weakening the precautionary principle. They estimated that a backlog in reapproval applications caused by delayed assessments could be cleared within three years with annual investment of 15 million euros.
They also recommended that applicants should no longer choose which member state assesses their pesticides. Instead, the researchers said, the EU should assign reviews based on expertise, standardize assessment criteria and keep the burden of proof on pesticide manufacturers.
The Science article called for regulatory studies to be made public so independent researchers can examine them. The authors also urged the EU to connect pesticide application data already collected by farmers with monitoring programs, including those tracking pollinators, and to measure pesticide residues in the environment more extensively.
Combined analysis of those data could help identify high-risk pesticides and guide follow-up investigations, the researchers said. They argued that such steps would make pesticide approval more transparent, more scientifically grounded and more efficient while maintaining European environmental protection goals.
This story draws on original reporting from Phys.org.