Skip to content

Select your location.

It looks like your location does not match the site. We think you may prefer a ClientEarth site which has content specific to your location. Select the site you'd like to visit below.

English (USA)

Location successfully changed to English (Global)

Follow us

Support us Opens in a new window Donate
Return to mob menu

Search the site

Rule of law | 14 July 2016

Minutes from meeting between Commission and US and Canadian ambassadors about endocrine disruptors in pesticides
Rule of law

PDF | 184 kb

Download Item

Minutes from meeting between Commission and US and Canadian ambassadors about endocrine disruptors in pesticides

The European Commission has cut the level of protection in EU pesticides rules following pressure from the US and Canada, minutes of a meeting reveal.

Current EU rules ban pesticides that contain hormone-harming chemicals called endocrine disruptors. But the latest Commission proposal would allow endocrine disruptors in pesticides if the risk of exposure to humans is negligible, instead of only allowing approval if exposure to humans is negligible.

The difference between exposure and risk goes well beyond semantics. It affects the way the risk of these chemicals – which cause infertility and developmental problems in children - is managed.

Negligible exposure derogations allow only uses that are well controlled, such as in a closed system.

“Negligible risk” allows humans and the environment to be exposed to endocrine disruptors without clear limits.

The Commission is also proposing to higher limits for the amount of endocrine disrupting chemical residues on food, lowering health protection for Europeans.

This will make it easier for countries with weaker pesticides protection – like Canada and the United States - to import food into the EU.

Minutes of a meeting between EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner Andriukaitis and the Canadian and United States ambassadors reveal that the Commission has lowered the levels of protection to address concerns raised by its trade partners.

The Canadian ambassador ‘urged the Commission not to apply the hazard-based approach alone’. The Commission in response said that the Commission’s ‘ambitious proposal address[es] the concerns expressed by the Ambassadors’.

The Commission and Canada’s behaviour heightens serious concerns over the potential of the envisaged Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada to lower the levels of environmental protection and food safety in Europe.

CETA is not just an agreement about tariffs. It also seeks to address ‘behind the border’ trade barriers caused by food safety and environmental rules. CETA’s regulatory cooperation chapter will make it more likely that EU regulations are weakened to fit with those of trade partners with worse environmental protection laws.