Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending:

- Council Directive 76/895/EEC of 23 November 1976 relating to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables,

- Council Directive 86/362/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on cereals,

- Council Directive 86/363/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on foodstuffs of animal origin, and

- Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables

(96/C 82/01)

On 10 July 1995 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 28 November 1995. The Rapporteur was Mrs Sánchez.

At its 331st Plenary Session (meeting of 20 December 1995), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously.

1. Background

1.1. The need for Community legislation to harmonize national law on plant health product residues was recognized by the Council Resolution of 22 July 1974: until then, it had been argued that setting maximum residue levels (MRLs) provided protection for consumers, whereas the real effect was simply to erect non-tariff barriers between Member States.

1.2. Council Directive 76/895/EEC of 23 November 1976 () relating to the fixing of maximum residue levels for pesticide residues in and on fruit and vegetables constituted the Community's first action on this question.

Close examination of Directive 76/895/EEC reveals firstly that the 'maximum levels for pesticide residues' which it lays down do not constitute real harmonization of legal requirements in this sphere, since Article 3.2 allows Member States to fix higher limits in their domestic legislation.

It is also apparent that the state of technical and scientific knowledge at the time cannot be compared with today's, and that consequently the decisions taken deferred to some degree to economic or political interests. Given the current state of scientific knowledge and public opinion, the Directive may overall be deemed as falling short of the European Union's social and market requirements, although it did represent a step forward at the time of adoption.

1.3. Council Directives 86/362/EEC and 86/363/EEC of 24 July 1986 (), on the fixing of maximum levels of pesticide residues in and on cereals and in and on foodstuffs of animal origin, themselves represented a major step towards the real harmonization of national laws, by setting maximum limits to be observed and enforced by all Member States.

Special reference should be made to Directive 86/363, which covers the fixing of maximum residue levels for meat and dairy products.

These Directives nevertheless contain serious shortcomings. Although expanded in subsequent amendments to the Annexes, the basic aim appears almost to be entirely to exclude from the internal market products containing residues of pesticides banned from agricultural use in the European Community, but to leave Member States free to export such products to third countries. The lack of references to consideration of technical and scientific know-how suggests a continuing high degree of political input in fixing maximum residue levels.

1.4. Council Directive 90/642/EEC of 27 November 1990 () on the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables, is a considerable improvement on Directive 76/895. Firstly, it introduces real harmonization of national legislation in this area, and secondly it stipulates that MRLs must be fixed separately for different plant products or groups of products in the production or conditioning of which any active pesticide substance is used. It also contains rules for monitoring residues in plant products, and stipulates that the same requirements are to be applied to plant products exported to third countries.

Notwithstanding the progress which it unquestionably constitutes, the present Directive still presents shortcomings. Firstly, by failing to impose immediate harmonization for all pesticides, the differing national legal MRLs could significantly hold back the completion of a genuine single market in plant products: in the case of processed plant products, this remains impossible to resolve. Moreover, it retains a high level of political influence on the fixing of MRLs and fails to establish technical criteria for their calculation. The Directive may be described as a failure in that although intended to complete the single market, even in 1995 it has failed to remove many of the existing obstacles.

2. General comments

2.1. During the period of validity of all the previous Directives, including the various amendments made to them, it may be inferred that the Commission, in drawing up its MRL proposals, is applying scientific criteria which meet with the Council's full satisfaction. The MRLs proposed by the Commission have not in effect been further tightened by the Council.

2.2. The adoption of these Directives has revealed problems which were not foreseen in the previous Directives. A particular instance is the adoption of open positions on cases where there is no health risk but where there is insufficient data to set MRLs.

2.3. The Council's procedure for adopting MRLs has clearly hindered the application of the Directives. Each list of MRLs adopted involves Commission staff spending almost a year arguing in its favour; after adoption, implementation by the Member States takes a further year. The procedure is highly inflexible and halves the Commission's work capacity for fixing MRLs.

2.4. No progress has yet been made in covering processed products. Consumption levels require full health protection for consumers via action on harmonization. Directive 91/414 states that residue levels in processed products should be considered, but makes no provision for either fixing or monitoring MRLs. In the absence of such Community MRLs, consumers clearly lack information: as a result, it cannot be determined whether the national authorities have set them for health reasons or whether, on the contrary, they are designed to protect the economic and commercial aspect of the national agri-foodstuff sector.

2.5. The Member States are undoubtedly implementing programmes to monitor pesticide residues in line with the consumption patterns of their own populations. Nevertheless, consumers cannot consider that their requirements have been met until joint Directives, covering the full range of European patterns and conditions, are put into practice. The Directives should not entail any increase in Member States' public expenditure, but rather the optimization of the resources earmarked for this purpose. Such controls could now be coordinated with those stipulated under Directive 93/99/EEC on additional measures concerning the official control of foodstuffs.

2.6. Crop diversification is indirectly being held back. Detailed analysis of the MRLs fixed under Directive 90/642 reveals that the largest crops, or the most widespread throughout the EU, have MRLs for virtually all the pesticides covered, while the less industrialized, smaller-scale crops, which might in the future provide an answer to the problems of farming in small districts, may well be left without means of controlling pests, since there is no private research into the appropriate pesticides. The problem will become even more precarious once all the maximum levels fixed under Directive 76/895/EEC have been reviewed.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Scope of the Directives

The ESC endorses the Commission's amendments to the Directives in question, but would make a number of comments.

3.1.1. In the ESC's view, the proposed extension of the Directives to dried, processed and composite products is of benefit to consumers, since the MRLs, based on the raw agricultural materials used, will now be compulsory for them all.

3.1.2. The application of MRLs to products for export to third countries is also a positive step. However, exceptions are allowed when the legislation of the importing country requires special treatment.

3.1.3. The ESC considers that exemptions from the Directive of the products listed when they are used for non-food purposes should be strictly checked to ensure that such exceptions cannot under any circumstances create a health risk for consumers.

3.2. Fixing maximum residue levels

3.2.1. The proposed amendment of the procedure for fixing MRLs constitutes a major advance: firstly, it unifies all the procedures under each of the Directives and secondly, it simplifies them. Where the Council is required to act, the decision is to be taken within 15 days (urgent procedure) or, at most, three months.

3.2.2. Here, the ESC would emphasize that the Commission is consolidating a procedure under which it assumes the power, under appropriate conditions, to submit decisions approving amendments to MRLs to the Council without requiring a report from the Standing Committee on Plant Health, either when the latter has issued an unfavourable report, or when the deadlines have expired. Directive 91/414, examined earlier, which refers to the ADI procedure (Admissible Daily Intake), must be taken into account in this procedure.

3.2.3. Another important point is the definition of the Member State of origin and destination for the purposes of fixing import and temporary MRLs. This is of major significance in the event of conflicts between Member States.

3.3. Resolving conflicts between Member States

3.3.1. Until now, conflicts between Member States about differing MRLs applicable to their products have been resolved via bilateral negotiations, with the importing countries voluntarily accepting the outcome.

3.3.2. Pending harmonization of national legislation on fixing MRLs, the ESC views the proposed arrangements for settling conflicts between Member States as a practical solution, as this may facilitate the free movement of goods, while safeguarding consumer-health protection.

3.3.3. The ESC feels that there are no grounds for excluding conflicts which may arise over processed products. It calls for them to be included within the Commission's remit.

3.3.4. The arrangements seem reasonable, because the Commission has to take account of the report drawn up by the experts in the countries involved in the conflict, since the decision taken by the Commission, once published in the Official Journal, will apply to all Member States.

It should also be pointed out that the best way to settle conflicts between Member States would be to devise arbitration arrangements commensurate with the interests at stake, which extend beyond the boundaries of the Member States.

4. Conclusions

4.1. Consumers are entitled to procedures which place full protection of their health above the EU's general interests.

4.2. While it is wrong for decisions on adopting MRLs to be made at a political level, it is equally wrong for this power to be handed over almost entirely to the Commission. Moreover, given the rigidity of Council procedures for fixing Community MRLs, it would be most appropriate for them to be set and subsequently monitored under a III-b-type Regulatory Committee procedure (with 'counter safety net'), thereby ensuring an adequate degree of control over Commission action.

4.3. A considerable proportion of plant products are consumed in processed or composite form. The Commission should therefore be urged to prepare, as soon as possible, correcting mechanisms for the calculation of MRLs for processed and composite products. Similarly, such products must be covered by procedures for the resolution of conflicts (protecting Treaty Articles 30 to 36) and for monitoring.

4.4. Crop diversification must be encouraged, contrary to the restrictions caused by the application of the current Directives. In view of the likely financial difficulties in securing specific data on the smaller-scale crops, fullest advantage must be taken of existing research, as well as of the possibility of extrapolating from data obtained for other crops in third countries.

4.5. The ESC urges the Commission to support the implementation of research programmes facilitating the availability of pesticides presenting no human health risks and developing new agricultural methods, particularly environment-friendly farm practice which pave the way for development in depressed regions.

An international pesticide information exchange office should be set up for this purpose.

Done at Brussels, 20 December 1995.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Carlos FERRER

() OJ No L 221, 7. 8. 1986.

() OJ No L 350, 14. 12. 1990.

() OJ No L 340, 9. 12. 1976.