OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 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
Date: 1995-12-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal production, crop production, food inspection, health control, pesticide residue













EUR-Lex - 51995AC1447 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995AC1447

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 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  


Official Journal C 082 , 19/03/1996 P. 0001 





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. Background1.1. 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 comments2.1. 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 comments3.1. Scope of the DirectivesThe 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 levels3.2.1. 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 States3.3.1. 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. Conclusions4.1. 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 Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() OJ No L  221, 7. 8. 1986.  () OJ No L 350, 14. 12. 1990.  () OJ No L 340, 9. 12. 1976.