Pesticide regulation: a proposal for an apparently ambitious use and risk reduction goal, but compromised by a biased index

Thanks to Context, future generations have become aware of the draft text of a regulation on the sustainable use of pesticides that should be presented tomorrow by the European Commission.

This text is important because it must translate specifically into what the EU and each member state will aim to reduce pesticide use and risk.

At first glance, the text seems interesting. In fact, in the first part of the text, a number of options (see appendix) are considered that will help to achieve the reduction objective and the risk of pesticides (as a reminder – 50% by 2030).

The option preferred by the Commission is option 3, except for the purposes for which option 2 is preferred (see Appendix – bottom of page to this press release). In this case, the 50% reduction targets for pesticide use and risk will become legally binding at EU level, with member states setting their own national reduction targets under their national laws.

On the other hand, Option 3 selected by the Commission is the best among them if envisaged The device, presented as highly ambitious, could possibly spawn a rat as the index proposes to judge the ‘use and risk reduction’ of pesticides. (HRI1 = Harmonized Risk Indicator 1) is completely biased. In fact, a report by the Austrian NGO ‘Global 2000’, translated into French by Generations Future (available here) shows that HRI 1 discriminates most strongly against pesticides used in organic farming. But even among conventional pesticides, there is a systematic bias in favor of the most toxic, whose toxicity is systematically reduced when HRI 1 is applied. This is especially true for highly toxic pesticides such as pyrethroid or neonicotinoid-type pesticides, due to an inverse relationship between the toxicity of the pesticide active ingredient and their application rate per hectare. due to Systematic Risk Assessment of Synthetic Pesticides (such as neurotoxins from the chemical group of neonicotinoids, organophosphates or pyrethroids) and at the same time grossly overestimating the risk of active substances used in organic farming of natural origin, the application of HRI 1 endangers the purpose of the Green Deal!

Future generations ask that a 50% reduction in pesticide use and risk be assessed by two different indicators.In our opinion, in the model of the French NODU, consumption should be measured by a specific index, considering the number of treatments per surface unit.

“Future generation welcomes move to ban all chemical pesticides in sensitive areas such as urban areas and protected areas. However, the general objective of reducing pesticide use is completely compromised by the current choice of indicators used.. Indeed, it would be unreasonable and unacceptable to aim to reduce pesticide use and risk by 50% in Europe as measured by a single risk index. which most strongly discriminates against pesticides used in organic farming and favors the most toxic. said Francois Veilleret, spokesperson for Generations Future. ” We urge the European Commission to reconsider this key issue Based on the frequency of applied treatments creates a specific index to evaluate the reduction in pesticide use. The effectiveness and credibility of these new rules depend which may not otherwise bring the expected health and environmental benefits”. What does he add?

Attachment to statement:

Option 1: EU aims to reduce pesticide use and pesticide risk by 50% by 2030 Not legally binding. Advice and referral system for pesticide users will be improved. Precision farming techniques will reduce the use of chemical pesticides and their risks.

In option 2: A 50% reduction target will be legally binding At EU level. Member States will set their own national reduction targets based on established criteria. Such targets would then be legally binding (under national law) and subject to regimes linked to regular annual reporting by Member States. The use of the most dangerous pesticides will be banned in sensitive areas such as urban green spaces. Professional pesticide users should keep electronic records of pesticide use and integrated pest management to help reduce pesticide use. National authorities will collect and analyze this information to monitor progress and develop corrective measures at the national level if necessary. Independent advisory services will advise pesticide users on alternative strategies and integrated pest management.

Option 3 will be similar to Option 2. However, under option 3, the 50% reduction targets would become legally binding at both European and national levels.. All chemical pesticide use shall be prohibited in sensitive areas such as urban areas and protected areas under Directive 2000/60/EC, Protected Areas 2000/60/EC, Natura Areas 2000, etc.