Page 174 - CW E-Magazine (1-10-2024)

Special Report Special Report

European Parliament’s recent diktat directs EU Member this trace level (1 gm in 100 tonnes of  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ ppm on many pesticides widely used in
crop production in countries outside the
doceo/document/B-10-2024-0021_
food), a pesticide residue would not be
States to disregard WTO obligations. Shocking! biologically, toxicologically, and envi- EN.html EU. This is shocking, to say the least.
ronmentally relevant and there is also
no scientifi c evidence to show that it This is the third time in the last 10 The EP Resolution should be held to
About WTO and EU local regulations if they discriminate causes adverse health effects. It only months that the EP used its veto power in contravention of the WTO law on
he World Trade Organization between and among the “like” traded S. GANESAN acts as an effective trade barrier. on the rules concerning MRLs in following counts:
(WTO) deals with the global products. Advisor imported foods. In December 2023, the
Trules of trade between nations. Centre for Environment and Agriculture The European Parliament’s ques- EP rejected a similar proposal to amend The EP Resolution is inconsistent with
Its main function is to ensure that trade The WTO has over 160 members (CENTEGRO) Mumbai tionable diktat the MRL beyond 0.01 ppm for Tri- the provisions of the SPS Agreement
fl ows as smoothly, predictably and as representing 98% of world trade. All Email: ganesanicc@gmail.com On 12th Sept 2024, the EC moved cyclazole, a rice fungicide. In January Globally, determining pesticide
freely as possible. The WTO has many the 27 Member States of the European Maximum Pesticide Residue Limit its proposals before the European 2024, the EP rejected the proposal to MRLs is governed by the legal frame-
roles: it operates a global system of Union (EU) are also WTO members in under the SPS Agreements Parliament (EP) to amend the MRLs amend the MRL beyond 0.01 ppm for work established under the SPS Agree-
trade rules, it acts as a forum for nego- their own right. The EU is a single cus- A Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) beyond 0.01 ppm for fi ve pesticides – Thiacloprid, an insecticide. ment. Determining and implementing
tiating trade agreements, and it settles toms union with a single trade policy is the maximum concentration of a pesti- cyproconazole, spirodiclofen, benomyl, pesticide MRLs is not an unfettered
trade disputes between its members. and tariff. The European Commission cide residue (expressed as mg/kg), to carbendazim and thiophanate methyl – The reasons given by the Members right in the hands of Member Coun-
(EC) – the EU’s executive arm – speaks be legally permitted in or on food com- that were banned for use in the EU of the European Parliament (MEPs), a tries of the WTO. They have the right to
The complete set of the WTO for all EU member States at the WTO modities and animal feeds. MRLs are a few years ago. The Members of The political body, are completely inconsis- restrict international trade for the pro-
Agreement runs to over 30,000 pages meetings. based on Good Agricultural Practice Parliament Committee on Environ- tent with the binding provisions of the tection of human, plant, or animal health
consisting of about 30 agreements. (GAP) data and foods derived from ment, Public Health and Food Safety WTO SPS Agreement. against trade – related risks only when
About WTO SPS Agreement commodities that comply with the rejected the proposal to amend the such measures are consistent with the
The WTO members are expected The Agreement on the Application respective MRLs are intended to be MRL beyond 0.01 ppm giving the The WTO SPS Agreement allows relevant principles of the WTO in general
to operate a non-discriminatory tra- of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Mea- toxicologically acceptable. following reasons: member countries to introduce sanitary and the SPS Agreement in particular.
ding system mindful of the WTO rules sures (the “SPS Agreement”) entered or phytosanitary measures including
that spells out their rights and obliga- into force along with the establishment The principal international source 1. The proposed amendments to the pesticide MRLs only if they meet the The underlying principle of the European
tions. The principle of non-discrimi- of the WTO on 1st January 1995. The of MRLs is the Codex Alimentarius. MRLs for these fi ve banned pesti- following conditions: Parliament Resolution is not based on
nation is very important under the WTO. SPS Agreement concerns the applica- MRLs are set by the Codex Committee cides do not ensure a high level of  They are taken only to the extent risk assessment

This principle stipulates that the WTO tion of food safety, and animal & plant on Pesticide Residues (CCPR), based consumer protection in the EU. necessary to protect human, animal Each WTO Member must base their
Members shall not discriminate: (i) health regulations provides a frame- on recommendations made by the FAO/ 2. The proposed amendments to the or plant life or health and are based phytosanitary measures (including pesti-
between “like” products from different work of rules to guide the WTO Mem- WHO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Resi- MRLs promote a double standard on scientifi c evidence and not main- cide MRLs) on scientifi c evidence and
trading partners – giving them equally ber States in the development, adoption dues (JMPR). by allowing imports of food pro- tained without suffi cient scientifi c risk-assessment, which are substantive
“most favoured nation” or MFN status; and enforcement of sanitary (human or ducts treated with pesticides banned evidence (Article 2.2); requirements under the SPS Agree-
and (ii) between its own and like animal life or health) and phytosanitary MRLs setting in the EU in the EU.  They do not arbitrarily or unjusti- ment. “Theoretical uncertainty is not
foreign products, giving them “national (plant life or health) measures which Pesticides and their residues are regu- 3. The proposed amendments to the fi ably discriminate between Mem- the kind of risk to be assessed under
treatment”. All “like products” are, may affect trade. The right to adopt the lated in the EU under the Regulations MRLs would put the EU farmers at bers where identical or similar con- Article 5.1” of the SPS Agreement as held
by defi nition, directly competitive or SPS measures is accompanied by obli- (EC) No 396/2005 and No 1107/2009. a competitive disadvantage when ditions prevail, including between by the Appellate Body (AB) Report in
substitutable products. For example, gations aimed at minimising negative Under these regulations, when a pesti- compared to the non-EU famers. their own territory and that of other the EC-Hormone case, para 186. It fur-
cotton imported from another country impacts of the SPS measures on inter- cide is not authorised for use in the EU 4. The proposed amendments to the members and are not applied in a ther states in para 187 “It is essential
is a “like product” to the one produced national trade. The basic obligations are following either a ban or a withdrawal MRLs are not compatible with the manner which would constitute a to bear in mind that the risk that is to
domestically and should receive the that the SPS measures must: from the EU market, the MRL for that aim and content of EU’s internal disguised restriction on international be evaluated in a risk assessment under
same treatment as the one produced substance on imported products is fi xed Regulations (EC) No. 396/2005 and trade (Article 2.3); Article 5.1 is not only risk ascertainable
locally.  Be applied only to the extent neces- at an uniform default level of 0.01 ppm (EC) No. 178/2002, as well as with  They are based on an assessment as in a science laboratory operating under

sary to protect human, animal or (0.01 mg/kg,). This MRL is as good as Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, appropriate to the circumstances, of strictly controlled conditions, but also
When a measure taken by any WTO plant life or health and not be more zero tolerance. This means that the pesti- including points 3.6.2, 3.6.4 and the risks to human life or health, etc., the risk in human societies as they
Member discriminates between and trade restrictive than necessary; cide cannot be used in third countries in 3.6.5 of its Annex II; arising from the presence of contami- actually exist …. There must be a rational
among the “like” traded products,  Be based on scientifi c principles production of food or feed destined for nants in food, beverage or feedstuffs relationship between the measure and

either in favour of domestic over the and not maintained without suffi - export to the EU. The EP resolutions can be accessed (Article 5.1 read with Annex A). the risk assessed.” None of these fac-
imported products or favour some foreign cient scientifi c evidence; and from: tors are true for the EU’s hazard-based
products over others, the WTO rules  Not constitute arbitrary or unjusti- Pertinently, 0.01 ppm is equal to 1 gm  https://www.europarl.europa.eu/ Ignoring all these obligations and import tolerance of 0.01 ppm.

on trade can be invoked. The WTO fiable treatment or a disguised of a pesticide residue for every 100 doceo/document/B-10-2024-0020_ fundamental requirements, the EP
rules on technical regulations disallow restriction on international trade. tonnes of food or feed commodity! At EN.html directed imposing a uniform MRL of 0.01 Risk assessment consistent with

174 Chemical Weekly October 1, 2024 Chemical Weekly October 1, 2024 175

Contents Index to Advertisers Index to Products Advertised