Page 176 - CW E-Magazine (1-10-2024)
P. 176

Special Report


       the SPS Agreement is a sine qua non  Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, inclu-     Implement science-based MRL poli-
       for determining the MRLs. The Annex  ding points 3.6.2, 3.6.4 and 3.6.5 of its   cies and avoid politically-driven ones.
       A-4 of the SPS Agreement defi nes “risk  Annex II.
       assessment” as  “the evaluation  of the                               It is evident that the politically
       potential for adverse effects on human  In the EU, the fi nal decision on pesti-  imposed pesticide MRL of 0.01 ppm
       or animal health arising from the pre-  cide MRLs is strangely political  is designed to be a non-tariff barrier to
       sence of…. contaminants… [including   In other WTO Member States, the  protect the EU’s own domestic produc-
       residues of pesticides]  in food, bever-  determination  and  fi nal  adoption  of  tion from outside competition. The EU
       ages or feed stuff. The SPS Agreement  the pesticide MRLs is strictly a scien-  is apparently trying to impose “mir-
       requires assessment of the potential  tifi c process from the beginning to the  ror measures” to ensure that the EU’s
       adverse effects on human health  ari-  end, managed by technically qualifi ed  plant protection policies are also applied
       sing from the presence of contami-  experts, but not in the EU. In the EU,  extra-territorially to the imported products.
       nants in food as held by the AB in EC-  the European Food Safety  Authority
       Hormones, para 206.               (EFSA)  gives  scientifi c  advice  to  the   The primary purpose of the WTO is
                                         EC on matters concerning pesticide  to open trade for the benefi t of all Mem-
       The EP Resolution is a disguised   MRLs in food and feed and makes pro-  bers. However, the EU seems to be mov-
       restriction on international trade  posals regarding the setting of MRLs.  ing in the opposite direction. The EP Re-
          The basic obligation contained in  However, the  MRL proposals are  solution shows “deliberate disregard” to
       Article 2.3 of the SPS  Agreement  placed before the EP, a political body  the binding provisions of the SPS Agree-
       requires that SPS measures (including  of  elected  representatives,  for  a  fi nal  ment and deviates signifi cantly from the
       pesticide  MRLs) shall  not  be  applied  approval before adoption by the Mem-  mandatory requirements set thereunder.
       in a manner which would constitute a  ber States.                  The EU is the world’s largest importer
       disguised restriction on international                             of agricultural products, accounting for
       trade.                            Final word                       one-third of the world’s import. The EU
                                           The  WTO agreement  prohibits  should  not  abuse  its dominant position
       The EP Resolution violates Article 27   discrimination against and among im-  in any manner to the disadvantage of the
       of the Vienna Convention of Law of   ported products, requiring that imports  non-EU WTO members.
       Treaties (VCLT)                   be  accorded  “national  treatment”  and
          The provisions of VCLT are applied  “most favoured nation” treatment.  If the Member States of the EU
       in all the WTO settlement cases.                                   want to continue with arbitrary, trade
                                           Under the WTO SPS Agreement, it  restrictive,  unscientifi c  and  the  WTO
          Article 27  of  the  Vienna Conven-  is important for the Members to:  inconsistent trade measures with refe-
       tion clearly states that a Party [in this   Follow risk-based analysis of pesti-  rence to the pesticide MRLs, then they

       case EU] cannot invoke the provisions   cide residues or Codex standards  have only one option. Exit the WTO.
       of its internal laws as a justifi cation for   while determining  the  pesticide
       its  failure to  perform  its obligations   MRLs;                  About CENTEGRO
       under a treaty [in this case the  WTO   Avoid arbitrary defi nitions of pesti-  The Centre for Environment and

       SPS Agreement].                     cide residues that differ from the  Agriculture (CENTEGRO) is a Mumbai-
                                           one set by Codex;              based thinktank. It actively  works,
          The internal laws  invoked by the   Ensure  transparency  and  predicta-  among others, on matters that concern

       EP are: Regulations (EC) No. 396/2005   bility of  pesticide  regulations con-  agriculture, trade, economy, health, and
       and (EC) No. 178/2002, as well as with   cerning MRLs; and         the environment.



                                                Missed a copy !!!
                                   For Digital Edition of this month’s issue & all other past issues
                                               Visit www.hpicindia.com
                                             PDF copies available for download
                                                   Register Now
                 Contact: For Subscription   : Mrs. Usha S. - usha@hpicindia.com
                                 For Advertising   : Mr. Vijay Raghavan - vijay@hpicindia.com


       176                                                                    Chemical Weekly  October 1, 2024


                                      Contents    Index to Advertisers    Index to Products Advertised
   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181